February 2014 – Page 2 – American History to 1877

February 19, 2014

Democracy Comes to America

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The first chapter of Wilentz gave a basic outline of the process in which democracy came about in post revolution America. He starts out speaking of the basic form of democratic meetings taking place, paying particular attention to the groups that met in the Philadelphia area. He speaks of the Continental Congress, as well as the Pennsylvania Provincial Conference and the Pennsylvania Convention. Benjamin Franklin was an elected member of all three of these conferences, displaying how people of influence were elected to take charge of these initial meetings of Democracy. This was effective in giving the reader a basic understanding of how democracy quickly became a likable system in early American history.

Wilentz then went on to speak of how the Constitution was eventually crafted with the different influences of people. In this section of the chapter, he did a good job making references to different situations that occurred. However, he completely lacked giving adequate detail on such topics. When looking at the problem with the Articles of Confederation, the only mention he made was “under the loosely knit Articles of Confederation, was so feeble that it had become nearly impossible to conduct a foreign policy”(12). Yes that was true, but there were many other issues that the articles contained that played an even larger role than this. For example, the articles did have the power to tax. This crippled Americas economy because we had a significant war debt from the Revolution and had no way to bring money in to help counteract this debt. Also, there was no intra state currency established. So money in North Carolina would be different than the money in Pennsylvania. This greatly inhibited intra state communication and cooperation. This caused the states to act as 13 individual entities, and not as one nation. This clearly demonstrated how a confederacy model did not work in America, with the basis of state governments having more power than the national.

Off of that, he did explain how the constitution came into effect after the Articles did eventually fail. Yet he failed to mention the new constitution was intended to be a federalist model, in which the states and the federal government have the same amount of power. He did make mention of federalist 51, yet a more in depth depiction of these documents would have been nice, as these documents my Madison, Hamilton, and Jay significantly outlined the intention for the government, in hopes of winning over public support for the constitution. I also would have liked him to go into more detail about the struggle for the Bill of Rights. As my classmate pointed out in “Democracy and Slavery”, the rural yeoman and farmers wanted to make sure their fundamental rights were not in jeopardy. The Bill of Rights would pass, which he pointed out, but it was a long process that I would have preferred him to go more into more detail on.

Overall, this chapter lacked sufficient information about a pivotal point in our history.

February 19, 2014

Democracy and Slavery

Achieving American Democracy was not as simple of a process as writing the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution. According to Wilentz there were many obstacles involving class warfare that did not make it a smooth transition. Yeoman, gentleman, merchants, and artisans, whether they are city dwellers or rural countrymen, all wanted their rights protected. To me, a key turning point was when the Berkshire Constitutionalists proposed the plan of equal representation that was not rooted in how much wealth or property you had. Another key for democracy in the reading was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which put to rest early the idea of an elected monarch for life. As Thomas stated in his post, to really bind the United States Democracy together as a nation, Shay’s Rebellion was instrumental in getting a stronger federal government planned in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

In Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I believe his point was that American Slavery lasted longer here than in other countries because they were too weak as a union to withstand abolition in the early years of the country, and as a result slavery was able to take strong roots into the culture. As Thomas also wrote, keeping slavery was a huge contradiction to the American Revolution. I agree with what Olivia stated, that white colonists wanted liberty from a British oppressor and that was the same logic the slaves followed, but they did not receive it. On of the most interesting take always for me from the Davis reading was that the 1784 Continental Congress was one vote away from outlawing slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. If that had passed I think the United States might have been better able to avoid a Civil War because it would have divided the Confederacy in a big way. Ultimately, it was the fear of a Civil War for a just born country that led to the creation of free soil and slave holding places. I also found very interesting in Olivia’s post about how it was the act of making slaves property that led to such a strong slave system.

February 19, 2014

The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?

In Chapter 7: “The Problem of Slavery in the Revolution” of Inhuman Bondage, David Brion Davis adds a new dimension to how Americans understand the American Revolution. Davis analyzes the Revolution through the lens of the institutionalization of slavery in America, arguing that enslaved Africans were acutely conscious of the hypocrisy that the colonists’ rebellion presented with respect to their own enslavement. Slaves recognized colonists’ battle for liberty from the British as evidence of slavery’s injustice, and used the American Revolution as a platform to encourage and attain freedom.

The colonists, however, considered the enslavement of Africans to be a necessary facet of the American economy. While colonists’ opinions regarding slavery differed along regional lines, the Founding Fathers recognized that targeting the slave system would marginalize the South at a time when the unification of America was crucial to its survival. Thomas characterizes Northern concessions to slavery as an essential compromise of democracy, which “manifested itself in the form of Northern ‘protection’ of Southern slavery in order to protect unity.” This system of compromise perpetuated the institutionalization of slavery. Although it is not wise to read history backwards, we know that the “compromise for democracy” was limited. The annexation of new territories in the mid-1800s reintroduced slavery to the forefront of political discussion, eventually escalating into the Civil War.

In addition to our U.S History course, I am enrolled in the 300-level history course, Civil War and Reconstruction. This course has sparked my interest in studying the development of slavery in America and identifying the point when Civil War was inevitable (if it ever was). I believe that the constitutional arguments regarding slavery, particularly slaves as property, shaped the slavery debate and served as a justification for Southern states’ secession and Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery. Davis’s reading corroborated my claim, as he outlined how both the British and colonists manipulated the slave’s status as property to benefit their respective causes. Specifically, both sides contemplated the use of slaves as soldiers in the war. The Continental Congress enlisted and armed 3,000 slaves from South Carolina and Georgia under the pretext that the British army would utilize the slaves if they did not. The slaves were considered property of their slave-owners, and the Congress feared that seizing property would undermine the rule of law and cause dissention among slave-owners (Davis, 148).

The arming of slaves during the American Revolution mirrors the Civil War, in which thousands of fugitive slaves escaped into Union territory seeking freedom. This brought the question of slaves as property to a head. If slaves were indeed considered property under the Constitution, then it was imperative that the Union returned slaves to their rightful owners. Since the South was a “belligerent nation,” many Unionists argued that Southern slaveholders’ constitutional rights as American citizens were void, and their slaves should not be returned. Similar to the fears of colonists during the Revolutionary War, Unionists recognized that returning slaves would ultimately aid the Confederate’s war effort, as slaves would be used for the Confederate cause. General Benjamin Butler named fugitive slaves to be “contrabands of war,” who would remain in the Union so as not to benefit the Confederates. In order to legitimize Butler’s action, Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, which ordered that “confiscated” slaves were not to be returned to their owners but had to participate in the Union war effort. Again concerned with the notion of slaves as property, President Lincoln clarified that slaves from border-states were exempt from the Confiscation Act, recognizing that marginalizing the border states would impel them to join the Confederacy. The similarities between the use of slaves in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, particularly with respect to slaves as property, illustrates the political complexity of slavery in America. The Revolutionary War had enormous influence on the institutionalization of American slavery, and as a result, in-depth study of the war is necessary to understand the causes of the Civil War.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

**Information also taken from Dr. Sally McMillen’s lectures in History 346: Civil War and Reconstruction.

February 19, 2014

Breaking with Britain

Between 1760 and 1820, there were many changes that occurred in Europe and United States in terms of land ownership, conflict between peoples, and, most importantly, slave trade. After the American Revolution, the United states was able to further expand because of its freedom from Britain. Also, the allies of the US gained back land that they had previously lost to Britain before the war when the colonies were rapidly expanding. Many other countries and their respective colonies broke out into civil war and revolutions, resulting in massive reformation in North America and Europe. The French Revolution occurring shortly after the American Revolution as well as the Latin American wars of Independence continued the conflict among these European nations, and then led to many different treaties being made to monitor slave trade among each of the different countries. After these revolutions, slavery rapidly expanded, but by 1825, the US and Britain outlawed their Atlantic slave trade and had made treaties with other countries such as France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal that made the only legal slave trade be South of the Equator, in transportation of slaves to Brazil. Needless to say there were many illegal trade routes still going on and flourished for years.

As Thomas points out in his post, the division in the US was only made worse by this continuing of slave trade. The North had limited its use of slaves where as the South only relied on it more for production and making a profit, causing an even bigger divide in the newly found nation.

Davis really covers a lot of boundaries in this reading; he does not only focus on one revolution, one certain area and what happened but the broad spectrum of events that occur simultaneously and how slavery and slave trade was affected throughout all of these processes. He also incorporates the many cause and effect scenarios that led to the redistribution of land to all of the countries involved in the many revolutions because of alliances and treaties made.

February 17, 2014

Welding Democracy

In Thursday’s reading, both Sean Wilentz, in The Rise of American Democracy, and David Brion Davis, in Inhuman Bondage, explore the discrepancy between what the ideals of the American Revolution represented and what actually occurred.

Wilentz’s argument centers on the difficulty of creating a common democracy in a country that consisted of such a varied people, geography, and economy. To simplify these complex divides, Wilentz’s considers the difference between what the city dwelling artisans and merchants considered “democracy” and what the rural yeomanry considered “democracy.” These key demographics, though internally, effectively summarize a key divide in the newborn nation based on dissimilar political conflicts. In the country, a population of mainly farmers expected their democracy to mirror the influence their land afforded them, while people in cities were happy to relegate power to an institution as long as it considered policies which encouraged economic independence and trade opportunities. As a result of this, a divided America emerged in which each state, based on its population’s identity, crafted its own political identity. The Articles of Confederation compounded such disunity because the weak government that they created failed to formalize a national identity. Spurred on by Shay’s Rebellion, American leaders called together a Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to keep their democratic experiment alive.

Here, switching to Davis’ text concerning slavery helps capture the nuances of the regional divide that dominated the Convention. This divide was still rooted in the rural/city division, but, on a national stage, it took on the added scale of dividing the nation between North and South. The main discrepancy between the two, as we know, was slavery. As both Wilentz and Davis point out, by 1787, the North had exponentially reduced its slave population thanks to both economic and moral reasons. Even the Upper South was moving in a similar direction, but the Deep South was still deeply reliant on slavery. At the center of democracy is compromise, which, at the Constitutional Convention, manifested itself in the form of Northern “protection” of Southern slavery in order to protect unity. The concessions made to slave owners were large, including things like the 3/5 clause and the 20-year delay of the slave trades outlawing, yet necessary considering that “any attempt to free Southern slaves by law would lead to civil war” (Davis 155).

February 17, 2014

Native American Agency among Feuding Colonies

As Kurt noted in his post, one central theme in Taylor’s 18th chapter was the roles that different groups played in the 7 years war. Specifically, I was interested in the complex relations that Native Americans had with the french and British during conflict. These interactions illustrated an aspect of Indian agency that I previously was ignorant of. It is important to acknowledge the role that colonies played in the elimination of Native civilizations. But a historical view in which Natives are seen exclusively as victims of settlement ignores the complexity of their intentions and motives.

Taylor illuminates this complexity through his analysis of Indian-European interactions in which the Indians play a larger and more independent role than may be expected. for example, he notes how pivotal the Six Nation Iroquois were during the 7 years war because of their location in between warring colonies. Each side needed native american assistance in their endeavors to beat the other. On page 424 Taylor makes a great point by saying, “Indians dominated the forest passages between the rival empires. They could obstruct the advance of their colonial enemy and terrify and destroy outlying settlements.” In this way, we see a relationship in which Europeans were actually partly dependent on Native Americans. This works toward dispelling the notion that Native Americans were purely victims.

In addition, we see the inner workings of how both Natives and Europeans choose to behave towards one another. Taylor illustrates the power dynamics of these relations. Regardless of what they really thought of the Indians, the French were more hospitable towards them because they knew they needed their help against the increase in English power. The British were the opposite–they were aware that they were in a position of power, so they showed less hospitality towards their Native allies.

February 17, 2014

Indian Impact on the Seven Years War

Traditional histories fail to fully explain the role Indians played in the Seven Years War. Falsely portraying the numerous Indians that allied with either the British or French forces as mere “bodies,” they ignore the impact the natives had on the outcome of the war. Taylor on the other hand, does a great job of expounding upon the Indian tribes’ critical role in Chapter 18: Imperial Wars and Crisis.

Referencing an observation an English trader made in 1755, Taylor notes that “Indians determined the military balance of power within North America.” He explains that their strategic location between the British and French colonies, combined with their guerilla method of fighting, made them an important asset to both the British and the French in the North American theater of the Seven Years War (424). While the French ultimately had more Indian allies because they treated them better, the British were able to gain some Indian support. As the author of “Britain’s Rise to Power” mentions, the British had an advantage in trade; they were able to trade mass quantities of goods to the Indians that were both superior to and cheaper than French goods. This not only prompted some Indians to ally with the British, but it also made Indian allegiance with the French weaker (428). Native assistance would ultimately prove invaluable to the British cause.

Initially, the British failed to utilize their Indian allies appropriately. When British general Edward Braddock marched on Fort Duquesne – a French fort located in what is now modern-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – only eight Indians accompanied his army of 2,200 men. The British would suffer nearly a thousand casualties and wounded men. Taylor astutely argues that “no expedition through the forest could prosper without significant Indian support and without heeding Indian expertise” (429). However, the next British attack on Fort Duquesne would be much more successful. Deploying new “ranger units” that consisted of colonists who used Indian tactics and British infantrymen equipped with rifles and tomahawks, the British, under the command of William Pitt, forced the French to abandon and destroy Fort Duquesne. The British would consequently build a much larger fort known as Fort Pitt (431). While this is only one example, the British attacks on Fort Duquesne display the critical role the Indians played during the Seven Years War. Without native assistance, it is possible that the British could have lost the war.

Taylor’s thorough history of the Seven Years War reveals an Indian population far more influential to the development of Colonial America than most history texts impart. I enjoyed reading about the economic forces that factored into many British-Indian alliances and thought his unique narrative of the war was captivating. In addition, he does a great job setting the stage for the American Revolutionary War.

February 17, 2014

The Indians’ Role before the American Revolution

Throughout chapter 18, Taylor discusses several different aspects of this short time period leading up to the American Revolution. While one could explore any one of the differing narratives, it seems that the one of the most appealing—and one that has often been left out of the “romantic” tale of American independence—is the role of the native peoples. As articulated in “The Changing Role of the Indians,” the conflicts between European powers often directly affected the Indians (for better or worse). Just as both Taylor and the aforementioned post note, the Indians were a respectable foe, and for this reason, all other groups attempted to “win” over their allegiance. An English trader observed in 1755, “the importance of the Indians is now generally known and understand. A Doubt remains not, that the prosperity of our Colonies on the Continent will stand or fall with our Interest and favour among them” (Taylor 424). This statement cannot be over emphasized because it indicates that (at one point) the French considered the Indians to be the sole key to their own success. In fact, even the governor-general of New England believed, “the Iroquois are more to be feared than the English colonies” (426). Taylor’s effective use of observations from the time period gives us insight into the then-typical opinions of the people. Clearly, as the quotes imply, the might of the Indians (especially that of the Iroquois Nation) was respected and feared.

Taylor goes on to observe that the native peoples benefited from a balance of power between the French and British because it “kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (426). However, the situation soon deteriorated for the Indians. As Taylor notes, “the collapse of New France was dreadful news to the Indians of the interior. No longer could they play the French and the British off against one another to maintain their own independence, maximize their presents, and ensure trade competition” (433). The changing dynamics of power also led to the mass-killings of native peoples because “the settlers [soon] treated all Indians, regardless of allegiance, as violent brutes best exterminated” (436). Ultimately, in the midst of the precursor to the American Revolution, the Indians became inferior to colonists because the “vision of white liberty” necessitated the “systematic dispossession of native peoples” (443).

I appreciate the attention that Taylor gives to the Indians in this chapter. While we are all aware of the stereotypical absence of Indians in American history, it seems that this unjust portrayal (or lack thereof) becomes particularly true when discussing the beginning of colonial independence. However, Taylor carefully incorporates crucial details regarding the native peoples and their interactions with the European powers. In the end, all other groups unfortunately ignore the human dignity of the Indians and only use them in order to accomplish the ulterior end of control—a motive that Taylor rightfully stresses and articulates throughout the reading.

February 17, 2014

A Social Narrative of Military History

One of the major aspects that we have focused while discussing American Colonies has been the type of narrative Taylor tells and how it differs from the ways history has traditionally been told. In general Taylor focuses more on the social narrative than other history textbooks, analyzing events from both perspectives and looking for non-linear causation. Chapter 18 “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75” is the first chapter we have read of American Colonies that primarily chronicles military efforts and conflicts; other chapters focused on land claims, settlement, the establishment of political systems and religion. Alex argues, in the post “Britain’s Rise to Power” that in chapter 18 Taylor “forsakes his previous style of a social narrative for more of a direct military history”. Alex was not the only one to make such a claim, with many of our peers expressing appreciation for the perceived shift in focus and argument. Though it is apparent that Taylor has chosen to focus this chapter on military events and conflicts, I disagree with the claim that he forsakes the social narrative. I would argue that it is not the events that are discussed, but the approach and perspectives taken in analyzing those events, which makes Taylor’s writing a social narrative.

In his post “The Changing Role of The Indians” Dana does a thorough job of summarizing and analyzing Taylor’s discussion of Native Americans in Chapter 18. Taylor’s focus on Indian rebellions as well as the impacts of imperial wars on Indian societies and life styles demonstrates that Taylor is not writing a traditional military history. Though he acknowledges that Europeans played Indian nations against each other, he makes efforts not to victimize them. Taylor acknowledges that Indians were not passive subjects of European colonialism when he writes, “To maximize their advantages, after 1701 the Iroquois cultivated a neutrality meant to preserve the balance of power between the French and the British […] A rough balance of power kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (Taylor 426). This is the type of social commentary and depth that many historical textbooks lack.

Furthermore, in the second half of the chapter Taylor focuses on the imperial crisis and the United States as an “Empire of Liberty”. These sections analyze the sociological and psychological the impacts of the military conflicts and events detailed in the first part of the chapter. Taylor examines notions of liberty and slavery, arguing that “free colonists intently defended their property rights because property alone made men truly independent and free” and “Broadly defined, ‘slavery’ meant to labor for a master without reaping the rewards” (Tayor 442). By exploring these social themes, Taylor takes chapter 18 beyond a timeline oriented military history to a thorough examination of the significance of these military events in how they impacted society.

Works Cited:
Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Penguin Books 2001), 421-443.
Dana Harvey, “The Changing Role of The Indians”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-changing-role-of-the-indians/
Alex Palinski, “Britain’s Rise to Power”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/britains-rise-to-power/

February 17, 2014

A Shift in the Colonies

In this chapter, Taylor describes the conflicts and wars that take over North America during the early 1700s, and how these wars shaped the colonies into pre-Revolutionary War America. Taylor does not focus much on the actual battles of the Seven Years War, but instead focuses on the social, political, and economic consequences and outcomes started by the war.

Due to these conflicts between the British and the French, relations with Native Americans shift in North America. British colonies were rapidly growing, as Taylor points out in 1754 there were over one million British colonists compared to the seventy thousand French colonists (426). This shift in size caused the French to value its relationship with Native Americans, as they were a vital contributor to victory in war. Although Indians wanted to play both the British and the French to maximize utility and to seek the lowest prices, the French were much more cordial and appreciative than the growing British. While British and Native American relations have never been stable, this war exacerbated the situation by making French and Indian relations stronger. The only redeeming factor the British had, Taylor points out, were their plentiful goods at lower prices (428). Despite the Natives favoring the appreciative French over the British, we can see that the British are becoming a powerhouse in North America.

The most interesting outcome the Seven Years War was the changes in the relationship between the colonies and Britain. As the colonies grew and expanded both on the land and by numbers, the British monarchy decided to reign in the leaders of the colonies and place more restrictions and taxes on the colonists. Taylor points out that the victory in the Seven Years War led the British to rethink its empire and change it to the country’s benefit, but also gave the colonists a sense of entitlement and power because they were the ones to fight in and win the war. The conflicting attitudes led to colonist’s revolting and the Revolutionary War.

In his blog post titled “Colonial Origins of the American Dream,” Max discusses this change in colonist’s mind-set towards their homeland led to the beginning of the American Dream. The American Dream, known to many as an American’s ability to work hard to achieve goals, is often thought of being an American idea after the Revolutionary War when Americans were independent from the British. The resistant attitude and their willingness to fight the homeland to achieve the end goal of freedom show that the colonists were already starting to work towards this American Dream.

This time in pre-Revolutionary War America proved to be a defining period in American history. British colonies changed as they fought against the French in the Seven Years War, started to alienate Native Americans, and developed a defiant attitude towards Britain. Taylor portrays these changing events and feelings well through this chapter on imperial wars.