bewright – American History to 1877

April 13, 2014

The Impact of Ethnicity

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

Barrett and Roediger bring to light the extensiveness of race’s impacts on life in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. The interwoven nature of economic, social and political segregation created an intricate social system. Work and social status were dictated more by race or nationality than merit. I found it interesting that the authors discuss that this was not simply a matter of social issues or political motivations. The system of segregation was encouraged in the workplace as well in order to stimulate productivity and competition between different ethnicities, as well as to protect native-born citizens from having to take on hard labor. This strategy depressed wages, disrupted the possibility of a cohesive laboring-class voice in politics or the workplace, and allowed for greater profit margins for businesses owners.

The hierarchy that formed from this system placed people in working conditions deemed appropriate for their ethnicity. Though slavery was outlawed, the powerful men in economics still exploited race differences. Today it seems that Americans have a difficult time conceptualizing how deep the racial divides were and how brutal the system was. Max points out in his blog post “Ask A Slave’s Critique of the American Education System,” that there was a misconception among modern Americans that slavery was comparable to modern jobs. Recently freed people of color and the working class “not-yet-white ethnics” experienced exploitation in their theoretically “free” jobs in a way far more akin to slavery than almost any modern American occupation (8). These not-fully white ethnicities and immigrants were even referred to as “our temporary negroes” (8).

I found this differentiation between “white” and foreign European very interesting because a few days ago I registered to vote and was asked to check my race. There was no separate race for Italian, Slavic, English or Irish. There was only “white.” The melting pot in this country has become so thoroughly stirred that it is extremely difficult to determine heritage except by skin color. The other interesting part of my voter registration form was “ethnicity.” The form had two options for this section: “Latino or Hispanic” or “non-Latino or Hispanic.” The comparison to such a form in late 19th century would have been stark. The importance of heritage and denomination has faded because differentiating between groups has become more and more difficult. It is impossible, however, to say that ethnicity no longer plays a role in economics, social life, or politics. The fact that ethnicity/race are still on a voter registration form means that people are still paying attention to the role that it plays in our society.

March 26, 2014

Kill the Indian, Save the Man

Patrick Wolfe’s analysis of genocide and settler colonization brings in the aspect of cultural and physical genocide in relation to Native American populations. A large part of his discussion consists of why genocide is used and how it is implemented. Racial stratification, he claims, is one of the tools that settlers use to justify removal. Permanence and ownership by these “inferior populations” were the great threats that spurred settler violence against indigenous peoples. Settler colonialism for Wolfe is an act of elimination, but not necessarily death. The land is the object of importance, and it is sought after by any means necessary. I believe that Wolfe is entirely correct in his judgment that the genocide used to terminate the culture not only comes from the destruction of their physical bodies, but also through the assimilation and/or coerced integration to the settler society. Olivia discusses this in her post, “Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide.” I believe she has a strong point in saying that cultural destruction is a condemnable act and that it cannot be ignored as one of the most destructive tools used against Native populations.

I have had extensive experience with Native Americans in Montana, as sports teams, family vacations, and other academic endeavors often took me through the many reservations there. Though Wolfe may seem overly dramatic in his assessment of colonization, I cannot say that he is wrong. Assimilation was the most powerful genocidal tool in Montana. Many of the adult males were killed in conflict and the people were removed from their traditional lands, but the true devastation (and much of the long-lasting impact) came from assimilation practices. Wolfe interestingly does not spend much time discussing boarding schools and the forced extraction of Native children, particularly girls, that was done in order to “properly raise” them in white society. The children were taken away from the reservations at a very young age so that they could receive an education that would prepare them for life outside of the reservations, and they were simultaneously encouraged to look down on their birth culture and ancestry. The effects of this practice were profound and unbelievably destructive. In Montana in particular, this was a widely implemented practice driven by Federal programs. Pratt shines light on the goals of this mission, through his statement that “…all Indian that there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man” (397). These boarding school programs doubly achieved this initiative. Family connections, in the native cultures that I am familiar with, are extremely strong. Thus the families left behind were weakened, and the constant threat that their child would be hurt kept them subdued. The child was also raised in a way that Indian culture became unfamiliar.

The results of this practice, and the proximity of so many successful members of the settler society, have caused a precipitous decline in proud, active members of Native tribes. Many of the members have left tribes in search of the American dream. Many have not only become assimilated into standard American culture, but were eager to do so. Many in my generation loathe how destitute the reservations have become and leave them as soon as possible. Much of the cultural genocide has been thorough in Montana, and I believe that Wolfe expresses the connected nature of it all very well.

March 23, 2014

Social Movements in the Early 1800s

According to Wilentz, early 1800s American democracy was extensively interwoven with social movements. Religious revivals, the Masons, and new economic systems influenced politics by increasing pressures on certain issues, namely slavery and economic stability. The first that Wilentz discusses is the Second Great Awakening, in which new denominations, including the Methodists and Baptists, took root and began heated rivalry. Immediately following the American Revolution, he cites that there were fewer than 1 in 10 committed church members. However, by the 1840s this number had ballooned to 8 in 10. Wilentz holds that the emotional aspects of the newer denominations were largely what attracted American citizens (pg 141-2). I am curious about what other factors drove the people back into religious activities and whether or not the few decades without war encouraged this development. As a social concept, I also wonder whether wars later encourage more attendance to religious activities or push people away from them. The Methodist and Baptist groups, with their increasingly large numbers, began to affect politics with a surge of anti-slavery discussions. These organizations were also far more open to having not only members of all races, but religious leaders of color as well. The community that people found in these groups helped develop the foundation of the “radical” abolitionist movement that began in the 1810s. As Charlotte discusses in her post “The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders,” these developments began to include the rhetoric that slavery was morally wrong and also unconstitutional. These religious communities encouraged democratic thinking for groups of color and for the lower-class white Americans (142). Even though the religious organizations as groups were later forced to back away from the fight against inequality, they instilled members with a sense of its possibility and potential benefits.

The Freemasons were another group that caused political contention. The upper- and middle-class Americans involved in the secret society were accused of conspiring to control the entirety of American politics through the organization. Freemasonry was very popular in New England, but also grew to include many from the middle Atlantic states. The order became one of exclusivity, and it was of a kind that bred arrogance in combination with a not necessarily positive social distinction. The Freemasons had been long-established, however, it was the movement against them that caught new attention. Those against the order, the Anti-Masons, became a political entity of their own. The issue that they ran into was that many of the leading political figures on both sides, including the ones that they were most ideologically aligned with, were Freemasons.

Much of the pushback against the Freemasons arose from similar ground as the religious movements. The search for a more equitable society was becoming more and more prevalent issue. The differing economic situations throughout the states led to very different theories of how the national government needed to regulate the economy. Hamilton pushed for a national banking system with paper currency, whereas those such as Thomas Benton discouraged this development. His energies were rather spent in reorganizing land policy and creating relief programs for small Southern farmers struggling under heavy debt burdens. The combination of existing debt issues were compounded by falling cotton prices. Many contending forces and plans began to attack these issues. One of the loudest voices came from South Carolina, whose planters rallied against Adam’s ideas of taxation and tariffs on cotton. They perceived that the North was exploiting them in a time of economic need. This increased the divide between the North and South. Antislavery movements and the differing economies caused the North and South to drift even further apart from each other in terms of ideology and desired political involvement.

March 10, 2014

Democratic Development: The Democratic-Republicans and the Roles of Women

Wilentz’s second chapter of The Rise of American Democracy depicts the rise and struggle of the Democratic – Republican Party near the end of the 18^th century. The development of an opposition was a major development for American democracy. The interests of a new group came forward and tested the system of expression and opposition, in what Wilentz describes as a “democratic widening of American politics” (pg. 18). Much of the conflict that spurred this group’s formation stemmed from a wish to keep the governmental system more democratic rather than ruled by a dictatorial president or an elected monarch. Federalists such as Hamilton believed that centralizing power (through control of both money and political power) was a part of keeping order, and that there was a right and natural separation between classes. Jefferson, on the other hand, had a love of working people and called for a system where their voices could be heard and protected. He pushed for the Bill of Rights that could protect the people from the abuses of a coercive government. Jefferson also kept contact with the people through print, and through what he wrote, we can see how his party’s ideals challenged the Federalist system. This party challenged Federalist leaders due to its progressive nature and the tenderness of the new government. As Yuxi mentions in her post “Women Suffrage, Mastodon, and American Democracy,” the debate was testing not only ideologies but also the structure of the system. Proper management of concerns between elections and the ability to challenge those in power grew from the formation of the Democratic-Republicans.

More equitable representation was a major battleground for the Democratic-Republicans. It was a first step in addressing the many fundamental discrepancies in equality in the American society. Lewis discusses women and their roles as one of the major, explicitly unmentioned minorities. He holds that women were mentioned through the gender-neutrality of the Constitution’s wording and through some implicit assumptions that were held at the time. Though we often praise the Constitution for being an documentation of citizen’s rights (often as a better alternative to the unwritten constitution of England), it is an imperfect document that vaguely addresses the rights of many of its citizens. These issues included whether women earned the same protection and travel rights as white men or slaves. Women were considered citizens who were indirectly represented and protected by the government, unlike slaves who were controlled, represented, and protected by their masters. White women and children constituted an area between slaves and white men, in which they were counted as a citizen for apportionment and protection under the law, but they were not allowed to participate in political society. They were fundamental to the formation and continuation of white society, which was recognized, but were denied the vote due to the societal structure. These norms and the hierarchical organization were so much a part of their societal configuration that there was no great pressure for them to be clearly stated (unlike the issue of counting slaves for apportionment), and the vague discourse of the issue proves a discrepancy of opinions that the framers did not have the ability to address. Other conflicts, such as apportionment, finances, and construction of the representational system, were more pressing at the time. The Constitution left the matter open enough so that women and other races were not permanently blocked from political equity, but the timing of its construction prevented it from being endorsed from the beginning. I find that the Constitution’s relative neutrality was helpful for women’s eventual suffrage. However, it frustrates me that the battle for equal rights for both African Americans and women took as long as they did. The arguments for these rights have been present for centuries, but yet took centuries receive the necessary political pressure to take strong action. The fight from Jefferson’s Republicans marked the start of the system that challenges norms and grievances that has allowed- and allowed at the time- for democratic development. These changes are difficult to make, and take a very long time, as they ask for the structure of society to drastically change and often face a strong opposition.

February 17, 2014

The Military Growth and the Possibility of Independence

Chapter 18 of Taylor details the events that led to the expansion of the British Empire and the events that precluded Colonial thoughts of independence. England’s imperial power began to threaten both other European powers and Native peoples as colonists moved west, the crown claimed land to the south, and trade conflicts occurred in the North. This provoked conflicts between the French and Native traders as well as Spain. English victories bolstered confidence and extended an already vast colonial claim. However, the colonists and their trained soldiers from England were not always successful. As Emma discusses in her post “War War War,” the arrogant attitude that Braddock employed toward Native battle tactics was detrimental in early confrontations. The Europeans were most often victorious when employing the help of Native aides because they knew the land and their strategies were largely effective. These guides were experienced in guerrilla-style warfare that could decimate the more formal arrangement of European troops. Thus, even when the English had greater numbers and more effective weaponry, they struggled without Native help. The United States today still struggles with the battle between “traditional” or more structured war strategies and the hit-and-run tactics that smaller groups use. In the developing world, this style of fighting is more common because weapons and training are harder to come by, and it is also extremely effective against large and structured armies. Even small or relatively decentralized groups can cause immense damage with these tactics. Looking at the successes that military leaders had in these earlier Native wars may lend some advice when creating tactics to fight other such groups today. I also think it is extremely important to discuss the initial failures that the colonists faced. These factors lead to the development of an effective and experienced colonial military. Also, after English negotiations, the successes and failures in wartime helped develop a new mentality considering the frontier and Europe.

These victories did not bode well for Native peoples or for the country of England. The colonies progressively began to perceive their own value and, as trade expanded and population grew, the possibility to survive independently. The colonies had survived relatively autonomously from England, providing little in the way of taxes and lacking representation in the law-making body. However, when the financial situation in England sparked the need for real crown taxation in the colonies, the colonists, especially leaders like John Adams, felt the “taxation without representation” was an attack. Taylor’s analysis of discussions between some colonial leaders and those in Parliament reveal a deep discomfort with the taxation system and the presence of expensive and oppressive English military in the colonies (440-442). In previous chapters, Taylor discussed the colonists’ attachment to their independence, and nowhere is it more clearly shown than here. The interesting thing is that their initial independence had given the colonists the means to recognize and retaliate against the situation. They had become fairly well-educated and, in comparison, fairly well-off. They also had enough property and property rights to want to protect them. As their own markets broadened with new space and trade, the colonies were also able to realize the potential for true economic independence that would not have to depend upon exports to England. An increasing population provided constant demand and stimulated immense growth in comparison to the economically strangled England.

February 10, 2014

Power Dynamics in the Southern Colonies

The hierarchical relationships between groups is heavily analyzed throughout these two chapters, largely through interactions with primary sources and comments from elites of the time. The economic and political relationships between the poor and wealthy whites is of particular interest to me. Due to the fact that many poor whites owned land in Carolina and on the frontier, they had a vote in politics. A mutually beneficial relationship formed between the large planters and small famers as a result of the small farmers’ struggles and the elite desire for power. The large planters gained votes into office in exchange for protecting the interests of small famers. Social mobility was also a societal factor present in the colonies, at least for a time, that was largely unheard of for the period. Though Chesapeake later grew to have a stricter social structure, both colonies originally had a fluid society. These points together created a complex power dynamic where each section of the ladder was mobile and dependent upon the others for extensive support. I also found it interesting that these relationships fostered the creation of famous Southern manners. Southern elites had to convince the common farmer of their merits, and this system perpetuated itself into one intense politeness and Taylor’s “condescension” (pg. 153).

The Chesapeake elites discovered during this era that there were tremendous political gains from lowering taxes, uniting all white colonists against a common enemy, and providing a common lower class. These elites lowered taxes to transfer economic discontent from the local governments to the crown. The establishment of an enemy in the Indians provided an evil to lash out against when times were difficult. Finally, the slaves were a uniting factor with the idea of color rather than wealth was the preliminary divider for status. As Willie discusses in his post “Class and Color in the Chesapeake,” racism developed as a result of economic incentives, a shortage of white immigrants, and the need for the development of a “kinship” between whites. The poor whites were eager to have a subordinate in order to raise themselves up on the social ladder, and the elite whites were eager to exploit a cheaper, more controllable, and more sustainable form of labor. The whites all had a common enemy and subordinate that manipulated a positive connection of poor whites to elite whites. Socially, these decisions kept the elites in good standing with the poor whites and provided the elites with power and higher levels of income. Economically, (at least in Carolina and on the frontier) the possibility of independence with elite protection encouraged development and the growth of a sustainable mid-tier white class. This middle group supported the elites through taxation. The system worked well, but could not provide the profits that the elites pursued, and thus the system, in Chesapeake in particular, moved to one of larger plantations with many black slaves and fewer free, land-owning whites or indentured servants.

I would also like to comment that these two chapters further unveil Taylor’s extreme distaste for the Southern elites through his word choice and the information that he selects to display to the reader. I believe that he is losing objectivity when discussing them. History has almost always been written from the point of view of the elites, and I feel that Taylor is attempting to push back against this norm by portraying their class as imperfect, entitled, and harsh.

January 29, 2014

Old Traditions and New Progress: The State of the Union

The State of the Union Address given by President Obama last night had a surprising number of correlations with our current lessons. The President talked at length about current inequality and the lack of upward mobility that we see in the job market and in social classes. We recently discussed in class, and Yuxi pointed out in her post “The Necessary Evil,” how slavery and its economic benefits created a system of inequality that benefited producers and extractive economies. She continues this conversation and extends it to show that this system of separation and oppression supported the prosperity of the country and the potential of the “American Dream.” That dream has changed with industrialization, urbanization, and development of new and more equal economies. We also discussed how classes were intentionally separated for social or economic purposes, and this separation is still entrenched in us today. Mobility is much more difficult than many Americans would like to believe. However, I find that the issue is not that class or race that separates us, but that education levels separate us. This is proven by the fact that today we have a well-educated African American as our president. Education has shaped America over the years, and has allowed for not only more economically sound markets, but ones with higher values. It is our hope that this positive trend continues with some of the extensions of education programs and trade programs that Obama has asked. They should help improve this mobility and erase the last true inequality gaps between races, regions, and genders. Obama touched on a few issues concerning “labor insourcing,” increasing the minimum wage, and expanding trade programs so that people do not have to live in poverty. I certainly agree with the fact that the higher levels of human capital that exist in the United States have created an incentive for investment. We discussed how slaves with special skills were often sought after and were worth more for plantations that needed more educated labor. This principle holds true today. During the time of slavery the Americas were a land of investment because of our natural resources and factor endowments including vast lands. Today industry is turning back to us because we not only have the physical resources, but also the human ones necessary to make change.

I think that it is too early to consider raising the minimum wage, however. Encouraging investment often requires the premise of potential profit. If we raise the rate before investment takes place, I believe we will see fewer jobs added and more cut as labor becomes too expensive. Slavery existed for the reason of eliminating a major cost. If we desire for more jobs to be created, and for each employee to work for more hours, we must let the economy develop before introducing a new expense. I hold the view that bringing more people to employment is going to help our economy grow and average wages will increase as competition and innovation continue. Along with the additional expenses that the Affordable Care Act has brought to businesses, the addition of other costs for labor would cause more problems with unemployment, and result in more underemployment. An almost $3 per hour increase in wages would render full-time labor often too expensive. We also do not want to see this cause unnecessary inflation levels either. Producers will not be ignorant of the increase in income, and may seek to raise their prices if they understand that consumers can afford them. This could cause a general price spike, weakening the purchasing power of the dollar and perhaps harming rather than helping workers.

Whether or not we like to admit it, much social change is stimulated by economics. Bolstering the middle class and opening opportunities to mobility are attractive for moral reasons, and there are ways that we can make them attractive economically as well. We will encourage investment, both domestic and foreign, by showing our relatively high human capital in conjunction with economic sense. We have seen, as the President mentioned, 8 million new jobs created in the past year. We would all like to see this trend continue. I believe that encouraging employment of more people full-time will stimulate the economy and produce a more productive, innovative, and mobile middle class. Poverty is today’s slavery. It holds us back from fulfilling our potential. We all would like to end it across the world, and each believe in different paths to that success. I will be interested to see if these programs take effect and if they will succeed.

January 22, 2014

English Colonization in the New World

Chapters 6 and 8 of Taylor’s American Colonies describe the English journey to colonization. Taylor highlights that the situation in England during the time of exploration was unstable and that the leaders were eager to share in, but not directly fund, the exploration and exploitation of the New World. The English settled in a very different land with resources that were not as readily accessible as those from the areas of Spanish conquest. Many questions arose as to how the colonies could not only survive, but also generate the cash flows like those that Spain and France were receiving. The English answers to these questions involved different commodities and styles of living.

Despite early failures, the English developed successful colonies that grew to have different economic and social drivers, especially considering commerce and the treatment of native peoples. As one of my classmates mentioned in his post “The Instability of Trade, Economy, and Structure,” the Spanish used religion as a front for plunder and the enslavement of both the land and the people. However, Taylor leads the reader to conclude that the English approached the problem of native people differently. The people of Jamestown did not initially wish to enslave, but rather assimilate natives and “transform the Indians into lower-sort English men and women” (Taylor, pg. 128). Statements from colonial supporter Sir William Herbert explain that this was to keep the colonists from escaping to the apparently less strenuous life of the Indians. I find this motivation curious due to the fact that Jamestown suffered greatly because the colonists themselves refused to undertake the labor of producing corn, which led to food shortages. Conflicts with the native people arose when the English expected to be provided for, leading to bloodshed that was less for the direct seizure of wealth and more for means of survival. Through this sporadic violence, the colonists began to cultivate tobacco, and production exponentially increased. The English of Chesapeake discovered a sustainable agricultural method of benefiting from colonization, but only after forsaking positive native relations and many lives.

The other branch of English colonization arose from the Puritan settlement of New England. This is the first group of colonists presented to the reader as middle-class Englishmen searching for subsistence rather than wealth. They lived in a strict society that revolved around small-level farming. Many of their conflicts were not over wealth, but rather aspects of life with religious implications. In this society men and women were more equal, and men were more equal to each other. Shipbuilding and fishing entered into their society in the mid and late 1600s, and with them came both societal disruption and sustainable commerce.

Both varieties of English settlers found success in American colonies through different means than either the French or Spanish. They had great differences from each other, and both found unique niches in the colonial economy through agriculture and trade (though New England’s trade was initially more local).Their colonization produced systems that could support themselves and become sustainable, independent economies.