Charlotte Marx-Arpadi – American History to 1877

March 31, 2014

Jackson: Bankers, Abolitionists, and Unions

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

Wilentz goes through the second half of Jackson’s presidency in chapter 13, taking the reader through first the drama of the Bank War, then through the growing abolitionist movement, and then through the Union movement taking place in urban centers, such as New York and Boston. Even before coming to the last section of Wilentz’s chapter, I found a peculiar amount of contradictions in Jackson’s stances, as well as how various groups alligned themselves politically.

Jackson first closes down the BUS by redistributing the dungs from the national bank to loyal state banks. Wilentz explains that Jackson’s motives were that the national bank was tied with northern industries, and did not support or fund frontier expansions. This fits with Jackson’s earlier moves, as Grey mentions in his post, around Georgia’s state power to deal with the Cherokees as they saw fit.

However, it is interesting that many people who backed Jackson initially saw this Bank War as Jackson’s lust for power. While he may have said that he did not want a powerful federal government, he also was able — as only one man — to bypass Congress in issues related to the Bank. Additionally, Jackson redistributed the funds to only a few states — showing a sort of favoritism in politics that he seemed vehemently against. This is an interesting contradiction.

Another contradiction I found was Wilentz’s reason for why Jackson did not become involved in some of the abolitionist issues that arose over censoring mail and abolitionist literature distribution. Some Southern states wanted to prohibit this literature from circulating. While Congress said this was unconstitutional, there was no enforcement in the states themselves. This was an issue of state rights over federal rights, so one might assume that Jackson might blindly favor state rights, allowing for the censorship of abolitionist literature. However, he was against this. Wilentz reasons that “though Jackson disapproved, he did not want to stir up more trouble” by calling states out in the unenforced laws. Wilentz seems to be, once again, painting a favorable picture of Jackson. Jackson had no problem stirring up trouble by redirecting funds from the National Bank, and speaking his mind on other issues, even when it directly threw him up against Congress. I don’t think it is fair for Wilentz to therefore reason this.

I see many similarities between the abolitionist movement and unionists that Wilentz does not interestingly spell out more clearly. This era seemed marked by many “for the people” movements, both for the workers (unions) and for slave laborers. While Wilentz discusses “a new humane model of equality, [and] freedom” in terms of abolitionist movements through the religious lens, I think this can be an interesting parallel to the unionizing and Workies in the Northeast.

March 24, 2014

Jackson Through Wilentz

This reading in Wilentz begins with the rise of Christianity in America, the Second Great Awakening, which is a nice lead-way into the rest of the chapters, in which Wilentz describes the importance and rise of American Democratic values. In the Second Great Awakening, any common man could be a religious and spiritual leader, regardless of family or level of education. Religion was also seen as a moral guide in politics and other areas of secular life. It is interesting that Wilentz notes that this is relatively new in American history, even though I always thought the Revolutionists and Founding Fathers founded this country on a more religious platform than Wilentz implies. It seems that from this Second Great Awakening, we still find many Christian morals and values leading American politics.

Wilentz then delves into Jackson and Adams election, and Jackson’s eventual presidency. It is interesting here to see the rise of Jackson alongside the rise of the Working Men’s Party. While I initially thought that the idea of unions and the glorification of the common working man could unite the North and the South, the election came down to a battle between uplifting the nation’s intelligence and prosperity against the suspicions of a centralized government, and how a centralized government is undemocratic. I find it interesting that both these approaches want the best for everyone, but the method in which that is approached differs.

In response to Rebecca’s approach, I find it interesting that Wilentz does, indeed, paint a positive picture of Jackson. Having little background in American history, I don’t know many other depictions of Jackson besides that which I’ve read for today’s reading. Rebecca adds many other complicated layers to the picture than Wilentz shows, which reminds me that every source is somewhat biased, regardless of having an explicit agenda. My impression from the Wilentz reading was that Jackson tried to stay close to central on many issues, which led to a lot of issues, such as the condoning of the removal of Indians, and other things that happened under his watch. However, Jackson is definitely introduced in a positive light.

I agree with Ella that there definitely seems to be a lack of defined political parties. I myself have been a bit lost in the reading as to which sect of which Party supports which cause, which I think speaks on the lack of overall national identity that Parties have, with differing voices within the same party in the North and in the South. However, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of just a single man (Jackson), as Wilentz discusses, Jackson’s win marks the complex development of American democracy through the huge turn out of white adult male suffrage seen at the election.

March 19, 2014

The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders

Wilentz goes into the complex politics that surround slavery in the early part of the 1800s in chapter 7. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of Caribbean plantations in the 1790s led to an increase in sugar and cotton demands from Southern slave-holding states. This in addition to the recent land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase led to a revival in plantations of the South, which also caused much more debate over laws of slavery in the new territory. Included in this was the heated debate over Missouri.

Through the debate of the terms of Missouri’s admission, political parties (and Northerners vs. Southerners) became increasingly polarized and tensions grew. More than just giving Southerners more political power through the 3/5ths law, the Republicans said that their anti-slavery argument was a “preservation of individual’s rights” and
“strict construction of the Constitution demanded slavery’s restriction” (118). Thus, slavery was not only morally wrong, it was also unconstitutional. The Constitution allowed for future leaders to abolish slavery and prevent new slave states from entering the Union. The North began many anti-slavery campaigns, which created a lot of fear and anxiety in the slave-holding South, where many believed this sort of conversation would lead slaves to rebel and revolt. It was easier to keep track of sides due to geographic location, rather than over other issues (such as War of 1812), where political parties in different locations had differing opinions on the matter. This was presented as pretty much black and white — Notherners verses Southerners.

With Maine being granted statehood, Missouri was then admitted without slavery restrictions. However, an amendment was made that anything within the Louisiana purchase above a certain latitude was not to have slavery. However, even though this “compromise” was reached, the debate over Missouri was significant in its solidifying where Northerners and Southerners stood on slavery.

Chapter 9 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis goes into reasoning as to why Southern states thought slavery in new territory was so important. Because many plantations were expanding westward with the new land, they needed laborers to clear land and then establish the plantations. However, slavery was also such a thriving part of the Southern economy that it must have been hard to imagine a South without slavery. By 1860, two-thirds of the wealthiest Americans were Southern large planters. “By 1840, the South grew few more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton”, showing how the national and international community condoned slavery, even if not directly. Davis thereby adds an interesting perspective to the North verses South obvious debate that Wilentz describes — that maybe the North was not “innocent” in its bystander position.

March 16, 2014

Political Factions & Unproductive Wars

In chapter 5, Wilentz explores how nationalism plays out in response to war, and the different political makeup of the United States before and after the War of 1812. He begins by discussing the lead up to the War of 1812, and the rise of Republican nationalism through their support of the war. Federalists were against the war, and the two parties seemed to become increasingly distinct and oppositional voices over the war. However, it is interesting to see how the New England Federalists’ initial anti-war activities led this once anti-British party to become pro-British. This can be seen in their threats of secession from the Republican government and their talk of independent peace treaties with British in Maine.

During the lead up to the war of 1812, Wilentz also discusses the dissent among Republicans. New Republicans promoted westward growth and development, and connected internal gains and successful market with agricultural exports. However, to Old Republicans, this new sect seemed to resemble a new type of Federalists. However, this is far from accurate, as Thomas points out in his post. Federalists at this time believed that American success was dependent on trade connections with Great Britain.

As Wilentz points out, during the War of 1812 neither the British nor the Americans were successful at thwarting the other. This is ironic given that the policy over which the US first declared war was revoked right after the declaration, before either side had heard the other’s statement. After two years of fighting, Madison began negotiations with the British. However, it is interesting to note that nothing seems to change policy-wise with Britain and the US, which is what began the conflict and war.

I found it very interesting that American’s fear of Indians allying with Britain became a self-fulfilled prophecy based on the despicable treatment they indured by Americans, such as Harrison burning Prophetstown to the ground and opening Indian graves. Indians, understandably, became allied with British in their opposition of America’s westward expansion. It is also interesting to note that Wilentz mentions the large role Indians had in the deterioration of Britain and American relations leading up to the war. This is a side of the narrative I had never heard. It is also interesting to see how many of the same issues that the War of 1812 tried to resolve were the same as less than 50 years earlier. The issues, motivations, and causes for this war are nothing we haven’t seen before. However, as Wilentz points out, the end of this war led to a new kind of American hero (none who were Federalists), which helped bring the Federalist party to an end.

February 19, 2014

Virtue is not hereditary

I found Gordon S. Wood’s essays on the Revolutionary War to be very interesting. Wood deciphers many of the different social classes and their motivations behind the revolution, while also pointing out many of the complex contradictory aspects to the revolutionists’ claims. One point he makes, that I found particularly interesting, was that “society was becoming more unequal, but its inequalities were not the source of instability and anxiety” (111). Wood goes on to argue that the idea that hard work and labor paid off, and that people were chosen based on their skills and not on the family they were born in to was such a novel idea. In this way, society was becoming more and more unequal because one’s ability to be heard was based on public endorsement (and skill), rather than maintaining status quo by following in one’s family’s footsteps. While the notion of popular participation in politics was first used by colonists already in power as leverage against their opponents (royal authority), “once aroused, [popular participation] could not be easily put down” (112).

It was interesting to read Wood and the chapter from Inhuman Bondage together because both mainly focused on distinct groups, allowing many of the revolutionists’ ideals to be seen as contradictory to their actions. As Willie mentions in his post, in some ways, this seems like a case of the rich wanting to get richer by making themselves the “natural aristocracy” while the lower classes remained stagnant. While, as Willie also remarks, Wood deciphers many of the more complex issues to this, reading Inhuman Bonding shows the huge discrepancy between the revolutionists’ fight for independence and fight to preserve slavery — the epitome of dependence which they so slandered. This chapter shows how the colonists were fighting against being dependent on the British, while using their dependents to help them in the war. Emma, in her post, points out the irony here, mentioning that “America is supposed to represent freedom and a new life, yet it doesn’t” because of the enslavement.

While I’ve only heard an aggrandized and heroic version of the origins of the Revolutionary War, Wood sheds light on the many layers of reason and motivation behind it in society at this time. I liked that he explains how the Revolution was as much social as it was political, showing the different social classes and their arguments for independence or loyalty.

It is interesting to note many contemporary parallels to things Wood mentions. For example, Revolutionists believed that courtiers relied on favors and preferments for their position and rank. Favors and preferments still happen today in politics all the time, when a politician supports another politician’s move in order to secure a returned favor in the future. Additionally, to see how children born into lower class today do not have the same opportunities for education as someone born into a more privileged family is interesting to note in light of all the revolutionary leaders stoof for. While revolutionary leaders “did not expect poor, humble men […] to gain high political office. Rather, they expected that the sons of such humble men […] would thereby rise into ranks of gentlemen and become eligible for high political office”, it is provocative to see how there is a stagnancy for those still born into lower class due to the lack of privileges they have access to. While social standing is not hereditary, opportunities still (for the most part) are. Maybe we haven’t come as far as we hoped to.

February 10, 2014

Defining the “other” of the Chesapeake Colonies

Chapter 7 in Taylor’s American Colonies shows the continual “othering” within the Chesapeake colonies, and the different tensions that this led to. This chapter traces the different groups in power, and who they had power over. The chapter begins with describing the new-found independence many emigrants experienced. Many colonists came from “middling origins” (139), and were able to climb their way into powerful positions, regardless of their birth. This was very different from England, where power was determined by your birth, education, manners, land, and wealth. It therefore makes sense that we still see much of British culture as “proper” based on our historical relationships with it. It was often beggars, “unwanted orphans”, or “criminals punished for vagrancy and petty theft” that came in the early 1600s in waves of immigration. However, after coming as endowed servants, these servants then had freedom dues, where they were given land — an opportunity unheard of if they had stayed in England given their social status.

However, life in the new colony was not easy by any means. Many experienced early death in a combination of disease and overworking. Additionally, these indentured servants experienced brutal treatment by planters who often believed “that only fear and pain could motivate servants”.

Here we begin to see many of the tensions between new-found class distinctions in the new world. Newly freed indentured servants were forced to take worse land than already established wealthier farmers. In addition to this, the wealthier planters were able to make it through hard times and bad seasons, and would buy up many of the smaller properties and their workers. With this, the plantation community suffered from increasing poverty, while the wealthier continued to make more money.

In addition to this, with heavy tax laid on plantations by Governor Berkeley, farms had to give up about a tenth of their annual crop. While wealthy plantations could afford this tax, this was a huge burden to the smaller, common person’s farm.

This middle working class therefore cherished their independence, which seemed to be more and more fleeting during hard times. This is one of the reasons why there was a lot of backlash when the governor began to limit trade with Indians, and therefore why Bacon had many followers. Again we see how Bacon’s followers pitted themselves against both the Indians and governor Berkeley, thinking this “othering” would secure their independence.

However, after this fiasco and crown intervention, the plantation owners of Virginia felt they needed to work together by building a stronger political base through the representation of “all free, white Virginians against innovative intrusions of crown power” (151). This brought together the big plantation owners with the smaller farm owners, which seemed to coincide with the influx of African slaves due to a diminishing indentured servant population. This then pitted all free, white Virginians against the newest, most threatening “other” — African slaves, which Willie MacDade touches on in his post below. It is interesting to see how the extreme racism seen later on in history was something developed over time, and how this was another reason to “cultivate the common white men” (154). I was shocked to read the story of a black freedman, Anthony Johnson, and his owning of land and even a slave. Knowing the later future of people of African descent in plantation societies, I was shocked to learn that Johnson won a case in court against whites.

However, with their numbers growing, and with more propaganda of the newest “other”, skin color became an physical marker of identity, which brought together the small/common planters and the great planters in racial solidarity. “Newly obsessed with racial difference, Chesapeake whites felt more equal despite the growing inequality of their economic circumstances” (157). I agree with Willie MacDade here that Taylor’s explanation of “othering” might be oversimplified, however, it provides a nice segway into the later narrative that we are more familiar with.

January 29, 2014

State Of The Union

Seeing a black president stand in front of a room of (mostly) white, grey-haired men was more powerful than ever after reading Inhuman Bondage this week on a history of the enslavement of Africans in the New World. Although Obama is no descendent of slaves (his father was born in Africa), the historical treatment of Africans and blacks in the US is unfathomable when paired next to our first Africa American president. In Obama’s lifetime, MLK was shot, and despite this, he now is delivering the state of the union. Obama is a symbol of the American dream that he kept referencing; the belief in opportunity for everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, etc., and an ability of upward mobility regardless of where or to whom you were born.

While there are still too many class and racial differences in opportunities in society today, as shown by Obama’s focus on “young men of color” and on women, the country has come far within the 200+ years of its existence.

I found it interesting that Obama focused on the “broken immigration system”. As the son of an immigrant himself, he failed to mentioned that this country was built and founded by immigrants. As we saw through the Inhuman Bonding reading, much of what made this country become so successful was its huge importation of immigrants. Additionally, contrasting this to our readings on the essentially mass genocide of Indians — the only non-immigrants — it is interesting to see how problems with the “other” has always been a problem in America, even if the perspectives has changed.

In addition to this, our readings have all shown the economic and financial drive that colonizing countries had in the New World. I found it interesting that Obama backed almost all statements he made by the economic gains America can or has achieved, and how many of his proposals will add to the economy or not “add a dime to the deficit”. It was also interesting to hear that in the first time in a long time, manufacturers are considering moving production back to the US from China; America is now a place to invest. This is similar to the colonizing countries, who also saw the New World as a place to invest. This will also help boost and strengthen the middle class, another point Obama emphasized. The history of this country that we’ve learned in class so far is almost all low- to middle-class families migrating to America in order to obtain and work the land outside of being a tenant on a duke’s land. Many American ideals rely on a robust middle class to keep the country functioning and keep the country self-reliant.

Obama ended his State address by committing to the constitutional ideals. “America has never come easy”, he stated. All the readings and lectures for class so far has proved this, from malaria and other diseases, to failed colonies, starvation, cold winters, enslavement, and more. It should be fun to fill in the gap from where we are in class to where we are today (or at least up until 1877).

January 22, 2014

Dispelling Myths of the Proper English

As Rebecca points out in her post on chapter 6 and 8, Taylor mainly focuses on the different failures and successes of English colonization, and focuses on dynamics and relationship (or lack there of) between the different settler groups and the Indians.

Chapter 6 focuses on the ethnocentric and uncompromising approach of the English, both in Ireland and in the New World. It was interesting to read about the double squeeze happening in England, which is what America was promoted off it, in order to rid the streets of London of the poor, the beggars, etc. However, I found it interesting to read Taylor’s description of a narrowing middle class with higher rates of unemployment and inflation, and an increasing lower class. Although I am no economics students, it seemed somewhat reminiscent to the current economical state of the US since the recession in 2008. Thus, I found it interesting to see how it parallels the motives to come to America, and the promises America may or may not have fulfilled in lieu of current events.

Additionally, this drive to send the poor to America to serve as workers in the tobacco industry supports Grey’s point that the main driver for colonizers seems to be economical, rather than religious. While religion might justify their actions, the main catalyst remains economics. The growth of the tobacco industry gave the English a new foothold in a New World industry that had yet to be tapped by the Spanish or French.

After our class discussion on whether it was important to distinguish between European countries in their colonization of America, I found it interesting that Taylor compares countries against each other, thus creating a scale of which country is more humane. Taylor notes that the way the English acted towards the Irish during war was similar to the Spaniards in their treatment of Indians. In our discussions and blog posts, everyone seems very careful to differentiate countries from each other in their behavior (Dana contrasts the French with the Spaniards in her post). However, here Taylor is showing similarities between countries, and creating almost a scale of which country did it “better”.

In light of the war in Ireland, I also found it interesting that Taylor seems to dispel myths of the “proper” English by describing them as truthfully and as brutal as they were. Taylor mentions that they were no better than the conquistadors themselves. I found correlations between the picture of the Aztec’s human sacrificing and the British colonel lining a path with human heads of Irish victims — which is an interesting juxtaposition when many other historical narrative I’m familiar with describe the English as proper, humane, and religious peoples.

This very much contrasts the Puritans settlers in New England, and their approach to the land, their neighboring Indians, and their motives for settling in the New World. This was always the narrative of English settlers I have been familiar with — the reason we still celebrate Thanksgiving. It seemed very democratic and egalitarian modest way of living, which is the story of a hard-working American people that history and media today love to glorify. However, I also found it interesting that Taylor points out the religious oppression the Puritans placed on everyone who lived within New England, another aspect to the story often disregarded.