daharvey – American History to 1877

April 22, 2014

The South Gaining Support

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 South saw Lincoln’s presidency as the end of their freedom. By the south I mean the slaveholding aristocracy that would lose its power if slavery was abolished. Since they were in control of politics and held all the power for the south, they basically were the south. But as we know from books such as The Impending Crisis by Hinton Helper, the south was not so unified behind this aristocracy. In order to gain support the aristocracy had to make a unified cause so that people would rally behind them.

I thought it was interesting how this book by Helper showed just how non-unified the south was before the aristocracy was able to gain the support of the common man. Helper complains that the slaveholders take advantage of the common man in any way that they can. An example being that public education was denied to save money on taxes. The book was written only a few years before the succession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. Somehow the aristocracy was able to unify people like Helper to fight for them even when they were severely mistreated.

Wilentz talks about how the aristocracy was able to make the common white man seem equal to the elite. They had to be given a common enemy and that enemy became the North, for the actions against American citizens. To do this they had to convince everyone that slaves should not be treated as people. That was not a very hard thing to do since they had been living with the idea that slaves were no better than animals for generations. Most of these people however did not own slaves, so I don’t know why so many would feel so strongly about defending slavery. For most common men, no longer having slaves would not hinder their work ability.

Most men want to feel superior to something, to fuel this notion could gain much support for the south. The southern aristocrats had to ban the men together by showing that white men are superior to black men and the north was trying to take that right away from them. The men were used to protect slavery for the aristocracy. And once Lincoln took office the south could succeed because the majority of people at the time did not want their rights taken away by the North. This was something that could not be compromised. Though they tried as Costello said, the compromises were not effective. There is no compromising when someone believes you will strip them of rights they deem inalienable.

March 26, 2014

Indian Removal on the Frontier

Genocides are usually thought of as the mass killing of a specific group of people. In the passage by Wolfe, we are shown the many different aspects of a genocide and how they can be related to the settler colonialism. There are many differences between the two, but the main goal and the way to get share many similarities.

Wolfe makes the distinction early on that the elimination of a group of people from a colonial settlement have less to do with race than to do with the culture. Those in an area being colonized are less advanced, usually agricultural, and sometimes nomadic. These aspects fueled the Indian Removal from the British colonies more so than the racial aspects of the people there. The incoming culture wants to spread their wealth and by holding the native people below them there is a superiority created by the newcomers. They want to remove the uncivilized in order to preserve themselves and their society. It was not racial as can be seen through a few of the Indians who were able to assimilate and become part of the American culture. Those who assimilated well were not removed because they had removed themselves from their culture and were no longer “savages.”

The removal of Indians did not change much when there were any changes in regime as said in Wolfe’s passage. This shows that it was different from many genocides we think of today. The people of the frontier continued to push out Indians to claim more land. When Britain tried to stop them the colonies revolted and continued to claim more and more Indian territory.This is different from other genocides like the holocaust where the mass killings and removal of the afflicted came about and left with the Nazi party. As said in “The Consequence of Colonial Settlement” the people on the frontier routinely destroyed Indian towns and people. They did this for the land, and probably to feel more safe. They saw the Indians as a threat not only to their society, but to their well being also. To drive the Indians farther and farther away would give them protection and continue the increase of wealth gained from new lands.

Wolfe argues that settler colonialism was a kind of genocide and I believe he is right. The reasoning for the removal of the Indians may not coincide with how many think of genocide, but the outcome is the same. The native people were killed, assimilated, and moved in order to destroy the culture and eliminate the culture on the native lands. The colonists wanted the land to use for themselves and saw the way to do that was to get rid of the native people. Their removal is as much a genocide as the removal of the Jewish population by the Nazi’s and many other genocides in history.

March 16, 2014

Sectional Differences

The varying opinions and political parties of the nation have been, in many cases, geographically grouped. The Turner reading helps to explain some of these differences through the westward expansion of the Americas, while the Wilentz reading helps to express how the differences coalesce around the War of 1812. As discussed in Knowlton’s post, from last week, the government was set up in such a way that these divisions were bound to have some consequences.

Changing societies in different regions caused ideologies to vary between regions. Turner talks a lot about this in the first chapter of his book “The Frontier in America.” As the North grew away from agriculture and towards industrialization their ideologies changed from those of the southern agrarians. This caused strife between the two groups especially when it came to representation in the government with the three fifths clause. Wiltenz mentions that this strife almost tore apart the nation during the War of 1812. Some of the northern states had talked of secession openly because of Madison’s presidency. The U.S was almost torn apart before it could get a foothold in the global scale by the differing ideologies of the American people.

The War was caused by strife between the two regions of America and its former mother country, Great Britain. The American people had changed from the colonies to a nation that could sustain itself. This is a similar advancement to the advancement of the north to industrialization, or the western frontier to elite farmers. These are the social changes that Turner is talking about in his book. And it was the same change in ideologies of the societies in the different regions that caused strife between Britain and the U.S.

The same differences in society that Turner talks about with the frontier would be the cause for the Civil War. As the west was expanded and slavery extended to half the added states, the resentment between north and south grew. The talk of succeeding by the north during the war of 1812 would shift to the south. The north had thought they were unfairly represented and wanted someone other than the Virginians to be running the government. It caused them to want to succeed just as the southerners would when Lincoln took office.

February 16, 2014

The Changing Role of the Indians

As Taylor says, both the French and English realized that the help of the Indians would be essential in the battles over colonial territory. The Indians could prove most useful and to lose their support would also hinder a side greatly. The French were out numbered and tried very hard to win the favor of the Indians. The English were less friendly, but non the less tried to gain favor as well. The support of the Indians gave to the Indians a bit of power, at least until their services were no longer needed.

The Indians were able to gain some power as their services were needed. Both the French and English saw that the Indians were essential and so they had to ask for help. This help came in a few forms, mostly better trade agreements for the Indians. Many tribes helped both sides. Taylor mentions that Indians had to ask themselves which trade would prove more favorable before choosing a side. The English had better goods for decent prices, but they were not as welcoming as the French, who were not as well off trading wise. So the Indians basically had to choose between better goods, or better relations.

The Indians thrived at gorilla warfare, a type of warfare that many were resistant to change to. The officers of the British armies much preferred the open field battles they were used to and often fell easily to the Indians attacking in the woods. For this reason the English worried about the use of Indian soldiers. The Indian advantage of the French could not, however, overcome the superior numbers of the English and their colonists.

As the war progressed and ended the Indians lost any of the power they may have gained by allying with either power. As Wang points out in the last post, the Colonists started to see all Indians as the enemy, even those who were in good relations with them. Colonists would openly attack or kill Indians of any tribe for any reason. Such men also would be free from persecution. This new attitude towards the Indians on the colonial front meant almost constant bloodshed and increasing costs to the British empire. The colonists’ desire for new land and their attitude towards the Indians, led them to take more and more land.

The Indians profited initially from the conflict between the French and English, but as time passed their power was diminished to an even lower margin than before the conflict began. This change of power showed the Indians the true intentions of the colonists and gave insight to the future relations with them. Parliament tried to stop the conflicts by restricting the growth of the colonies westward, but that was not enough to deter the desires of the colonists. The Seven Years War, and the following conflicts, set the fate of the Indians as one filled with conflicts with the English and, to a lesser extent, the French colonists.

February 9, 2014

Racial Unity and Segregation

Taylor talks about the unity formed between whites of all economic standing once slavery is introduced. Prior to the introduction of large scale African slavery color did not mater. All freedmen were treated the same and had essentially the same rights. Once the African slave population increased, a new form a racism began to take root in the colonies. The wealthy elite took advantage of this racism to maintain their control over the colonies.

The gap between the rich and poor grew with the increase of African slavery. The African slaves did not have to be treated as well as the previously used indentured servants. They may have cost more, but they worked for life, however short that may be. They did not have to be paid the freedom dues given to the freedmen. These benefits helped to maximize the profit of plantations, but it also meant likely rebellion from the slaves. This was a constant fear and led masters to use brutality to deter rebellion. As said in the last post this brutality could be justified by the racism that took hold in the colonies.

As racism grew all whites were joined as kin. This kinship helped to diminish hatred between the wealthy and poor whites. Taylor talks of the kindness of the wealthy elite to travelers and the poor, something that is still attributed to the south. But it was not kindness for the sake of being a good person. The elite used kindness to keep people in line. It helped gain them votes, kept the poor content, and strengthened the “bond” between whites. Not only did the elite use racism to allow brutal treatment of slaves, but also to keep whites around them from rebelling.

Taylor also talked about how the elite had to keep the native’s and slaves from joining up together. Natives were paid to capture runaway slaves, as well as other natives of different tribes. This payment ensured a connection with the natives, kept the runaways and natives from joining up, and got the masters their slaves back. Paying for capture also helped to increase the racism against the African slaves. I think Taylor could have made a connection with the fact that the elite also had to subdue the poor whites. They had to keep three groups of people from joining up to rebel. Had the racism not grown, and whites held Africans as equals, the elite would not have been able to defend their positions.

The natives joining with the slaves would have proven brutal to the colonies. Had the poor whites joined the cause the elite would have no way to defend their lifestyle. That is why the growing racism proved so useful for the elite. To maintain control over the colonies, the elite needed to keep three groups from rebelling. The intelligent use of racism was able to keep all whites together, and kept natives from joining with the slaves.

January 26, 2014

Early African Slave Treatment

Chapters 4 through 6 of Inhuman Bondage covers a large frame in the timeline of the African Slave trade. Davis shows the transitions of how the slaves were brought to new areas and how they lived in those new areas. Davis shows that slavery amongst Africans was not a new practice and their treatment, in some cases, was much better than it could have been if they were not taken from Africa.

Slaves that were taken from Africa were part of a culture where it was not unusual to be put into slavery. Rival tribes often took prisoners of war and turned them into slaves. The introduction of the European market did not bring about the slavery, but they did make it into a profitable business for many African chiefs. The trading of slaves did however increase the capture and warring between peoples in Africa. Those chiefs that were powerful enough wanted to make as much profit as they could by selling African slaves. The continued trade with the Europeans created an economy in Africa that became dependent on the trade of slaves. The increase of taking people to trade as slaves was problematic in many respects. The majority of slaves taken were male, changing the demographic. The continued wars were taxing on the people and many lives were lost, and of course many lives were ruined once sold as slaves.

Slaves in the Caribbean and places where work was hard were treated much worse than in some of the northern colonies. Those that had to work cultivating sugar cane had it worst of all. The work was intensive and almost nonstop during certain stages of cultivation. The hard work cost many their lives and made life miserable for those still working. Slave owners in such areas as the Caribbean also had to be a lot more strict. The population of slaves way out shadowed the population of white plantation owners. Examples had to be made and life was very hard.

In some of the northern colonies Davis makes it sound like life actually wasn’t that bad, at least at first. African slaves were actually treated much the same as white’s of their status. And those Africans were treated almost as equals if they gained any power or monetary status. It’s surprising that Africans of color were not treated badly because of their color. Davis makes this point a couple of times. He wants to make it clear that they were not treated differently for their skin in the beginning. Slaves were often given the opportunity to make money on the side and pay for their freedom. They were allowed to have their own small gardens and in some cases sections of the farm to make some money for themselves. Obviously the owners got a portion of what the slaves made, but it is better than what slaves were given later. This is something that I’ve never been taught growing up, so I found it interesting to read.

January 20, 2014

inability to have peaceful relations

As brought up in the previous blog post, the main reason for expansion into the new world was for economic gains. In both main areas of conquest talked about in the reading there was a struggle to keep relations favorable. The Spanish took the approach of brutal force and torture to get the desirable trade, which obviously cannot allow for peaceful transactions. The economic gains of the Spanish created a desire for the rest of Europe to try and gain riches from the Americas. They however were able to do this through the piracy of Spanish ships, which created dissension in Europe. In Canada, the French may have initially been peaceful, but their trade only further hurt relations amongst native Americans. The draw of economic gains made all parties fight to get the most favorable goods, which meant there could be no peaceful relations.

The Spanish conquistadors conquered native Americans relentlessly. It is obvious that they did not care for peaceful relations and only wanted to maximize their own profit. They even destroyed Tenochtitlan, a city the conquistador Hernan Cortes admitted had no comparable Spanish counterpart, “In Spain there is nothing to compare with it.”(53) What could have been a great acquisition was destroyed so that Cortes could get his loot as quickly as possible. Fear spread through the tribes and destroyed Spain’s chance at prolonged trade. The lack of stability required that Spain import slaves for the fallen native Americans.

The French at least were able to begin with peaceful trade among the native tribes in the north. The French did not have to means to conquer and destroy as the Spanish had, and so were at the mercy of the natives trading terms. This peaceful transaction was good for both parties, until other native tribes learned of the items to be gained by trading with the french, and later other European traders desire to trade with the northern natives. The competition for furs led to an exhaustion of animals to hunt, forcing the tribes to hunt elsewhere, usually in rival tribe lands. This led to conflicts between tribes. Other European nations saw the wealth to be had in the North and began to compete with the French. This competition in some cases meant giving guns and other weapons to the tribes to be used as they pleased. All this fighting and hostility was caused by the desire for wealth. The way that the different nations went about fulfilling their desires led to many problems and a complete lack of peaceful interaction.

The new world was full of potential for trade and prosperity for all parties, but the greed of the parties led to unequal trading, infighting, and fighting amongst economic rivals. All parties at one point manipulated another and this lead to hostility. The Spanish killed and instilled fear, the French tried to rip off the native people whenever they could, other European nations tried to steal goods and trade routes, and the native Americans fought to get the best items for their goods. The riches to be had caused too much greed and this ultimately destroyed any chances for peaceful interaction.