emcostello – American History to 1877

April 29, 2014

A Different Outcome

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 movie Confederate States of America was extremely interesting to watch. The movie started out with typical Southern music playing, and I knew I was in for an extremely biased and racist movie. That is just my perception though, because I am used to way of life we live now. If the Confederates won, we all would probably have had different thoughts regarding slavery today.

One big thing that struck me was the portrayal of Lincoln. Lincoln to us is one of the best presidents, who won the Civil War, brought the Union back together, and ended slavery. He is very well respected, and even called “Honest Abe.” In this movie, it is the opposite. Lincoln is seen as a coward, losing the war, and tries to escape to Canada through Harriet Tubman. He is disguised in blackface, and when he is caught, pretends to be a slave. He becomes a prisoner of war, and is sent to Canada for exile. This perception of him really irked me because even if he did lose, I don’t think he would have done all of this. I think Lincoln should have gotten more respect than this portrayal.

Another interesting part of this movie was that they outlawed every religion except Christianity(included Catholicism) and wanted the Jews to leave. This strictly goes against the right to have freedom of religion, and if this actually happened, would lead to less diversity today. America is prided on the fact that it welcomes all different types of people who practice different religions, and I believe there is beauty in that. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that it should be the national religion. That is almost like taking a step towards communism.

Another important difference was the aggressive nature of the military. In this movie, the C.S.A. believed strongly in manifest destiny, and wanted to expand their empire into Mexico, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands. Also, they bombed Japan first, and basically started a war. Everything was on the offensive in this movie depiction, which I don’t think is right. They also had a Cold War with Canada, and even created a wall. They partially agreed with the Nazis, and did not fight against them.

Because of all these events that occurred, I believe if the Confederates won the war, America would have never progressed. It was 1980, and woman still did not have the right to vote. Slavery was still widespread, and Canada was beating America out in many different ways. If the Union had not won, I do believe that America would not have been seen as the good guys, like we are today. We would still be a racist, slave filled society that is caught up in the past, and not progressing towards the future. As my classmate said “We see the Civil War today as the war that freed the slaves, an almost necessary evil that killed hundreds of thousands but ended the system of slavery.” The thing is, if the Confederates won, would all those deaths be worth it? Nothing really changed, and the system was back to its primitive ways.

April 22, 2014

The Powder Keg of the Civil War

Chapters 23-25 in The Rise of American Democracy summarize what is happening in America right before the Civil War. Like my classmate said, Wilenz focuses on the political aspects leading up to the war instead of the battles themselves. This is very different than anything I have learned, because I did not know all of the specific details. I just thought that the South wanted slavery, and the North did not, but it actually was a lot more complicated than that.

During this time, many attempts at compromise were made, but none were effective. One big controversial topic during this time frame was the Dred Scott decision. He was a slave who traveled to a free territory, so he thought he should be free. It was decided that he was not a citizen, and he was not free. This decision escalated the sectional tensions throughout the United States. Wilenz says, “For antislavery northerners, the decision proved that the entire branch of the federal government had fallen into the Slave Power’s clutches.” (397) In Kansas, fighting between pro-slavery and antislavery people broke out, causing mayhem. Also, there was a financial panic in the late summer and fall of 1957 caused by “a vast expansion of industrial development and railroad construction, heavily funded by foreign investors, was followed by a sudden sell-off of American securities abroad driven by rising interest rates, which depressed the value of American stocks and bonds.” (402) Also at this time, many immigrants were flooded into America, and they were treated very poorly because they were poor and Catholic.

One important aspect throughout all of this was sectionalism. Some many different events created a huge divided in the United States, which I believe leaded to the Civil War. Each side thought their way of life was more successful, and Wilenz definitely supports that throughout these chapters. “On certain essentials, most slaveholders could agree: slavery created an economy, society, and polity superior to the crass and cutthroat North.” (409)

Lincoln was also introduced in these chapters. It is interesting to me how he lost to Douglas in the Senate race, but would end up beating him for the presidency. He disliked slavery, and when he was elected president, the South took action. They began to secede, and quickly. Buchanan said “that secession over Lincoln’ selection was conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” (444)

As I read these chapters, I could not help but detect some bias regarding the North as morally correct. Wilenz seemed to make the South seem like the bad guy, and the North seem like the good guy. This said, Wilenz also speaks highly of Lincoln. I don’t recall him ever saying anything negative about him. Even though I do agree with this viewpoint, I think Wilenz should have made it more impartial.

April 9, 2014

Lizzie Mae

The Ask A Slave web series really had me in awe. I honestly cannot imagine that people in our present day society are actually that ignorant. Many of the questions seemed so preposterous that it seemed fake at times. In the beginning of each video, it said that all of the questions were real questions though. This makes me really wonder how so many people are so uninformed about slavery.

I really enjoyed watching these videos. They were humorous, but at the same time very sad. It made slavery seem real. So often people think of it as something in the past, and they don’t think twice about it. The sarcasm really emphasized this. Like my classmate said, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are often optimized as being noble, upstanding heroes of America. They did have slaves though, and that is overlooked. Questions regarding “Lizzie Mae’s” children really stood out to me. People who asked questions made it seem like slavery was not that bad.

Another misconception was involving the abolitionist. The general public has the opinion that abolitionists fought for an end to slavery, when it fact it was not that simple. As shown in the web video, the abolitionist had not even talked to a black person before. He also did not believe in slavery, but wanted to send the slaves back to Africa or Jamaica. He furthered this distaste by implying sexism on her. All in all, this demonstrated that not all abolitionists actually cared that much about the actual black slaves.

These videos are a way for people to see a glimpse at slavery, and how our current world perceives it. This is not just an issue of the past though. When Lizzie Mae was talking about making her own clothes, the person asking the question said she did not know who made her clothes. Lizzie Mae then replied saying that someone like her could be making those clothes. This is true, because slavery still exists today. It is sad that people are still going through that, and we are supporting it.

March 25, 2014

Not Genocide

Wolfe’s article titled Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native raised some very interesting points that I can’t say I have ever thought of before. Basically he was saying that in North America, the Native Americans experienced genocide by colonist settlers. He defined this point by saying that “Even where native sovereignty was recognized, however, ultimate dominion over the territory in question was held to inhere in the European sovereign in whose name it had been “discovered.” (5) The Europeans claimed the land as their own, and disregarded the fact that the Native Americans were there first. They wanted to “eliminate” the Native Americans by relocating them to other land. They justified their actions by saying the Native Americans were “unsettled, nomadic, rootless” and that the settlers could improve the land by creating new farms, mining etc. (10) One of my classmates references this by saying “Georgia, being the prime example, began eagerly removing the Cherokee people and were prepared to stand up to National military force to do so.” They were just uncomfortable with having them there. Wolfe ultimately explains his main point that once the frontier ran out and the settlers began the process of assimilation with the Native Americans, genocide occurred because they destroyed the collective group.

While this definitely made me think about the settlers actions, I can’t say that I am persuaded. Compared to other genocides he mentions like the Holocaust and Rwanda, I can’t follow his argument. Reading this article did make me realize that the settlers may not have treated the Native Americans in the best possible manner, but it by no means was genocide. They did treat the Native Americans poorly, killed many, and assimilate a lot, but I still don’t classify that as genocide. It is not right, but it is not genocide.

Another aspect of this is that it is really easy for us to say now that the actions of the settlers were wrong. This is unfair because at the time, they had no idea the impact any of their actions would have on the future. It almost was a necessary evil. At the time, North America was growing, and expansion was the only concern. They were not concerned with the treatment of people of other races. I am not condoning their behavior, but I don’t believe it is our place to critique how they treated the Indians when it was such a different time period.

February 19, 2014

Freedom at Last?

Chapter 7 in Inhuman Bondage discusses the impact of slavery in the American Revolution. Whenever I think of the American Revolution, I think of the colonists and Britain. This chapter helped to gain a new insight- the plight of the slaves. One key point the author was trying to make in this chapter is that the colonists were rebelling against Britain for feeling like they were being enslaved, but yet they were enslaving others. “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” (144) I never thought of it this way. It is ironic that the colonists felt that their rights are being infringed upon, when they enslaved Africans. This point truly is one of the most important in the entire chapter, and it drives the entire revolution. It is really persuasive because America is supposed to represent freedom and a new life, yet it doesn’t.

Warfare is a time of chaos for slaves. Slaves can rebel against their owners and escape, or can be enlisted and fight against their enemies. Why would slaves want to fight if in the end they didn’t even receive their liberty? Both sides tried to use slaves in their favor. The colonists didn’t necessarily want the slaves to fight for them, but they were in need of numbers. Britain tried to get slaves to leave their masters and join them. They said that “all slaves captured while they were serving the rebels were to be sold for the benefit of their captors; but all slaves who deserted the rebels were given an assurance that was hardly clear.” (150) Slaves took this as emancipation, and thousands took advantage of it, leaving Georgia’s economy in ruin.

Granted, some colonists realized the ironic nature behind their resentment of Britain. “The period from 1765 to the early 1790s produced countless numbers of tracts, pamphlets, broadsides, sermons, speeches, and editorials that challenged the basic core of slavery: the belief that human beings could be ‘animalized.’ (156) Because of this, the revolutionary war can be seen as the precursor of the Civil War. The North generally was against slavery, and many states even made it illegal. The South was dependent on it. They needed the slaves for their economies, and it even mentioned they would start a war if the government tried to make slavery universally illegal. It was only a matter of time before the two conflicting sides battled again. In my classmate’s post below Democracy and Slavery, they made a very interesting point that the Civil War could possibly have been avoided if the 1784 Continental Congress outlawed slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. While this is an interesting point, I can’t help but disagree because the other regions of the south were so explicit on their desire for slavery, and that is stated within the text.

February 16, 2014

War War War

This chapter focuses on the imperial policy of Britain. As I read, it seemed to me that a lot of tension was occurring in North America. Between the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians, some sort of war was almost always occurring. Taylor mentioned the Seven Years War, one of the first in America. This war began as a competition between France and Britain. They constantly tried to outdo each other by building bigger forts. Here we first hear about George Washington. It is cool to see how the presidents come to power, because I know very little about them. It is ironic that his first battle was a failure and that he barely made it out alive.

Leadership is extremely important in war. Taylor talked about Edward Braddock, a leader for the British. He was known to be arrogant, and said about the Indians, “These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king’s regular and disciplined troops, sir, it is impossible to believe they should make any impression.” (429) This inexperienced attitude led to a defeat by the Indians and the French, setting the British back. William Pitt took over, and turned it around. Overall, Britain destroyed France, and obtained land in Canada, the Great Lakes, the Ohio Valley, and Florida. Taylor mentioned that in some ways, the loser of the war benefited more than the winner. This paradoxical statement is true because Louisiana, New France, and Florida made France and Spain spend excessive amounts of money, and now they could focus on the more valuable colonies in the Caribbean.

Because of the abundance of war, Britain was in debt. They needed to make money, and North America had been seen as “virtually untaxed beneficiaries of imperial trade and protection.” (442) Britain believed that the colonists had had it too easy, and they should be taxed the same amount as the British people were. This started an antagonistic idea in the minds of the colonists. As my classmate mentioned below, this is the start of the American Dream. People immigrated to the New World in hopes of a better life. They wanted to work hard, and have property of their own. They wanted to have freedom. Once Britain started to tax them, this freedom diminished. These thoughts are the fundamental ideas for the America Revolution. I love learning about the revolution because it is so exciting to hear about an underdog feeling so passionate and eventually beating the biggest, wealthiest nation in the world.

February 8, 2014

Going South

Chapters 7 and 11 in American Colonies focused on the English colonies to the south which included Carolina, Virginia (Chesapeake) and Georgia. As Thomas mentioned in his most recent blog post, the south focused on single cash crops instead of a variety of crops. Virginia’s crop was tobacco, and the importance placed on tobacco greatly shaped the development of the colony. Unlike England, “the Chesapeake demanded too much labor from too few colonists.” (142) What I found ironic is that at this time, the colonists believed it was more profitable to buy English indentured servants for a few years than African slaves for life. This theory would change drastically soon. In Virginia, the government became corrupt when a leader by the name of Berkeley came to power. He appointed his friends to positions of power, and created hefty taxes to benefit the wealthy. This lead to Bacon’s rebellion, a failed attempt by planters who resented his leadership.

What was interesting to me was the fact that in the Chesapeake, slavery and racism were not mixed. Before Africans were enslaved, black men in the colony had the same rights as white men. When slavery became abundant, the colonists were terrified of a rebellion, and made strict rules objectifying these people.

Carolina officially belonged to the “the Lords Proprietor” which consists of English aristocrats. (223) Carolina was created with the intent to serve as a place of religious toleration, low taxes, and large tracts of land. This attracted a lot of common colonists, but also larger planters. One way Carolina kept control was through exploitation of Indians. They created a cycle of enslavement where they supported a tribe, that tribe would capture and enslave another tribe, and then the colonists would find another tribe to enslave the first tribe. I was honestly disgusted by this constant exploitation, and even more disappointed in the Indians. The fact that they all turned on each other whenever presented a possibility just displays how desperate they were. Economically, Carolina became a hub for cash crops. Since it primarily consisted of huge plantations, it could develop crops like rice, tar, cattle and indigo in large amounts to trade in England. This made the elite in Carolina the wealthiest on the Atlantic Coast.

Georgia was created solely for a place to ship “miserable wretches and drones” in hopes that manual labor would transform them. (241) Because of this, it was the only colony that outlawed slavery, due to the fact that it was created to be many compact farms. Georgia’s cash crops consisted of hemp, flax, mulberry, and grapes. Many of the colonists were angered by the strict rules especially against slavery. They felt “unfree” without having the right to own slaves. (243) Eventually they caved and permitted slavery, which changed Georgia into a plantation society.

January 27, 2014

The New Cash Crop: Slaves

Chapters four through six of Inhuman Bondage gave an elaborate overview of slavery. As we have discussed in class, the Europeans were very concerned with their economic success. In need of cheap labor, they looked towards enslavement. They could not justify enslaving white people because of a sense of unity and freedom, so they turned to Africa. The color black to them symbolized “depictions of black demons, devils, and torturers.” (79) “By 1820, nearly 10.1 million slaves had departed from Africa for the New World, as opposed to only 2.6 million whites, who had left Europe.” (80) Because of these high numbers, it can be implied that the New World could not have been created without the African slaves. Ironically, these slaves were not necessarily planned to help settle the Americas. People who crossed the ocean at first were just trying to find gold and silver. They did not want to work on the extensive labor jobs, so they needed slaves. Once cash crops became popular, slave labor increased. Sugar and tobacco became such high demand products for the Europeans and that transcended into a need to transport millions of African slaves to the New World. The slave trade ripped Africa of men. The population was left dwindling, and despite the government officials making lots of money, Africa did not experience a huge economy boost.

One part of Chapter 4 that interested me was the comparison of Africans to Indians. The Europeans acted paternalistic towards the Indians, but they “dealt with the Africans as equals.” (88) The Africans had technology. They possessed ships and could attack the Europeans. The Europeans had to provide ceremonial gifts and to pay fees in order to anchor in Africa. It was disheartening to read about how slaves were taking into custody. People would sell out their fellow friends and the government would sentence people to slavery just to make a profit. In the Americas, African slaves were preferred over Indians because they were “familiar with large-scale agriculture, labor discipline, and making iron or even steel tools.” (99) Also, later on, chapter 6 discusses how not enough attention is paid to this complicated relationship. Indians would help track down fugitive slaves, and some even sold slaves themselves.

Drawing on my classmate’s point in The Great Complexity of the Slave Trade, slavery should not have been compared when it was worst or better. Slavery was wrong in general. Innocent Africans got ripped from their homeland and forced onto horrid living conditions. Whites justified this because they felt superior to them. What is extremely ironic is that a supposedly “free society was made possible by black slave labor.” (102) The Europeans left Europe because they felt confined and wanted freedom, and they took away the freedom of many in this new land. Some, including the Quakers were very against slavery. The Quakers compared “those who were oppressed for conscience sake with these oppressed who are a black colour.” (126)