glgordon – American History to 1877

April 14, 2014

The Fight for Social Inclusion: Irish Immigrants in the South

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

Irish immigrants were poor and used to subjugation by class status when they immigrated to the United States. The ones who ended up in the south and, specifically in this case, in Charleston seemed to rally around the battle-cry of the confederacy for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery or slave owners. This article by Joyce clearly states that these poor Irish could not own slaves, but they were above influence of powerful slave owners or other social powers which some have suggested pushed the Irish into confederate battalions. They were not socially inept or pushed around; they had institutions such as the theater, the church, social clubs (Hibernian), as well as nationalist newspapers as social outlets. They regularly critiqued the wealthy upper class of Charleston through these outlets and strengthened their nationalist identity as well as their connection to their new found home.

Instead, they became “dutiful sons” of their new country willingly and united, Joyce claims. But the question still remains why, as the elite classes bullying them into joining was shown to be invalid. It seems as if the Irish-American Immigrants were fighting for the south to secure autonomy, assert their place in society and their right to be contributing members of the southern way of life. This is a narrative that is told in many ways in many times, where a subjugated group of people rise up to fight a war in order to justify their place in society. Of course this happens with African Americans in American History as well, both in the civil war and onwards. This idea can even be extended to slavery at the time, as Ela pointed out in her last blog that we can see slave resistance through Lizzie Mae as a form of assertion to their humanity and independence.

The poor Irish-American Immigrants joining the confederacy is an extremely crucial point for civil war history. Slave owners could not have fought the war or even fielded an army. The persons who plantation owners and mass slave traders could not have realistically fought union powers. This I think may foreshadow a growing narrative of poorer, subjugated and socially devalued men joining the ranks of the confederacy not necessarily to make money off of slavery but to assert their ability to belong, their strength and their independence to the elite of the time, something which seems to be an unfortunate motif in wartime history.

March 31, 2014

“Extremism” and Abolition

Wilentz and Davis both discuss similar abolitionism themes in the north, Cincinnati and New York in particular, that helped gain traction for abolition movements. I was equally as shocked as Alex was in learning that abolitionists faced angry mobs in larger cities in New York and extreme hostility. The rhetoric of the abolitionist movement was certainly new and categorized as “extreme” for their time. Wilentz even goes as far as saying some abolitionist groups even alienated the more moderate abolitionists because of there fervor. However, this is not the only side of the slavery argument that can seem extreme.

Wilentz goes on to speak of the interesting postal service debacle that has become a point of note in the Jacksonian Presidency. When the AA-SS began to send large amounts of anti-slavery and abolitionist rhetoric in the form of mail and pamphlets in the south. Attempting to spread the new moralist and Christian ideologies fighting against the moral injustice of slavery in the United States. Angry southerners and even postmasters took part in the ransacking of post offices and public burning of the documents. Technically highly illegal, Jackson turned a relative blind eye to this situation at first and eventually attempted to institute federal censorship of the post, which would have been an incredibly extreme law. This was put down in votes and never was formalized, but the simple suggestion was somewhat extreme, as was the response against the abolitionists.

Therefore it seems there were two extreme sides that continually were increasing and eventually coming to a head. Davis in the last couple pages mentions that abolitionists were increasingly espousing violent rhetoric and condoning or even advocating violence. The Christian rhetoric of acceptance and moralist changed to an old testament violence. Demonizing the southern slaveholder, many of these groups decided to abandon the simple moral arguments, discussions, and pamphlets, realizing that much more would need to be done in order to exact any real change in the southern states. With their power being increasing with the Dread Scott case and expanding slave owning powers, they lamented but accepted that this could possibly be a cause that would lead to much bloodshed, a prophecy which would certainly become true in their own efforts and eventually culminating in the civil war.

March 24, 2014

Religion: A Historic Aside to Jackson, Natives, & Slaves

Quick aside: There’s a great scene in Season 2 Episode 8 of House of Cards where Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is meeting with a group of American Indian Tribal Leaders. When they enter the room they notice an Andrew Jackson portrait on the wall and ask “If he’ll be joining us in the conversation.” Frank says surely not, this is a terrible oversight, takes it down, and then when the Tribe’s representatives leave he puts it back up and spends a considerable amount of time ensuring it’s not crooked. Read into that as you may.

Alright, now the real post.

Jackson held presidency in a time of great change. Another religious awakening was changing the social landscape and greatly increasing the number of American church attendees. There was somewhat of a moral uprising with Presbygationals insisting in the participation in secular leadership for upholding moral principles. Southern Evangelicals were pushing to convert enslaved people and began to enthusiastically press against slavery in some circumstances. Others were proselytizing to native populations and were able to, in their minds, “assimilate” many of the people into farming, christian communities. All this is fine and well, but in the end none of it mattered. Politics, not religion, remained the dominant force of the time even with what seems like an overwhelming majority of citizens to consider themselves Christian and the dominant theory of the time relating to moral theology, Slavery still held strongly rooted in the south and Indians remained exactly the opposite.

Jackson’s view and belief in state’s rights and the precedent set before him allowed southern states like Georgia not only to continually support the institution of slavery unhindered but also to begin annexing land held by natives in the name of states’ rights. Georgia, being the prime example, begain eagerly removing the Cherokee people and were prepared to stand up to National military force to do so. However, when the national forces were pulled back, it condoned the action of annexing and moving native lands farther and farther west. This continued until Jackson’s pro-removal policies were put into place slowly and surely, using vaguely worded laws in order to legitimately dissolve Cherokee Governments and hasten removal if necessary. This is directly related to Michael Dunbar’s post on Jackson’s supposed moralism. While it was somewhat a staple of his presidency and certainly of the religious times of the nation, I agree that it is an inherent oversight to gloss over the tragic and inherent racism that constituted a large part of his presidency and even legacy, as the House of Cards illusion can certainly suggest.

While there was a rise in moralist teachings of the church, ultimately these are powerless in politics. Whether this speaks to a depressing reading of the human condition or rather to the cold, Machiavellian politics of the time is unclear. However, in this circumstance, the popular religious teachings of the day could not change the harrowing times of the Jacksonian era for Natives and even Slaves.

March 19, 2014

The “Golden Rule”

Thomas Jefferson “trembled” on behalf of his country when he remembers God’s just nature; he abolished the international slave trade on the first date the constitution allowed it, and all the while refused to veraciously stand against slavery (Wilentz, 114-15). Many wealthy northern politicians did exactly the same, and even many areas on the fringes of slavery condoned it as a “necessary evil,” despite not directly benefiting from it. All the while, southern plantation owners were claiming its “benevolence” and remained aggressive with the rhetoric of protecting and civilizing the slaves from their own bestial nature. Therefore, there came two forms of the “golden rule” being played out in the slavery argument, one of the plantation owners claiming benevolence, and the others of the non-slave owners who condoned the practice or did not actively fight it because those who have the gold make the rules.

There is no question slavery was extremely economically valuable and that, overall, the country benefited economically from the practice. There is similarly no doubt that, purely on an economic standard, new western states would benefit from slavery. With the addition of Maine, there was an imbalance of power that swayed towards the northern political sphere. More delegates for northern free states than southern. As Charlotte points out in her post, these political divides became more about geography and less about political philosophy, instituting a slave state gave more power to the south and vice versa. The question then becomes who the north was actually fighting for. It is convenient (and perhaps uplifting) to assume that the northern politicians were fighting for the abolition of slavery in new states when perhaps a complication of that reading could entail the northern politicians fighting for political power on the playing field of slavery with morality as the central argument.

Therefore, the Missouri Compromise was not so much a compromise on slavery, but rather on power and money. There was no compromise on slavery; slavery won. So long as slavery was still a part of the southern states and they maintained at least equal power on the senate floors, slavery was still an economic cornerstone of the south. Thus, the “Era of Bad Feelings” commenced with this unsettling notion that it was not a compromise but rather perhaps a delay of the inevitable. This ties neatly into Davis’ reading and again to Charlotte’s point that there were no innocent sides in this debate. It may have been a political one just as much as a moral one, albeit played out on a moral battleground. Underneath it all, however, was the addictive promise of wealth, cotton, and trade that was inherent with the slavery society.

February 12, 2014

Sensationalism in Salem and Misrepresenting History

Woodward’s exposition on the “Other Witch Hunt” in Hartford does a great job of expanding the commonly held belief that the Salem witch trials are the only and most important of the commonly misunderstood religious dynamic in the New England area. He argues, and quite successfully I believe, that the sensationalism around the Salem trials both through popular imagery as a previous post suggests, but also in the teaching curriculum throughout schools does a disservice to understanding the roots behind the actions of the colonists. It has become so popularized that the other examples of Witch Hunting and vigorous religious prosecution throughout the New England Colonies have become subverted by common thought. The Salem trials, Woodward argues, are a unique experience and create a misinterpretation of the beliefs, social experiences and events that created the situation for witch trials to exist.

In Hartford, there seemed to be a slight dichotomy of beliefs between the common people, the religious accusers and the governor, John Winthrop Junior. The Governor was a doctor who was in charge of adjudicating cases and also, as a doctor, the individual who determined causes for the physical symptoms which many times were blamed on Witchcraft. The judge for most of the cases, he would not allow for an accused “witch” to be put to death on these charges. He established a legal precedent for which to judge other trials and even presided over annulments or reversals of charges that were charged by veracious citizens. The Governor’s training in the sciences and the “magic” of the time (astrology and alchemy), this presents an interesting dichotomy between religion in science. It also shows that the sensationalism of the events in Salem do not always reflect the reality.

There was a “managerial skepticism” in the ruling elites with witch trials, as Woodward points out, only after a long history of eagerness to put accused witches to the gallows. It was not and did not have to be a religious fanaticism and inability to explain natural events that drove the populace into a prosecution and killing frenzy. Only much later was there any intercession, which is not necessarily relevant in the Salem trials and especially not in the popularization of witch trials in modern media and even education. There was a long history of Witch hunts that carried on similarly to Salem’s well before Salem received the reputation it did, and the singular approach of Witch Trial History and religious fanaticism on New England through the eyes of Salem alone hinders our understanding of all the forces at play which led to such an event occurring.

January 29, 2014

POTUS and the Rhetoric of Colonization

A few key quotes struck me as I was watching the State of the Union Address yesterday, and they mainly fell into the first opening minutes of his speech as President Obama seemed to employ the rhetoric of the idyllic American Colonization. It is often the same wording utilized when recounting the typical American dream, but is undoubtedly similar to the romanticized notions of the Plymouth colonies. The President first states that the similarity and bonding power of this nation is in the “simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America.” The idea of responsibility, hard work, diligence and even to an extent, patience, is the way to prosperity. If “get ahead” in the President’s statement was changed to “finding the Lord” or “be rewarded by God,” it would almost sound identical to a Puritan Philosophy during colonization. They took pride in hard work, diligence, and had faith that these facets of their lives would ultimately come with reward. This is all mirrored today by Economic Growth and the strengthening of the “working middle class,” as Kurt had mentioned in his previous post on the President’s address.

Americans want to think that today, and Obama, despite admitting the flawed nature of this dream, is attempting to rally behind that same, rhetorical cornerstone to incite unity in our nation. When asking for Congress’ action, he implores for congress to “give these hardworking, responsible Americans that chance.” It is the government’s responsibility to ensure to the best of their ability that these ideals remain true.

On a similar note, the President mentions expansion four times in his address, growth another five, and brings up the notion that “But America does not stand still, and neither will I.” When I heard this in the context of our classes so far, it does illicit this emotion of boundlessness for the United States. It feels as if the rhetorical tools used here liken that of a modern Manifest Destiny, of hope of new eras, new opportunities, and new uninhabited land (obviously a false assumption) with the first settlers in what would become the United States. Americans still want to have these stories told to them. We still want to believe that if we work hard, are diligent and are unremitting in our efforts, we have this boundless horizon with which to conquer, much like the early settlers in our nation. These are the tenants that the President hoped would bind us together as we listened to his address, the rhetoric of colonization and of a unending and unyielding possibility, even if they come from a heavily romanticized recounting of the past.

January 26, 2014

The Great Complexity of the Slave Trade

These chapters of Human Bondage are certainly eye-opening to the sheer size of the slave trade in the new world. We have already discussed the complexity with generalizing within native cultures or European colonizers, but these new interactions weave an entirely new web. In the fourth chapter Davis attempts to convey how the many European powers began to involve slavery into daily lives and constructs the argument for the inherent racist nature of slavery in Europe. He says that white Christians found it naturally wrong to enslave other white Christians, but even by simply having darker skin they are more like the “devil.” It seems that religion plays almost as key of a role in justifying slavery in these chapters as it did with subjugation and colonization of the natives in Taylor’s American Colonies. It is also overwhelming to learn how many players were in the African slave trade market, from the Portuguese to the Dutch and how many places African slaves could find landfall after their departure. The mass displacement of persons and the disproportionate amount of males could have had extreme effects on populations in Africa as well. Although Dana mentions that it was commonplace in Africa for enslavement to occur, it was undoubtedly influenced by the high demand the new world was placing on the market.

As to where slaves would find landfall, the enslavement system, labor and life seems to mimic or at least echo colonizations and some of the themes we discussed in class. If I were to generalize, colonies typically attempt to find the most economically sound product and utilize the cheapest labor. This is why many slaves in Brazil and the West Indies would be in the sugar cane industry and why eventually the American South would find cotton to be invaluable to their lifestyle. Even as far as New York slavery would be found in houses and many markets would take place to enhance the economic prowess of the colony. One thing I generally disliked about the reading and disagree with Dana’s point is the quickness with which when discussing slave history, we wish to find the definitive location where slavery was “the worst” or “the best” or where they would have picked for themselves. Slavery was an inherently evil construct and while it is obviously incredibly important to remember and discuss slave conditions in different colonies and areas of the Americas, trying to deduce or argue about who treated slavery worse for what reasons is fruitless and ultimately ties back to how the colonists could abuse and utilize them for economic gains. Davis does an incredibly good job at depicting the lives of slaves in each area of the world and how they were consistently humiliated and degraded and that, in my opinion, should be the history remembered most vividly.

January 20, 2014

Instability of Trade, Economy, and Structure

In Chapters 3 & 5 of American Colonies, Taylor focuses on New Spain and Canadian post-initial contact interactions with the native tribes and mainly focuses on the trading and economic relationships. Especially with the Spanish Empire, Taylor argues that violence and domination of the native cultures was largely the result of economic incentives by privately investing Spaniards financing conquistadors. The Spanish middle class was faced with a stagnant social and economic situation on the Iberian Peninsula, and therefore found the greatest opportunity for social mobility and economic gain was the new world. Taylor notes the most noticeable change of economic status happened with successful conquistadors. Veiled by religion, the conquistadors were simply out for economic gains.

However, Taylor notes that these immediate and violent conquests were often unsustainable. This would be the point where in order to maintain a sense of credible, long term, and sustainable economic cashflow, administrators, priests and skilled workers were required to enter into the social and economic structure of the Spanish conquests. This influx of new Europeans, mainly males, began to form the new social structure based off of race in the new world. This poses a significant problem for the Indian culture, however. As Rebecca stated in the last post, the Native social structure was not a monolith. There had already existed an extremely complicated hierarchy and tribal system well before the conquistadors made their first contacts. Treating an entire culture as a subservient entry into the new European system will ultimately be problematic and unsustainable.

The unsuitability of the new social structure and the increase of a Catholic presence augments Taylor’s argument that religion, while being the basis of conquistadors’ justification for attacking, killing, enslaving and usurping the natives, was truly an afterthought that rode the coattails of economic conquests. Only when the conquistadors failed to consistently create a market due to social disruption did priests find their way into the social scheme of the Americas and given authority. I find this argument overwhelmingly compelling.

It is strengthened further when almost an identical situation unfolds in Canada, as the French initially successful with fur trades only later provide substantial religious presence in the areas. While the violence in the north was perpetuated more by the natives and the Five Nations especially, Taylor argues that the increase in violence led to an increased demand in European Weaponry, especially guns, by the natives. This demand led to the over-hunting of beaver and again, to an unsustainable economy.

This does seem slightly simplistic, but as an Economics major, I enjoy understanding the effects simple economic transactions can have on overall populations, and it seems that through both of these geographic areas religion was used as an economic tool rather than a moral or religious one. In order to rectify the deep harm the European conquests had on both civilizations, religion was brought in to rectify it. Not for religious purposes itself, but rather for an assurance of stable social structure for long term economic prosperity.