kuvidmer – American History to 1877

April 23, 2014

John Brown: Good or Bad?

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

In chapter 24 of Wilentz, further analyses the contradicting views of the North and South in terms of Slavery. The pro-slavery southern Democrats, and the strongly emerging anti-slavery Republican party in the North held their ground as to the path that was best fit for the future of America. As the abolition movement grew stronger, and the Southern states felt more and more threatened, the possibility of secession and a civil war become very imminent.

Wilentz outlines the conflict between the abolitionists and the Southern Democrats very clearly, and the made a point of recognizing how abolitions “confronted anew their dedication to nonviolence”(421). This effort was made a response to Bleeding Kansas. Yet many abolitionists refused to accept this dedication, and were committed to bringing an end to slavery by force. Wilentz describes the actions and consequences of the colorful figure of John Brown and his attempt to bring abolition by way of slave revolution.

Once again, Wilentz did a very good job in this chapter of providing information beyond what is commonly known and taught in American history classes. When Wilentz described the planning that went into his raid on Harpers Ferry was very interesting. I always assumed that John Brown just marched into Virginia and attacked the first thing that he saw. However, Wilentz discusses that a year of planning went into their planned attack of the southern slave holders, and that he planned to do various hit and run attacks across the south. i especially found interesting how Wilentz mentions how Brown spoke to free slaves in Canada. This really caught my eye as an example of how Brown sought to do adequate research in perpetration for his attack.

Ironically, even though Brown attempted to take the proper time and prepare for his invasion of the south, Wilentz points out how Brown “had made no previous contact with those neighboring slaves to prepare them; he had planned no escape route out of Harpers Ferry”(423). Brown lacked some simple but major details, that in large part doomed his abolition attempt. His entire plan was based around the slaves joining his revolution, yet he did not make prior contact with these slaves to gauge their interest.

Although his revolution was quickly put down and he was due to hang, Wilentz also points out how he still benefitted the cause while behind bars. He spoke about how he was content giving blood to free the slaves and rid the country of this horrible injustice. While Wilentz acknowledges Browns mistakes and overly extreme tactics, he humanizes him by expressing Browns relationship to God, and his intentions to do right. This could play into the slight Northern bias of Wilentz that my classmate points out in “The Powder Keg of the Civil War”, but I like to think that Brown did what he did with good intentions at heart, and genuinely cared about well being and justice of the enslaved people.

April 16, 2014

Battle for Compromise and Exiting Leaders

Chapter 21 of Wilentz was my favorite Chapter of “The Rise of American Democracy” yet. This specific period in time is one that I feel often gets brushed under the rug in a sense. While in every American history class there is bound to be some teachings of the Civil War, Wilentz describes specifically the true causes that lead the civil war, and the steps that the Government took to attempt to prevent the secession of the South. This chapter also brings names that are familiar to me in a more clear light with historical analysis.

As my classmate pointed out in “The Compromise of 1850. Did it Work?”, upon the conclusion of the Mexican-American War several key issues faced our country. The most apparent ones were the admittance of California, New Mexico, and Utah into the Union as states. There were numerous differentiating opinions on the correct way to go about doing this. As described in Wilentz, President Taylor wished to quickly admit California and New Mexico into the Union as free states, as he did not foresee slavery taking root in those regions. This obviously upset the pro-slavery factions who viewed this as a attack and complete destruction of the Missouri Compromise, which would lead to a permanent imbalance between the free and slave states. Henry Clay on the other hand drafted an eight step plan to have compromise between the two sides, and he worked to ratify this bill in Congress. Wilentz says of this, “Superficially, Clays compromise slightly favored the South”(344), but then goes onto to describe how the important decisions about the territories favor the North.

I found it very interesting how Wilentz describes the battles in relation to all of these contrasting views. There are all three sides that Wilentz tags with leaders: Calhoun as staunch pro slavery Southerner, Clay/Webster as seekers of compromise, and Seward as the clear Abolitionist. Having these leaders for the differing views made it very easy to follow and put the political battles in perspective. It somewhat reminds me of today, as our congress has many struggles agreeing on particular subjects. The battle for Healthcare is not all that much different than this battle in terms of different parties and people fighting for different opinions on an issue.

I also really liked how Wilentz described the role of Douglas after Clay’s version of the bill had failed. It was very interesting to see how his strategy to pass small parts of the bill at a time would prove to be effective for temporary compromise. It was also interesting to see Douglas as an actual political figure. All of my previous exposure to him is simply as the other person in the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. Being able to see a different side of him was very rewarding.

Also, in relation to William Seward, knowing that he would eventually be Lincoln’s Secretary of State, it made me wonder if a reason the South was so quick to succeed after Lincoln was elected was because he aligned himself with abolitionists like Seward.

April 2, 2014

A Region Divided by Party

Andrew Jackson was initially appeared to be the answer to the Souths prayers, as he was a pro-slavery, pro-Indian removal, pro-power to the people candidate from a farm in Tennessee. However, while President he began enacting policy that demonstrated a powerful executive branch, shown by his effort to establish and maintain a national bank. These actions caused many Southerners to jump off of the Jackson bandwagon, and the formation of the Southern Whig party began to take root in the South.

Jackson ran on a platform that he would be a man of the people, and as stated in Taylor, Jacksons fundamental question was, “Shall the government or the people rule?”(Wilentz, 160). This enabled most of the south to rally behind him, as they believed he was truly a man of the people. His actions in the white house however upset many of his previous supporters,believing he was becoming too powerful as an executive leader. This is described in my classmates post “Jackson:Bankers,Abolitionists, and Unions”, when they speak of previous JAckson supporters seeing the Bank War as a lust for power. Wilentz explains in Chapter 14 how many previous Jacksonian Democrats were attracted to Southern Whiggery, described by Wilentz as “a party of commercial development, friendly to the expansion of commercial banking facilities, partial to internal improvements, and pro-tariff”(Wilentz, 224). This sparked interest from the large planter classes, slaveholders, professional classes, rural Appalachian workers. These classes wanted the power to be possessed more by the larger business and plantation owners, more so than the Executive Government.

While this rift sparked separation over ideals in relation to power, both the Jacksonian Democrats and the SOuthern Whigs were proslavery, and worked to keep the non-slaveholders on board with slavery, in an effort to put a rest to abolitionist movements. It is interesting how Wilentz speaks about the rival parties fighting for southern support when he says, ” turning election contests into endless debates over which party was more loyal to the south”(Wilentz, 225).

Wilentz does a very good job of describing the reasoning behind the loss of majority Democratic support in the south. I liked how he spoke of the issues roots, and the feeling that JAckson had become too power hungry. I do wish that Wilentz would have spoken more about the leaders in the Whig party. While he does reference Calhoun as being a leader in Jackson opposition, he does point out how that he never did join the Whig Party. The only other leader Discussed in Davy Crockett, who switched allegiance from the Democrats to the Whigs. I have a feeling that Wilentz is a big fan of Davy Crockett, as he uses him as a segue into his description of the Battle for Texas, and speaks of him quite favorably as a political figure and frontiersmen.

This Chapter gave very good insight on how the South became a divided political region.

February 19, 2014

Democracy Comes to America

The first chapter of Wilentz gave a basic outline of the process in which democracy came about in post revolution America. He starts out speaking of the basic form of democratic meetings taking place, paying particular attention to the groups that met in the Philadelphia area. He speaks of the Continental Congress, as well as the Pennsylvania Provincial Conference and the Pennsylvania Convention. Benjamin Franklin was an elected member of all three of these conferences, displaying how people of influence were elected to take charge of these initial meetings of Democracy. This was effective in giving the reader a basic understanding of how democracy quickly became a likable system in early American history.

Wilentz then went on to speak of how the Constitution was eventually crafted with the different influences of people. In this section of the chapter, he did a good job making references to different situations that occurred. However, he completely lacked giving adequate detail on such topics. When looking at the problem with the Articles of Confederation, the only mention he made was “under the loosely knit Articles of Confederation, was so feeble that it had become nearly impossible to conduct a foreign policy”(12). Yes that was true, but there were many other issues that the articles contained that played an even larger role than this. For example, the articles did have the power to tax. This crippled Americas economy because we had a significant war debt from the Revolution and had no way to bring money in to help counteract this debt. Also, there was no intra state currency established. So money in North Carolina would be different than the money in Pennsylvania. This greatly inhibited intra state communication and cooperation. This caused the states to act as 13 individual entities, and not as one nation. This clearly demonstrated how a confederacy model did not work in America, with the basis of state governments having more power than the national.

Off of that, he did explain how the constitution came into effect after the Articles did eventually fail. Yet he failed to mention the new constitution was intended to be a federalist model, in which the states and the federal government have the same amount of power. He did make mention of federalist 51, yet a more in depth depiction of these documents would have been nice, as these documents my Madison, Hamilton, and Jay significantly outlined the intention for the government, in hopes of winning over public support for the constitution. I also would have liked him to go into more detail about the struggle for the Bill of Rights. As my classmate pointed out in “Democracy and Slavery”, the rural yeoman and farmers wanted to make sure their fundamental rights were not in jeopardy. The Bill of Rights would pass, which he pointed out, but it was a long process that I would have preferred him to go more into more detail on.

Overall, this chapter lacked sufficient information about a pivotal point in our history.

February 16, 2014

War in the Colonies

In chapter 18, Taylor explores the different relationships and conflicts that occurred in the colonies throughout the early to mid 1700’s. He makes a clear outline of the different groups and coalitions that existed in the new world, including the French, Spanish, English and Indians. In his outline, he expresses the various wants and needs that the different groups seek, and how the race for control led to overall conflict. However, the most intriguing argument that Taylor makes his how the conflicts during the colonial period influenced the future quest for colonial independence.

Taylor briefly describes the events and impacts of the Seven Years War between the English and the French and numerous Indian tribes. He explains how the war erupted when Robert Dinwiddie “tried to oust the French from the forks of the Ohio”(428). He further explains how Washington originally suffered an embarrassing defeat outside of Fort Duquesne, and then how he returns to fame after leading a retreat once General Braddock’s unit was ambushed. He closes out his description of the War upon speaking of the Battle for Quebec in open field. Even though he does describe these major events, this war played an extremely vital role int he shaping of the colonial landscape. I thought that Taylor focussed too little on the context of these different situations. For example, when Taylor spoke of William Pitt, he gave almost no background information on his prior experience or role in society. Even though he spoke clearly about his style of leadership, I still do not a firm grasp of where this man came from or what happened to him post war. As Taylor moved through the Seven YEars War quickly while touching on main events, I believe that he left out many important details and I still do not feel as if I have a firm grasp on the specifics of the War.

Taylor does int he end describe the impact that the war had on the colonist. Like my classmate pointed out in “Imperial Wars and Crisis”, the Seven Years War ignited the fire of independence from the colonies. Taylor accurately points out how the colonists saw first hand that they can make a significant difference, and have the power to achieve goals through military force. I do however wish that Taylor would haven spoken about how Britain essentially trained the army that eventually would fight against them in Revolution. But besides from that, Taylor did a very good job of explaining how the different taxes and tariff’s on the colonists in effort to pay off the war debt lead to a revolutionary atmosphere in America.

Although I would have liked Taylor to be more specific about the details of the Seven Years War, he does adequately discuss the different groups involved and their role throughout the conflict. He also does a good job in his description of the post war colonies. Overall this chapter makes good context of the implications these events had on the shaping of America.

February 12, 2014

Religious Awakening in the Colonies

Current day thoughts about religious motivation in the colonies can be far from the truth. When most students learn early on about the pilgrims, the mayflower, and thanksgiving, they automatically view the pilgrims as a group who came to escape religious persecution and develop a place where everyone was free to worship as they please. However, Taylor describes that this is not the case with most colonial settlers. As Taylor states “Not all colonists had felt persecuted at home, and few wanted to live in a society that tolerated a plurality of religions”(339). The early colonists did not practice the freedom of religion as it is known today, and this lead to spiritual divide between differing regions of the colonies. This divide also went deeper to inter-faith divide, with the the New Lights and the Old Lights differing on the correct ways to practice religion. This divides played a large role in the events known as the The Great Awakening.

Taylor paints a clear picture of the different types of religious beliefs throughout the colonies. He makes this clear by giving the number of churches each specific religion has and the region it is in. Although the church numbers were high, as were the attendance rates, Taylor explains that in many places Church was drifting from place a deep worship to a more social gathering. That along with the emergence rationalists, who Taylor describes as people who “instead found guidance in the science that depicted nature as orderly and predictable operation of fundamental and discernible laws”(344), made the reality that strong christian faith was a thing of the past.

This set the stage for key revivalists to bring the fundamental core of Christian beliefs back to the people of the Colonies. This all started with Reverend Jonathan Edwards, who was taught deep religious ideals by his Grandfather Solomon Stoddard. Edward set out on a tour and preached to thousands of how people and churches must get back to their strong fundamental faith. This effort by him sparked the great awakening and inspired the “most extensive and synchronized set of revivals in colonial experience”(346). His work also inspired Whitefield to come across the Atlantic from England and make a nation wide tour, enthusiastically preaching his message of deep religious faith and the work of God, further contributing to the Great Awakening.

As one of my classmates points out in “Religious Revival in the American Colonies” the main divide of the old lights vs. new lights serves as the main conflict throughout the Great Awakening. While the old lights preferred carefully planned out sermons and scriptures, the new lights preached spontaneously and emotionally to demonstrate the holy spirit inside them.

Taylor clearly portrays the events and feeling feeling throughout the Great Awakening. He speaks of specific examples and people who played a key role in the process. My main critique would be for him to go into more detail on the overall effects that the Great Awakening had on the Colonists.

January 29, 2014

2014: A Year of Action

President Obama delivered a high energy and patriotic State of the Union address Tuesday night. This speech worked to both highlight the progress that has been made throughout his administration, as well as to bring attention to issues he intends to act upon. While the president paid tribute to American accomplishments in the past, such as wounded Army Ranger Corey Remsburg, he maintained the message that 2014 will be a year of political action to increase jobs, create equality for all, and improve wealth inequality. Although these issues have current day prevalence, many of these issues can be traced back to the colonial period of America.

President Obama spoke multiple times about the middle class and the quest to accomplish the American Dream. But the American Dream that the President speaks of is not much different than the one of the European colonizers. In the context of President Obama, the American Dream is for people to work hard, make a good living, and support a great family in an area where they are happy to live free. He also believes this dream consists of small business owners who strive to turn their hometown store into a thriving business that will lead to wealth and create more jobs. Although it sounds very distant from the American Dream of the Europeans who first came America, the backbone of this dream is the same. Particularly with the English colonists at Jamestown, their dream was to come to America to acquire wealth from gold mining and exploiting the raw materials that America had to offer. This coincides with the current day dream of becoming a successful entrepreneur. With the puritans who made up the plymouth colonies, their American Dream was to find a place where they could work hard, raise a family, and escape religious persecution so they could worship as they pleased. Even though centuries divide the America of today and Colonial America, the over arching dream and vision has not changed for what people seek to accomplish in this great country. In addition to making this dream for citizens come true, the President there must be more equal distribution of wealth, to strengthen the middle class. This can relate to the Colonies achieving their own American Dream instead of the ones that the King/Queen wanted.

Another issue that came up was the equality for women’s wages in the workforce. The President stated that it is embarrassing that women today average only 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. One of my classmates wrote in “English Colonization in the New World”, that in the English colonies, women were seen as more equal to men. This may be true, but the President highlighted that full economic equality has still not been reached and that is unacceptable.

Although the President made it very clear that 2014 will be a year of political action, The state of the Union Address made it very evident that the past America has shaped the current.