midunbar – American History to 1877

April 9, 2014

Ask a Slave

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

I, like Thomas brought up in his most recent post, saw Ask a Slave series provided moments of comedy, and simultaneously provided moments of great fear for the knowledge of the American public. The slave character she portrays, “Lizzie Mae,” gives the unique slave perspective often disregarded in the text books. She brings up important issues, such as how the idea of “good” or “generous” slave master was an oxymoron. We glowingly look back at the Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were noble in their freeing of their slaves upon their death. She brings up how Martha Washington held onto all her slaves and how Thomas Jefferson has been known to have had relations with his female slaves. She also talks about how abolitionists were not as great as we think, often they have never interacted with African-American slaves, they were mostly in favor of sending the slaves back to Africa, and they were still very sexist.

But as Rebecca alludes to at the end of her post, this series is almost more a commentary about present day views and beliefs than a informative video on the horrors of slavery. Lizzie Mae brings up how out of touch people are and this is evident by how each video starts with a disclaimer of “names being changed to protect the guilty.” Some of the things that stood out for me was how people still buy into the missionary justification today, that the teaching of Christianity was some how a fair trade for a life of hard labor. In addition, many people asked questions about who watched their children and where did they go to school, completely oblivious to the fact that slaves families were often broken up and sold, and their children were working, leaving no need for them to be watched or educated. Also, many people believe that fleeing north and the underground railroad was not risky, and there was just a super highway and advertisements for it that saved slaves by the thousands.

The moment that had the biggest impact on me was when Lizzie Mae brought up the issue of modern day slavery. We think because we do not have a slave in our house that sews our clothes for us in the living room like George Washington, that our clothing comes from well paid workers. In reality, their are child sweat shops in China that we are still exploiting.

March 26, 2014

Indian Removal

The start of the Indian genocide really started with what we talked about in the first week of classes. We discussed how each European imperial power derived its authority in taking over land from the Americas, whether it was from religious authority like the Pope, or being the first one to map a particular area, these things justified these European countries in taking the land and removing the Indians. Like Emma touched on in her most recent post, some interesting points Wolfe brought up were how the Indians likely were not wiped out completely initially, because having alliances with them was a valuable tool in fighting other European nations, like in the 7 years war. He also brought up how countries like the United States would “buy” the land from the Indians in order to once again justify it, but in reality the Indians had no choice but to accept the offer and lose their land.

The other major point Wolfe brought up in regards to the Indians involved the 5 Civilized Tribes. He describes how they were assimilating nicely to United States culture, they had made their own plantations, they owned slaves, and they even had their own constitution, which I had never learned. Wolfe said the United States didn’t consider assimilation a possibility because that would signify permanence. That reminded me of Tuesday’s reading from Wilentz because it related to how the African Americans of the same time were also not given the possibility of assimilation, but instead were trying to be shipped back to Africa.

Wolfe’s closing argument I thought also related to the Frederick Jackson Turner piece on the demise of the frontier. With the Louisiana Purchase, this enabled the United States to kick the Indians to the West. But with the demise of the frontier, they were forced into smaller and smaller plots of land, often with many different tribes, and this was the main cause of the “cultural genocide” that Olivia mentioned in her post.

March 24, 2014

Early 1800s Politics

In Wilentz chapters 8-11 what really stood out to me, and after reading Ela’s post what seemed to stand out to her as well, was that politics in the early 1800’s was still a developing system. Officials at both the executive levels in the states and federal government were the first wave of politicians under the constitution still, and each group was testing the limits of their power and seeing how much they could control the new nation’s future. Debates seemed to be more centered on who has the power to enact certain legislation rather than the legislation itself. A clear illustration of this is John Adams fight with Georgia as president, and in general all the slave states resistance to anything Adams wanted to accomplish.

Another interesting struggle in politics was the result of the 2nd Great Awakening. This marked a time of high tensions between different denominations of Christianity, and most of this tension had to do with slavery. It brought about what the book called “moralistic politics” that would begin to change what was a rather corrupt early government. John Adams seemed very corrupt, which I hadn’t known until the Wilentz reading, like when he promised the Secretary of State job to one of his largest opponents as well as other things Rebecca has already posted in great detail. And it was explained that one of Jackson’s biggest changes when taking office was exposing this corruption and moving toward a moral presidency, although his presidency may have been inherently racist.

This racism led to the creation of slave policies like the ACS. The policy did want to free the slaves for moral reasons, but still did not see them as equals. Liberia was then created as a new country in the African homeland where the African-Americans could be free, and also that the United States would be free of African-Americans. It was a huge oversight to think that these Africans could thrive in Africa, or even wanted to return, because the slave trade had been abolished, and these Africans were now Americans. This was the most interesting part of the reading for myself, because it seems like such a radical plan an very hard to execute, but the government was still willing to go to these great lengths to not interact with Africans. It is stunning that assimilation and equality were not options at this point for most.

February 19, 2014

Democracy and Slavery

Achieving American Democracy was not as simple of a process as writing the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution. According to Wilentz there were many obstacles involving class warfare that did not make it a smooth transition. Yeoman, gentleman, merchants, and artisans, whether they are city dwellers or rural countrymen, all wanted their rights protected. To me, a key turning point was when the Berkshire Constitutionalists proposed the plan of equal representation that was not rooted in how much wealth or property you had. Another key for democracy in the reading was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which put to rest early the idea of an elected monarch for life. As Thomas stated in his post, to really bind the United States Democracy together as a nation, Shay’s Rebellion was instrumental in getting a stronger federal government planned in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

In Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I believe his point was that American Slavery lasted longer here than in other countries because they were too weak as a union to withstand abolition in the early years of the country, and as a result slavery was able to take strong roots into the culture. As Thomas also wrote, keeping slavery was a huge contradiction to the American Revolution. I agree with what Olivia stated, that white colonists wanted liberty from a British oppressor and that was the same logic the slaves followed, but they did not receive it. On of the most interesting take always for me from the Davis reading was that the 1784 Continental Congress was one vote away from outlawing slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. If that had passed I think the United States might have been better able to avoid a Civil War because it would have divided the Confederacy in a big way. Ultimately, it was the fear of a Civil War for a just born country that led to the creation of free soil and slave holding places. I also found very interesting in Olivia’s post about how it was the act of making slaves property that led to such a strong slave system.

February 12, 2014

Witchcraft in New England

I think “Witchcraft in the Anglo-American Colonies” hit the nail on the head when it stated that the meaning of the witch trials in Salem and much of New England gets lost now do to pop culture characters like the Wicked Witch of the West or Sabrina the Teenage Witch. But what the article goes on to argue is that the witch trials were an important illustration of society and its faults. Living in such close quarters, there were more property disputes and neighborhood fighting, and it was easy to win the fight if you accused your nemesis of being a witch. Also without a clear understanding of the sciences, weather and illness at inopportune times did not have a better explanation that the workings of a witch. Because if the Puritans were God’s people, then only the devil would be the one harming them.

It also illustrates gender roles in New England Society. It goes all the way back to Eve eating the forbidden fruit, during that time society thought women were more prone to making deals with the devil. And these women would admit to it more often than you would think. The punishment for admitting it was rarely death, because they still thought you were strong enough to kick the devil out, where denying it could be a sign the devil has taken over. Women would also admit it because they honestly thought they were a witch, confusing there everyday sin with the devil’s work.

Walter Woodward’s article makes the point of how this problem wasn’t isolated to Salem, but a New England Problem. Witchcraft was deeply entrenched in the culture, and the ministers and magistrates in power were believers. For instance, Governor John Winthrop led his own witch trials in Connecticut. There were also the natives who practiced witchcraft, and had a strong belief in spells and curses. However the natives did not have a gender bias when it came to witchcraft, which I thought was an interesting societal difference that I did not really expect.

As Kurt points out in his post, this kind of crazy fundamentalism made people disillusioned with sects like Puritanism and led to more religious toleration and the “Great Awakening Movement.” I also agree with Thomas, that the use of things like witchcraft were ways to keep the current power structure in line, and keep the ministers and magistrates at the top of the hierarchy.

January 29, 2014

New England and the Middle Colonies

Taylor took an in-depth look in chapter nine at the Puritan New England colony. What was especially interesting to me was his contrasting of English and Indian culture. There were critical differences between the two, such as the more nomadic Indian life as compared to an English settlement and also the differing gender roles of each. It was cultural misunderstandings that precipitated the clashes like the Pequot War and King Philip’s War, although greed I am sure played a large role. The Puritans thought they were superior, and the benefits of the New World were a gift to them by God himself. The idea of Praying Towns seemed to have ulterior motives, where on one hand they were trying to settle and eventually convert groups of natives, they were also boxing them in and taking land for themselves, which does not seem as noble.

As mentioned in an earlier blog post, I too was also very interested in the history of New Netherlands for the same reason of never having covered it in depth. It seemed like a lucrative port that was not constrained by religious and missionary efforts, and from the first part of the chapter I was questioning why I was not speaking Dutch right now, because it seemed like a complete success. But as the chapter would explain, Netherlands was almost a victim of its own success back home. There were not enough settlers willing to leave Netherlands, which left them thin in New Netherlands and susceptible to Indian attacks.

However they did leave a model for the English to follow by showing them how important and prosperous it was to control the seas. England came up with the Navigation Acts, which solidified their control of the colonies oceans, as well as encouraged more ships to be built. Without the Dutch precedent, the English may have taken more time to develop their sea presence and other colonial powers may have became more of a threat.

This reading did not really address how slavery played a role in the founding of these middle to northern colonies, which is in stark contrast from last classes readings and the blog posts that addressed them. I think it was alright for Taylor to omit this information because it was more of a “minor” issue for these colonies, and most people reading this book would already have a base of knowledge to know that slavery is happening. Taylor continued his pattern of a more Eurocentric take on colonial history.