mtgore – American History to 1877

April 29, 2014

The Accuracies in “The Confederate States of America”

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

Much like the Ask A Slave series, it is very clear that the Confederate States of America was also produced partially for its entertainment and comedic values. This “mockumentary” plays up the stereotype of the South as being a wholly racist region of the country, and depicts the way our country would have turned out today had the Confederacy won the Civil War. Despite its partly humorous intention, one aspect of the film that was particularly shocking to me was the series of commercials for extremely racist products that were advertised. While some of the products were simply made up, the end credits of the film note that some of the more racist ones had actual historical origins, giving their inclusion an overall sense of meaning.

An example of such a product that was advertised in the film was for Gold Dust Washing Powder, a cleaning aid sold in the United States from the 1880s to the 1930s. In the film, the product was advertised with two African American babies coming through and cleaning a household. Additionally, the commercial’s narrator used phrases like, “Are you a slave to housework? Let the Gold Dust twins emancipate you from the burdens of cleaning.” The implied image of two African American children coming to clean your house is an overt example of the racism inherent in the advertisement. Additionally, the use of the words “slave” and “emancipate” suggest a further connection between the product and the institution of slavery.

While I was initially appalled by advertisements like this one, I was even more shocked to learn at the end of the film that “both black children and whites in blackface were cast as Goldie and Dustie in popular Gold Dust Washing Powder advertisements.” The inclusion of these facts at the end of the film serve to justify the ridiculous claims the film makes about life in the U.S. after a Confederate victory. Moreover, it shows that we should not think of the Civil War as the end of racism and prejudice in the U.S., as these advertisements exhibit the many forms of discrimination that have endured over time. Additionally, as Emma highlighted in her blog post, the film notes some of the other historical accuracies of the Confederacy’s post Civil War plans. One example of these was the idea to expand the Confederacy’s influence into the Caribbean and South America to create a tropical empire to fuel the South’s plantation-based economy. The racist advertisements and historically accurate plans for the Confederacy’s victory suggest that despite some of the film’s ridiculous claims, it is a valuable narrative in that it brings to light some important facts about the Civil War era and complicates the history that many Americans take for granted.

April 22, 2014

The Civil War’s More Immediate Causes

While past readings of The Rise of American Democracy have shed light on some of the long-term causes of the Civil War, in chapters 23-25, Wilentz gives us the war’s more immediate political origins. As Emma alludes to in her post, Lincoln lost the 1858 Illinois senate election to his political rival, Democrat Stephen Douglas. Although Wilentz highlights many events as contributing factors to the Civil War, he states that the most influential of these events was Lincoln’s 1858 loss to Douglas.

Central to each candidate’s campaign was what came to be know as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, a series of seven debates held throughout the state which gave the public a chance to see firsthand what each man stood for. Wilentz notes that Douglas’s campaign was ultimately centered on the idea that an individual territory should have the right to decide whether it shall be a free or slave state. Contrasting this stance, Lincoln ran his campaign on the idea that at its most basic form, slavery should be viewed as an issue of morality. In quoting one of his speeches, Wilentz notes Lincoln’s distinction between freedom and slavery, “The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings…It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’”(417). Despite losing the election based on the Electoral College’s tally, Lincoln won the election’s popular vote, exhibiting that his framing the issue of slavery as an ethical one resonated with the people of Illinois.

Wilentz goes on to say that even with Lincoln’s loss, the Republican Party outside of Illinois was victorious during the 1858 elections (419). He asserts that the ground made up by the Republican Party in 1858 created favorable conditions for Lincoln’s campaign for the presidency two years later. Ultimately, Lincoln shaped slavery as an issue of morals, a belief that garnered his party political influence and created a defined campaign platform for his presidential candidacy. Whether he was willing to admit it or not, Wilentz shows how Lincoln’s strategy surrounding slavery was the tipping point that eventually pitted the North and the South against each other once and for all.

April 12, 2014

Ask A Slave’s Critique of the American Education System

The Ask A Slave web series offers a humorous yet eye-opening look into how present day Americans view the institution of slavery. In addition to highlighting the ignorance of those asking questions, the series suggests that their completely misconstrued assumptions and queries also reflect poorly on the way slavery is taught. Furthermore, the equally uninformed people asking these questions demonstrate how myths about slavery have lasted over time and that more attention is needed in correcting these problematic misconceptions.

As Rebecca alluded to in her post, one misconstruction that a character had was that Lizzie Mae’s position as a slave was one that she applied for and that it had its own Human Resources department. While this character’s question shows a lack of general historical knowledge as well, it ultimately undermines the hardships that slaves had to face by equating their struggles to a job in present-day corporate America. A similar connection between slavery and employment is wrongfully made towards the end of Episode five in Season one as a young woman asks if slavery is as hard as her job at Forever 21, which she claims is “like slavery.” This comparison is completely inappropriate as it collates the brutal treatment of slaves to a job, which gives monetary compensation and other benefits in exchange for an employee’s work. Both of these examples exhibit primarily how misguided some Americans are regarding the history of slavery. Additionally, these examples indicate a flaw in the manner in which people are educated relating to slavery in this country.

While Ask A Slave is an inherently funny web series due Azie Dungey’s acting prowess and the absurdity of the questions asked, it is important that the work’s overall message does not get lost in that humor. The piece displays the Americans’ generally misinformed position on slavery, but it also begs the viewer to ask how people would ever conjure up such ridiculous questions. While I believe that Americans certainly do have a responsibility to be informed about their country’s history, part of the blame should be put on the nation’s primary, and in some cases secondary, schooling that tends to hide our blemishes and promote our successes. Ask A Slave is therefore an example of the consequences that can arise as a result of Americans being misinformed on an important historical issue.

February 19, 2014

Early Division Between the North and South

The opening chapter in Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln offers a description of the general state of the colonies in the 1770s. Throughout the chapter, Wilentz establishes his central argument that as a result of the Revolutionary War, Americans became enthralled with the idea of democracy. In particular, patriotism and democracy, two influential ideals that emerged during the Revolutionary War, inspired many people of middle class status to become involved in the political process. Wilentz notes that, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and each other” (11). Wilentz goes on to categorize one example of this newfound middleclass political involve as being Shays Rebellion of 1786. In response to overbearing financial policies imposed on middle class workers, Daniel Shays led a group of similar working-class people to revolt and interfere with the local court system. While this example displayed the unregulated nature of democracy, Shays ability to create a formidable uprising at the grassroots level clearly shows the impact that even working class people had during this time.

While colonial political power extended to the common white man and wasn’t left solely to aristocrats, there certainly existed a divide between the northern and southern colonies. As Olivia highlights in her blog post entitled “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” the rift between the two sides was clearly attributed to slavery. As we discussed in class yesterday, however, it is possible that other factors may have been at play during early colonial independence that formulated the division between the two regions. Although southern delegates eventually were allowed to continue slavery under the education, a source of division between the two sides could also be attributed to the Revolutionary War’s key events occurring primarily in the north. For example, while Wilientz highlights the increased democratic processes that began to take shape in everyday colonial life after the Revolutionary War in the north, similar events in the south were not recounted. While there most likely are examples of the increased sentiments of democracy seen in the south as well, the lack of evidence in Wilentz’s text begs the question as to whether a grassroots uprising like Shays Rebellion would have had the same effect in the south. If not, one could make the argument that the ideals of democracy did not permeate as deeply in southern colonies as they did in the north which, in addition to their varying opinions of slavery, would further divide the two sides.

February 15, 2014

Colonial Origins of the American Dream

Chronicling the French, English and Indian conflicts that arose in the mid-eighteenth century, Taylor’s Chapter 18, “Imperial Wars and Crisis” clearly explains the origins of the colonies’ desire for independence. Taylor also notes that with the British’s victory over France in the Seven Years War and the subsequent downfall of the North American Indians, the colonies became united under England’s central rule (421). Although we have seen examples of early American ideals forming in the colonies since their origins, it can be argued that the American Dream was truly born out of England’s increasingly repressive colonial rule observed in the aftermath of the Seven Years War.

Through his discussion of colonial life in the mid eighteenth century, Taylor’s main point of comparison lies in his description of colonies before and after the Seven Years War. Ultimately, the greatest change that occurred in colonial America was the huge increase in British influence after the war. Taylor highlights that before the war, “The British posted only a few hundred troops in North America. In 1763, however, the crown decided to maintain ten thousand men in the colonies” (439). Accompanying England’s efforts to garrison the colonies was an increased amount of taxes that Parliament instituted in order to make up for the massive debt they had incurred as a result of the war. Despite new British influence and taxation, it wasn’t until some colonists visited their mother country that they truly realized how well off they truly were. In particular, these traveling colonists were appalled at the huge discrepancy between the rich and the poor seen in England (440). The combined effects of Britain’s heightened colonial involvement eventually led to a stark increase in the number of people who immigrated to the colonies from England (441). With the colonists growing weary of their British masters, tension began to rise as rumors of rebellion gained more and more validity.

At this point in time, when the colonists saw that the liberties they had enjoyed for so long were in danger, we can see the origins of the American Dream. While this dream has changed over the years, its current version involves, as Grey highlights in his blog post about Obama’s most recent state of the Union address, a belief that a certain work ethic and self-restraint entitles Americans to freedom and the ability to openly pursue their goals. By describing the rising sentiments of colonial resistance, Taylor asserts that colonists saw the increased British authority as a hindrance on their ability to achieve this early version of the American Dream.

Finally, Taylor’s illustration of the colonies’ changing sentiments towards their British overlords is both thorough and fair. While some texts will offer nothing but praise for the colonists beginning to part ways with a oppressive government, Taylor qualifies their intentions by stating that in doing so, they were only truly concerned with the rights of wealthy, white, property-owning men. The colonists’ aspirations for freedom therefore excluded the poor, women and minorities, notably African Americans and Indians (443). By identifying the shortcomings of the early American Dream, Taylor subtly highlights that while the colonists’ decision to seek independence from England was an important and brave one, it should not be thought of as morally righteous in nature.

February 12, 2014

Sexism in the Salem Witch Trials

As Alex highlights in his blog post regarding Mary Beth Norton’s article, “Witchcraft in the Anglo-American Colonies,” the knowledge that we have on the topic is limited to stories transferred by word of mouth, as newspapers were not yet available. Therefore, Norton identifies many differing viewpoints on the origins of witchcraft accusations in the late 1600s. These theories range from poor economic conditions to Norton’s own idea that the Salem witch phenomenon was attributed to an Indian war that occurred during the same time period.

Given the stereotype that has evolved over the years to portray witches as being female, the theory that I found most interesting was that explained by Elizabeth Reis in her Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England. Norton states that Reis’s work revolves around the question of why so many more women were accused of being witches than their male counterparts. Ultimately, she posits that the “gendered nature of Puritan religious experience” accounted for this situation, meaning that sexism and gender inequality were structurally ingrained in the Puritans’ daily lives.

To further her claim that gender bias was a leading factor in many of the Salem witch trials, Norton cites an argument made by Carol Karlsen in her book, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. Norton notes that the witches described by Karlsen, “Seem to be early protofeminists or at least women who did not act in conventionally feminine ways.” By identifying a large group of people accused of being witches as women who defied their traditional roles, Karlsen asserts that sexism was apart of the Puritan colonies. While there were most likely more than one cause for the Salem witch trials, Norton’s summarization of two arguments pointing to the Puritans’ gender prejudice shows that their views regarding the role of women likely played a central role in explaining why more women were accused of being witches than men. Furthermore, the Puritan sexism that created a link between women and accused witches helps to explain the historical causes for today’s conventional image of the female witch.

February 8, 2014

Early Forms of Racism in the Chesapeake Colonies

While disease, access to clean sustenance and Indian interactions certainly played a role in the Chesapeake colonies’ vitality, Taylor stresses that the production of and English demand for tobacco was the most important determinant of the region’s overall success. With the incredible amount of labor necessary for the production of tobacco and the relatively high costs of enslaving Africans in the mid-seventeenth century, wealthy Chesapeake colonists relied on indentured servants to tend to their land. Theses servants were initially drawn to the Chesapeake area due to “unemployment and hunger in England combined with the pull of Virginia opportunity” (142). Taylor notes further that both the prices of tobacco and the economic conditions in England greatly affected the emigration of indentured servants to the Chesapeake colonies throughout the seventeenth century.

Based on the economics of the Chesapeake colonies, and tobacco production being central to its overall success, the opportunities given to indentured servants varied between periods of relative prosperity and financial hardship. As Thomas alludes to in his most recent blog post, however, by 1700 there was a clear gap in economic opportunity between Virginia’s rich and poor, as a very small percentage of wealthy white families controlled a majority of the area’s land. Despite this distinct economic division among whites in the Chesapeake colonies, they were unified socially as the eventual influx of African slaves led to the beginnings of racism and an overall sentiment of racial superiority shared by whites.

Although Taylor observes that racism was not initially noticed in the Chesapeake colonies, he clearly highlights how the increased number of slaves in the area led to legislative changes that ultimately encouraged racism and facilitated white cohesion. An example of legally justified racism was that, “After 1691 no Virginia planter could free slaves unless he paid for their transportation beyond the colony” (156). By providing a financial incentive for owners not to free their slaves, the Chesapeake colonies further divided blacks and whites by keeping blacks enslaved for longer periods of time. Taylor highlights that legislation geared towards restricting the rights of blacks meant that, “A dark skin became synonymous with slavery, just as freedom became equated with whiteness” (157). Therefore, despite the economic inequality that existed between poor and wealthy whites in the late seventeenth century, a sense of racial superiority united all whites and immediately gave them, regardless of their financial status, an elevated position in Chesapeake’s social hierarchy.

Taylor’s description of how the economic conditions in England led the Chesapeake colonies to be based on labor provided by African slaves rather than indentured servants illustrates racism’s roots in the American colonies.