olrosen – American History to 1877

April 16, 2014

The Fugitive Slave Law: Root of the Civil War

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 21: Political Truce, Uneasy Consequences of Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the implications of the acquisition of new American territory on America’s political parties, specifically with regard to the growing disconnect between the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North. In general, I find Wilentz’s writing style to be difficult to follow and a little bland; however, Chapter 21 held my attention and introduced historical arguments that I had not heard of before. Wilentz dedicated a large portion the chapter to analysis of the Fugitive Slave Law. Contrary to many historical arguments that cite the Fugitive Slave Law as a debate between humanitarianism and the constitutionality of slaves as property, Wilentz argues that the law was simply a medium through which the North and South tested each other and the limits of their federal authority. He writes that, “[i]n reality the point of the law had never been to recapture slaves but to test the North’s sincerity over the truce of 1850” (352). Just 5% of runaway slaves were captured under the Act between 1850 and 1851, seemingly undermining the enormous national outcry that resulted from its passage.

I agree with Kurt’s blog post that articulates the significance of the pre-Civil War Period as imperative to study of the Civil War, itself. He argues that many history courses focus heavily on the Civil War (the battles, generals, etc.) without analyzing the roots of the conflict. In Chapter 21, Wilentz not only discusses the causes of the Civil War, but also presents his argument in an effective and attention-holding manner. For instance, I had never heard of the Craft Affair—a shooting that a Pennsylvania newspaper announced as “The First Blow Struck” of the Civil War. These relatively minor squirmishes signal the buildup of pro-slavery and anti-slavery sentiments, and underscore the eventual secession of Southern states and the creation of the Confederacy. Thus, Chapter 21 was both entertaining and crucial to our course’s later study of the Civil War.

April 6, 2014

The Connection Between Women’s Rights and Abolition

In “Chapter 20: War, Slavery, and the American 1848” of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz briefly discusses the roots of the women’s rights movement and its connection to abolitionism. The Seneca Convention, which was held in July 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, was the first major American convention devoted to women’s suffrage. Led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Stanton, the Seneca Convention issued a declaration that affirmed that “all men and women are created equal”—an alteration to the original United States’ Declaration of Independence. Wilentz argues that the Seneca Convention was not merely concerned with women’s suffrage, but was an extension of the growing anti-slavery contingency. According to Wilentz, the Seneca Convention was “a logical extension of the fight for liberty, equality, and independence being waged by the antislavery forces” (334). While I agree with Wilentz’s assessment that a definitive relationship existed between the struggle for women’s rights and abolition, he failed to acknowledge how this association negatively impacted the short-term successes of the women’s rights movement.

When the Civil War erupted, the leading women’s rights’ activists decided to put the anti-slavery movement to the forefront, in hopes that the abolition of slavery would pave the way for women’s suffrage to occur shortly thereafter. The women believed that dedication to the Northern, anti-slavery cause would draw attention to the necessity for constitutional equality on the basis of race and gender. Unfortunately, the end of the Civil War did not introduce increased attention to women’s rights—the 14^th Amendment uses the word “male” three times in its definition of citizenship, thus exemplifying Congress’s dedication to a male-dominated social and political hierarchy in America.

While my classmates have not yet commented on chapters 17-20 of Wilentz, Kurt noted in his blog post from last Thursday that Wilentz does an effective job identifying the roots behind the loss of Democratic support in the South. In regard to the foundations of the women’s rights movement, I agree with Kurt that Wilentz introduces the subject to his readers in an effective way, as he links different historical issues into the greater context of American history. Similar to Kurt’s critique that Wilentz left out necessary details to strengthen his argument concerning the leadership dynamics within the Whig party, I wish he had discussed the implications of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery on women’s rights. Specifically, I think it is very interesting that the leaders of the women’s rights movement split into two separate factions during Reconstruction. Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Suffrage Association, and racist references dominated the rhetoric of their cause. In contrast, Lucy Stone’s American Suffrage Association supported the 15^th Amendment and did not consider black suffrage a threat to the eventual success of gender equality. While I recognize that the women’s rights movement was not central to Wilentz’s argument, I believe that the interesting dynamics between the two movements should have been addressed in greater detail.

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.

March 26, 2014

The Indian Removal: A Cultural Genocide

In “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native,” Patrick Wolfe argues that genocide and the elimination of the American Native population through colonial settlement are inextricably linked, though are not always the same. Wolfe cites numerous examples in the article, such as the Holocaust and the creation of the Israeli state, but predominately structures his argument around the Indian Removal of the 1830s. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, Indian tribes located in the Southeast United States were forcibly removed from their homes and ordered to relocate to the West, where federal territory was available for Indian reservations. Wolfe points out, however, that the removal was not mandatory—Indians could remain in the Southeast if they completely assimilated into American society and abandoned their tribal identities. Indians who assimilated into the white, American ideal were subject to a sort of genocide, because retaining their property was dependent upon the loss of their “Indigenous soul[s]” (Wolfe 397).

While I agree with Wolfe that the Indian Removal approached a genocide, I consider the term “cultural genocide” to be a more appropriate term for understanding the historical event and its implications. Indians who remained in the Southeast were not mass-murdered; therefore it would be unfair to label the Indian Removal as genocide equivalent to the Holocaust, in which six million Jews lost their lives. The forced annihilation of Native culture, however, must not be ignored as insignificant, justifiable, and forgivable. Therefore, I must completely disagree with one of my colleague’s blog posts, “Not Genocide.” My colleague argued that the Indian Removal was probably “a necessary evil,” for which white Americans could not have understood “the impact any of their actions would have on the future.” It is true that we cannot consider the Indian Removal from a modern-day context in which prejudices against Native peoples are politically incorrect. This does not mean, however, that the forced removal of Natives, which resulted in a loss of culture and a loss of lives, was a necessary and justifiable evil. The Indian Removal was just evil. Further, I do not believe that white Americans would have even cared to consider “the impact any of their actions would have on the future.” The people who forced Indians to flee their homes at gunpoint, would not have worried about the long-term implications of their actions. In actuality, these people wholeheartedly believed in Natives’ inferiority, and the only Natives who were not subject to removal were forced to reject their Indian identities. Thus, the Indian Removal was a cultural genocide, and its terribleness should not be undermined in historical study.

Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8, no. 4 (December 2006): 387-409.

February 19, 2014

The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?

In Chapter 7: “The Problem of Slavery in the Revolution” of Inhuman Bondage, David Brion Davis adds a new dimension to how Americans understand the American Revolution. Davis analyzes the Revolution through the lens of the institutionalization of slavery in America, arguing that enslaved Africans were acutely conscious of the hypocrisy that the colonists’ rebellion presented with respect to their own enslavement. Slaves recognized colonists’ battle for liberty from the British as evidence of slavery’s injustice, and used the American Revolution as a platform to encourage and attain freedom.

The colonists, however, considered the enslavement of Africans to be a necessary facet of the American economy. While colonists’ opinions regarding slavery differed along regional lines, the Founding Fathers recognized that targeting the slave system would marginalize the South at a time when the unification of America was crucial to its survival. Thomas characterizes Northern concessions to slavery as an essential compromise of democracy, which “manifested itself in the form of Northern ‘protection’ of Southern slavery in order to protect unity.” This system of compromise perpetuated the institutionalization of slavery. Although it is not wise to read history backwards, we know that the “compromise for democracy” was limited. The annexation of new territories in the mid-1800s reintroduced slavery to the forefront of political discussion, eventually escalating into the Civil War.

In addition to our U.S History course, I am enrolled in the 300-level history course, Civil War and Reconstruction. This course has sparked my interest in studying the development of slavery in America and identifying the point when Civil War was inevitable (if it ever was). I believe that the constitutional arguments regarding slavery, particularly slaves as property, shaped the slavery debate and served as a justification for Southern states’ secession and Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery. Davis’s reading corroborated my claim, as he outlined how both the British and colonists manipulated the slave’s status as property to benefit their respective causes. Specifically, both sides contemplated the use of slaves as soldiers in the war. The Continental Congress enlisted and armed 3,000 slaves from South Carolina and Georgia under the pretext that the British army would utilize the slaves if they did not. The slaves were considered property of their slave-owners, and the Congress feared that seizing property would undermine the rule of law and cause dissention among slave-owners (Davis, 148).

The arming of slaves during the American Revolution mirrors the Civil War, in which thousands of fugitive slaves escaped into Union territory seeking freedom. This brought the question of slaves as property to a head. If slaves were indeed considered property under the Constitution, then it was imperative that the Union returned slaves to their rightful owners. Since the South was a “belligerent nation,” many Unionists argued that Southern slaveholders’ constitutional rights as American citizens were void, and their slaves should not be returned. Similar to the fears of colonists during the Revolutionary War, Unionists recognized that returning slaves would ultimately aid the Confederate’s war effort, as slaves would be used for the Confederate cause. General Benjamin Butler named fugitive slaves to be “contrabands of war,” who would remain in the Union so as not to benefit the Confederates. In order to legitimize Butler’s action, Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861, which ordered that “confiscated” slaves were not to be returned to their owners but had to participate in the Union war effort. Again concerned with the notion of slaves as property, President Lincoln clarified that slaves from border-states were exempt from the Confiscation Act, recognizing that marginalizing the border states would impel them to join the Confederacy. The similarities between the use of slaves in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, particularly with respect to slaves as property, illustrates the political complexity of slavery in America. The Revolutionary War had enormous influence on the institutionalization of American slavery, and as a result, in-depth study of the war is necessary to understand the causes of the Civil War.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

**Information also taken from Dr. Sally McMillen’s lectures in History 346: Civil War and Reconstruction.

February 16, 2014

The American Revolution: An Ironic Conception of “Independence”

In Chapter 18: “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75,” Taylor outlines the Seven Years War and discusses the ways in which the conflict led to the Revolutionary War. As my specific interest area in history does not pertain to war, I appreciated that the brevity with which Taylor discusses the actual war and its battles. The majority of the chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the global and territorial implications of the war, in addition to an explanation of the colonies’ political, social, and economic climate that incited the American Revolution. Contrary to my high-school history courses, Taylor offers a complex template of the Revolution’s causes. He asserts that the conflict was not simply a disagreement in governance and taxation, but derived from a fundamental difference between Britain and the colonies’ socio-economic structures. This, in turn, facilitated the creation of a collective American mentality that clashed with the British way of life.

Taylor attributes the colonists’ preoccupation with and perception of “independence” as the focal point of divergence in colonial and British ideology. America’s economic structure was unique to Britain, because most white men were able to own land and had the opportunity of social mobility. Even indentured servants eventually gained their freedom, and were provided with a small plot of land as compensation for their years of servitude. As indentured servitude was replaced with enslavement of Africans, white landowners formed a middle-class that was a buffer between wealthy elites and slaves. Conversely, Britain lacked a middle-class. Its social structure was stratified between the very rich and very poor, and left virtually no opportunity for upward mobility. Thus, the concept of independence became synonymous with American society, and colonists resented any infringement on their independence by the British crown and Parliament. In Taylor’s words, “the colonists clung to independence as a precious state in a world where dependence was the norm” (441).

Matt’s blog post, however, recognizes the troubling irony that existed within colonists’ emphasis on independence and their pursuit of sovereignty from Britain—American society depended upon African bondage for survival. While Matt acknowledges the value of the American Revolution in the creation of the United States of America, he makes the important distinction that “it should not be thought of as morally righteous in nature.” Although white colonists were accorded a level of independence that was not as achievable in Britain, their prosperity was reliant upon the oppression of slaves and Natives. Oftentimes history courses glorify the American Revolution as a courageous tale of Americans’ united conquest over an imperial oppressor. This narrative fails to recognize the hypocrisy with which our nation was founded. I do not mean to undermine the Revolutions’ import and do not take for granted the sacrifice of our country’s forefathers that are responsible for my independence and good fortune. Rather, both narratives must be told in efforts to ensure that slavery is not ignored as a minor blemish on American history. Taylor does just this, and consequently, provides an effective and fascinating tale of the precursor to the American Revolution.

Taylor, Alan. American Colonies. New York: Penguin Group, 2001.

February 12, 2014

Evangelism: the Spiritual Arena for Liberty

In his blog post, “Religious Awakening in the Colonies,” Kurt points out that traditional American history classes portray the Puritans as conservative dissenters from the Church of England who fled religious persecution in England, and settled in America to seek religious tolerance. Kurt acutely acknowledges that this singular, romanticized narrative does not take into account the complexities of religion in the early American colonies. Contrary to popular belief, America was not settled as a land of religious freedom. Early colonists saw religious practice as black and white; their faith was the absolute word of God, and every other faith was wrong. Further, church and state were interconnected, and religion primarily dictated political alliances. This created a societal climate where religious groups battled for political dominance, fearing their subjugation on behalf of another group’s hegemony.

Chapter 15: “Awakenings, 1700-75” of American Colonies effectively outlines the complexities of religion in early America (as summarized above), which facilitated the spiritual revival of the eighteenth century. Taylor’s analysis exceeds other religious histories I have read, because it does not attempt to depict American religion as a straightforward, uncontroversial narrative. I especially appreciated Taylor’s attention to the denominational divide between the evangelicals and rationalists, and the demographics that characterized each sect. The evangelicals, led by Jonathon Edwards and George Whitefield, provided colonists the opportunity to have a personal, emotional relationship with God—one that was not mediated by the socially stratified institution of the Church and clergymen. Evangelicals preached that in the religious sphere, social status was not indicative of one’s ability to access God and attain salvation. Rather, any sinner who accepted his or her absolute deference to God could experience emotional conversion, and consequently, God’s grace (Taylor 345). Evangelism’s inclusive nature provided a spiritual arena for marginalized members of society to take control of their destiny, despite the political, social, and economic restraints that characterized their position in the community. Women, in particular, used evangelism to assert their personal freedom in a patriarchal, misogynistic world. Taylor affirms that “by claiming utter submission to God’s command, and by speaking his words rather than their own…women claimed a freedom from the social restraints placed upon their gender” (351). In essence, by affirming the absolute authority of God, women bypassed the institutionalized patriarchy of gender oppression, and rejected their inferiority to men. Indians and Africans also utilized evangelism as a space for control, individualism, and freedom that colonial society prohibited. It is crucial to note, though, that the liberty evangelism provided was limited to the spiritual realm. The Great Awakening did not positively impact the status of women, Africans, and Indians in the political and social order of colonial America, but merely offered a temporary recluse for individual control. Unfortunately, marginalized members of society never experienced equality in their lifetime, but clung to evangelism as the key to future salvation and freedom.

Taylor, Alan. American Colonies. New York: Penguin Group, 2001.

January 29, 2014

“Barbarians”: a Justification for Oppression

In Chapter 8: “Puritans and Indians, 1600-1700” of American Colonies, Alan Taylor addresses a series of violent conflicts that occurred between the New England Indians and the Puritans shortly after Puritans founded the Plymouth settlement. While Taylor focuses on an overview of the wars until the Indians’ defeat following King Phillip’s War in 1676, he also outlines Puritans’ justification for aggressive action against the Indians, which often included massacres of Indian women and children. Puritans, who perceived themselves as “God’s Chosen People,” considered Indians to be “savage people, who are cruel, barbarous, and treacherous.” Throughout Taylor’s text, as well as in many other academic histories I have read, white western Europeans frequently describe Indians and other non-Aryan races as “barbarous” in comparison to their own “civilized” society.

Coincidentally, just before reading Chapter 8 of Taylor, I read Walter D. Mignolo’s The Idea of Latin America for my Spanish seminar, “Latin American Culture and Literature Before 1900.” The central argument of Chapter 1: “The Americas, Christian Expansion, and Racism,” affirms that European colonizers justified their dominance over South and North American Indians by categorizing them into varying degrees of “barbarous”, thus affirming Europeans’ superiority over them. Bartolome de Las Casas, a Spanish friar who participated in the colonization of the Americas, outlined the racial inferiority spectrum, dividing “barbarians” into four distinct categories. The first form of barbarians exhibited irrationality and “a degenerate sense of justice reason, manners, and/or human generosity.” The second categorization deemed barbarians to be a group of people who lacked a written alphabet and language system mirroring Spanish’s appropriation of the Latin language. Third, barbarians did not have a formal system of law and justice as defined by the nation-state. Finally, groups of people who rejected the Christian faith were Pagans, and consequently, barbarians.

While the Puritans did not specifically utilize Las Casa’s system for barbarianism as justification for their violent oppression of the Indians, it is a useful template to understand the complex system of racialization that cemented Puritans’ sense of superiority. In her blog post, “Violent Puritans and the Not-So English Middle Colonies,” Rebecca articulates Puritans’ religious rationalization for the massacre of Indians, who “claim they are permitted to exploit others because they are in God’s favor.” Rebecca does an excellent job of explaining this vicious cycle; Puritans’ successful massacre of Indians served as Divine validation for their superiority, thus perpetuating Puritans’ belief that they were “God’s Chosen People” and Indians were Pagan barbarians. Following Las Casas classification of barbarians, Puritans primarily grouped the New England Indians under the fourth category—Pagan barbarians who rejected Christianity. Puritans, whose entire society centered around conservative Protestantism, judged Indians with respect to their religious beliefs. It is significant to recognize that other colonizers, like Spanish conquistadores, may have placed a larger emphasis on different types of barbarism in affirming their superiority over Indians. For instance, South and Central American Indians’ lack of a conventional language and alphabet system highlighted their alleged barbarity in terms civility and intellectual capabilities.

Most importantly, I believe one must recognize that Europeans did not cognitively articulate the grounds for Natives’ inferiority that justified the oppression and annihilation of Indian population. Rather, during the period of colonization, the complex system of racialization that still polarizes modern society was already cemented in the collective mindset of Europeans. Indians’ barbarity need not be articulated, it just was. In the study of American history, we must consciously acknowledge the racialization that shaped society and not ignore it as relic of antiquity, or risk being complicit in the institutionalization of racism.

Knowlton, Rebecca. “Violent Puritans and the Not-So English Middle Colonies.”

Mignolo, Walter D. The Idea of Latin America. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Taylor, Alan. American Colonies. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.