shgilbert – American History to 1877

April 28, 2014

Southern Resilience

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

While no side of a war wants to concede defeat, the Confederacy seemed particularly resistant to a Union victory, especially towards the end of the war. Though we have been taught of the importance of slavery to Southern livelihood, Davis in Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage further explores Southern dependence on slavery. He emphasizes that “few wars in human history have led to such a radical outcome as the liberation of some four million slaves” (Davis 298). He quantifies that the modern comparison of the South losing slavery would be the United States’ GNP falling by “an estimated $9.75 trillion” (298). Even the North expressed concern that Southern defeat “would spark European intervention in order to protect the crucial supply of cotton” (314). As noted in “Great Britain’s Impact on the Politics of Slavery in the United States,” the South observed the effect of slave emancipation in Jamaica, which severely diminished the country’s production of valuable crops. With this background in mind, it becomes clear why the South pragmatically fought for slavery; without it, their economy would fail.

The do-or-die mentality of Southern leaders altered the Civil War. President Lincoln recognized Southern dependence on slavery, and he even lamented that “if all early power given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]” (306). This observation necessitated the Union approach Southern defeat with caution. Likewise, the South exhausted all resources in attempt to emerge victorious. The Confederacy lost over 260,000 soldiers, which “represented 18 to 20 percent of the Confederate states’ white adult male population” (300). More importantly, the South significantly expanded the powers of its central government. Davis observes, “In both North and South the central governments assumed unprecedented powers, typified by the military draft, which was first inaugurated by the South” (301). The Confederacy viewed the loss of resources and change in governmental power as necessary by the Confederacy in an attempt to win the Civil War-a war that they knew would have vast ramifications on their economy and life.

April 14, 2014

The Power of Ask a Slave

Azie Dungey’s webseries Ask a Slave exemplifies the power of satire in addressing reprehensible history. She even incorporates critical voices—in the second episode of the second season—that tell her she cannot joke about something as immoral as slavery. This inclusion of criticism, and the series as a whole, reminds me of two Quentin Tarantino movies: Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. In the former, Tarantino examines a special American force that fights Nazi forces in France; in the latter, he displays the vengeful rampage of a former slave. Both movies, respectively, confront perhaps the two greatest travesties in recent history: the holocaust and slavery. However, Tarantino approaches these events from the perspective of satire. In Inglourious Basterds, he shows that the Americans successfully kill Hitler in a movie theater; in Django Unchained, he incorporates several items that would not have been invented for decades. Tarantino intentionally makes his movies partially false and absurd because it allows the audience to digest a very flawed and equally absurd history. Indeed, it may be the only way to discuss these issues without losing the audience.

Likewise, Dungey bases her show on a preposterous notion—a slave of George Washington who can talk with modern Americans. She furthers the absurdity with her introductory banjo music and animation, which is complete with a wink from her smiling face. Dungey incorporates these aspects into her show because it is easier to reach her audience through this medium. She then proceeds to discuss several deplorable aspects of slavery, but presents them in a humorous manner. A guest jokes that Jefferson’s slaves are treated well because he has sex with them; Lizzie Mae spits out an (admittedly funny) flurry of expletives in response to the notion that “slavery isn’t that bad” after all; and she even flips a guest off. The character of Lizzie Mae confronts ridiculous assumptions of slavery with clever, humorous retorts that never fail to make me laugh. While these represent but a few of her jokes, they collectively indicate the severity and sensitivity of the subject matter at hand. Moreover, she addresses the treatment of Indians when her guest “Red Jacket” visits the show. He discloses that he enjoys burnt corn soup because it commemorates the burning of Indian people and cornfields. He furthers that he got an enormous medal in exchange for his people’s land. Dungey’s decision to address Indian suffrage furthers the idea that she is indeed trying to educate people, but in a different way than a documentary or textbook would.

By discussing these issues in a satirical manner, Dungey effectively reaches her audience. Instead of portraying the serious and very real travesties that slaves endured, she jokes about them in a talk-show forum. As “Ask A Slave’s Critique of the American Education System” pointed out, we lack accurate understandings of slavery because of our decision to not educate all children about the dark side of our history. Dungey very much recognizes this problem. In one episode, she talks to children and even changes her introductory text from “protect the guilty” to “protect the innocent.” In this way, she acknowledges that these kids are victims of the system, and that the only way to reform education might be through the power of satire.

March 17, 2014

Politics, Politics, and Politics

Chapter 5 in The Rise of American Democracy is abundant with political issues. Wilentz discusses several different aspects of this time period, but they all converge on the fact that political troubles become highly volatile and interconnected. This observation seems particularly evident throughout his discussion of Clay, Calhoun, and Randolph (70). Indeed, domestic political struggles served as a catalyst for the War of 1812 because of the conflict between the parties based on differing ideologies. Moreover, Wilentz provides a commentary on the reelection of Madison, and he specifically observes that Madison won by a slight margin. This close election further indicates the political strife of the time. Additionally, Wilentz notes that “a continuing political and spiritual revival among the displaced western Indian tribes” served as the “second key domestic factor in leading America to war” (71). Again, the political interests of the United States motivated them to engage in war with Britain. The reasoning here was that the potential “renewal of British-Indian alliances” would have posed an insurmountable force for the Americans to face (73). Thus the federal government sought to avoid future tensions with these combined powers.

Apart from the macro analysis of partisanship, Wilentz discusses the rise of certain individuals, namely two future U.S. presidents. We are first introduced to William Henry Harrison when he was “the governor of Indian Territory” (72). Later on when in conflict with Indian forces, “Harrison made a decisive strike against Prophetstown” (74). Secondly, Andrew Jackson becomes crucial in this time period, especially because he was “barely known to the citizenry before the war” (81). Wilentz comments on the many political and social factors that contributed to Jackson’s rapid and widespread popularity. In particular, Jackson enjoyed several war successes, including a “crushing military victory in two major battles with the Indians” (85). I find it fascinating that both of these future U.S. presidents are important in the War of 1812. These individuals arguably garnered enough political support from their past military participation to win the presidency.

The work of Harrison and Jackson contributed to the eventual American victory, which gave Madison a “treaty and crushing military victory” (87). In “The War of 1812 and Western Expansion,” my classmate discusses how the War of 1812 essentially rendered the Federalists obsolete. This observation finds its roots in Wilentz, who comments on the effect of the war on domestic politics. This cause and effect of the military struggle brings this post to the end of its full circle: the war escalated from political problems, produced political figures, and ultimately changed the domestic political dynamics.

February 19, 2014

The Role of Slaves before the American Revolution

For the first time all semester, it seems that two of our readings differ greatly with one another. Wilentz, as noted in “American History from a Canadian Perspective,” focuses primarily on the struggle of colonists to achieve an established democracy. Wilentz notes that slavery was a concern at constitutional conventions—particularly during discussion of a three-fifths clause—but his analysis stopped there. In contrast, Davis writes his chapter with an emphasis on the role of slaves. He starts with pointing out this contradiction: “though slaves throughout history had yearned for their own liberation…the American rhetoric and ideology of freedom brought a wholly new perspective to blacks whose ears—and whose understanding of contradictions—were at least as sensitive as those of their masters” (Davis 144). Davis also points to historical recounts, including a quote from a historian who argued, “Americans began haphazardly but with detectable acceleration to legislate Negroes into an ever-shrinking corner of the American community” (Davis 145). He also acknowledges the growing petitions from slaves to establish their own liberation.

Interestingly, Davis discusses the then-common dissent of slavery throughout the colonies. However, some colonists saw the inscription of slaves to be fundamental to their “freedom.” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “if we do not make use of them [the slaves] in this way, the enemy probably will…an essential part of the plan is to give them freedom with their muskets” (Davis 148). Davis foreshadows a conflict of the civil war—the argument over slavery—manifesting itself in the days before the American Revolution. He highlights that as soon as 1777, northern colonies were already outlawing slavery. Lastly, he notes, “today we can see that such fears [of African Americans] were based on a profound but unacknowledged racism that made the white fear of black crime and economic dependence almost universal” (Davis 153). Davis concludes by noting, “the very idea of slavery is a fiction or fraud, since liberty and equality are fundamental rights that no one can legitimately lose” (Davis 156).

I appreciate Davis’s discussion of the role of slaves (and slavery) in the colonies. As the aforementioned post highlights, Wilentz portrays the “romantic” version of the build-up to the American Revolution. Davis instead examines the apparent contradiction between colonists’ liberalization and slaves’ entrapment, which is an observation not present enough in contemporary American history.

February 17, 2014

The Indians’ Role before the American Revolution

Throughout chapter 18, Taylor discusses several different aspects of this short time period leading up to the American Revolution. While one could explore any one of the differing narratives, it seems that the one of the most appealing—and one that has often been left out of the “romantic” tale of American independence—is the role of the native peoples. As articulated in “The Changing Role of the Indians,” the conflicts between European powers often directly affected the Indians (for better or worse). Just as both Taylor and the aforementioned post note, the Indians were a respectable foe, and for this reason, all other groups attempted to “win” over their allegiance. An English trader observed in 1755, “the importance of the Indians is now generally known and understand. A Doubt remains not, that the prosperity of our Colonies on the Continent will stand or fall with our Interest and favour among them” (Taylor 424). This statement cannot be over emphasized because it indicates that (at one point) the French considered the Indians to be the sole key to their own success. In fact, even the governor-general of New England believed, “the Iroquois are more to be feared than the English colonies” (426). Taylor’s effective use of observations from the time period gives us insight into the then-typical opinions of the people. Clearly, as the quotes imply, the might of the Indians (especially that of the Iroquois Nation) was respected and feared.

Taylor goes on to observe that the native peoples benefited from a balance of power between the French and British because it “kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (426). However, the situation soon deteriorated for the Indians. As Taylor notes, “the collapse of New France was dreadful news to the Indians of the interior. No longer could they play the French and the British off against one another to maintain their own independence, maximize their presents, and ensure trade competition” (433). The changing dynamics of power also led to the mass-killings of native peoples because “the settlers [soon] treated all Indians, regardless of allegiance, as violent brutes best exterminated” (436). Ultimately, in the midst of the precursor to the American Revolution, the Indians became inferior to colonists because the “vision of white liberty” necessitated the “systematic dispossession of native peoples” (443).

I appreciate the attention that Taylor gives to the Indians in this chapter. While we are all aware of the stereotypical absence of Indians in American history, it seems that this unjust portrayal (or lack thereof) becomes particularly true when discussing the beginning of colonial independence. However, Taylor carefully incorporates crucial details regarding the native peoples and their interactions with the European powers. In the end, all other groups unfortunately ignore the human dignity of the Indians and only use them in order to accomplish the ulterior end of control—a motive that Taylor rightfully stresses and articulates throughout the reading.

January 22, 2014

English Settlements in North America

Throughout Chapters 6 & 8, Taylor focuses on the English settlements in North America. He notes that the English crown followed the French and Spanish example of subcontracting to individual companies. The most prominent group (at least in the beginning) to undergo the exploration were a group of gentlemen known as the “West Country men,” who had previously led the English conquest of Ireland. In addition to discussing the English desire to settle in the New World, Taylor explores the domestic problems that plagued England at the time. Affected by rural displacement, increasing poverty, and mounting crime, the English citizenry were even more inclined to venture out to a new colony in Virginia. In order to overcome the citizens’ fear of dealing with natives to the land, the West Country promoters “insisted that the Indians of Virginia would welcome the English as their liberators” (122). After a failed settlement at Roanoke that started in 1585, the English colonizers found an easier time in Chesapeake Bay in 1607 thanks to the “better harbors, navigable rivers, and a more fertile land” (125). However, the settlers still (understandably-so) faced opposition from the native Powhatan Indians—named for their chief by the same name—and the tension only escalated with the settlement of Jamestown. Compounded by the fact the settlers were deceived to believe that the Indians would graciously welcome their presence, the Englishmen grew frustrated. After several raids on one another, Powhatan eventually died off (presumably from natural causes, though the book does not make this explicit) and was promptly replaced by his brother Opechancanough. Following several more attacks back and forth, the English eventually captured Opechancanough, upon which “an angry soldier shot [him] dead” (135). Moreover, “disease and war reduced the Virginia Algonquians” significantly in this time period, while the emigration from England skyrocketed (136). Although the Virginia Company found a new lucrative crop in Tobacco, it was not immediately profitable enough to prevent the impatient Crown from terminating the charter and seizing control for itself, which marks “the first royal colony in the new English empire” (136). With this newfound opportunity, the Crown instrumented the “founding” of Maryland—led by Lord Baltimore—and oversaw the settlement of a successful colony.

At least in my opinion, the most interesting story comes in Chapter 8, in which Taylor explores the Puritans’ struggle in England and subsequent settlement in New England. As noted in the post entitled “Instability of Trade, Economy, and Structure,” the possibility of newfound wealth in the New World was the main incentive for Europeans to leave their homes. In light of that post, the Puritans seem to make the first departure from this norm. The Puritans were equally motivated by religious reasons. Indeed, Taylor explains that the English Crown instituted the Church of England, which required all citizens to follow the same religion. He notes that “faced with the growing power of the king and his bishops, some despairing Puritans considered emigrating across the Atlantic to a New England.” While he warns us that “it is anachronistic for us to separate” the Purtians’ economic and religious incentives, Taylor does highlight that “purely economic motives, however, would have dispatched few people to cold, distant, and rocky New England” (167). This emphasis on a weak economic incentive underscores the religious motive that influenced the Puritans to leave England. In the “Great Migration” in the 1630s, the Massachusetts Bay Company—headed by the Puritan elites—colonized New England. The migration did, however, suffer from its own shortcomings, such as a lack of willing Puritan settlers. Founded on Puritan values, New England was not the wealthiest colony, but appeared to be the “healthiest, the most populous, and the most egalitarian in the distribution of property” (170). Within a few years, New England became both a commerce hub and a shipbuilding center in the empire. However, the Purtians’ success did not last long and their influence declined in New England. In addition to their strict membership policies, the Puritans also saw public opposition to their religious stronghold on the colony. Faced with “witches” and other public dissenters, Puritan New England soon declined. Additionally, Taylor argues that the Restoration “terminated and discredited the short lived revolutionary regime led by English Puritans” (185). Nonetheless, Taylor credits the Puritans for instilling their values into American culture, which he claims persist today.

I find it odd that Taylor puts so much emphasis on external threats to the English settlements in Chesapeake Bay and Jamestown (i.e. Indian resistance) and then focuses on the internal problems within Puritan New England. It seems that we lack sufficient knowledge regarding the internal difficulties of Jamestown and we are never exposed to the Puritan interactions with the natives. Taylor, however, still provides quality insight into the English domestic problems. Not to jump too far ahead, but Taylor does foreshadows the revolutionary war—by around 150 years—when he confronts the internal problems within England, both in economic and religious terms. He additionally discusses the Crown’s growing frustration with Puritan New England, which reminds us of what will be similar issues between the colonies and the King. This invaluable knowledge will help us eventually contextualize the plight of a disgruntled group of men who are subjected to English abuse—an association of men who will become known as our Founding Fathers.