throcca – American History to 1877

April 16, 2014

The Compromise of 1850. Did it work?

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

Chapter 21 in The Rise of American Democracy focuses primarily on the political consequences of the Mexican-American War. The issue had primarily to do with the admittance of new states, specifically California, into the union in such a fashion that would preserve the precarious senatorial balance between slave and free states. This had been a polarizing subject even since before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as Henry Clay’s 1847 address to Congress (my primary source) shows, which highlights how controversial and difficult compromise would be. Yet, thanks to the political wisdom of Clay and the energy of Stephen A. Douglass, a palatable agreement was achieved under which: California was admitted as a free state, New Mexico and Utah were to be admitted without reference to slavery, a new Fugitive Slave Law was enacted, the slave trade was abolished in Washington DC, and Texas received $15 million for relinquishing its land claims to New Mexico. As Clay notes, the Compromise of 1850 was brilliant in its scope; however, it did little but paper over entrenched divisions within American society.

Wilentz foreshadows this failure through anecdotes concerning the Fugitive Slave Law and through an explanation of the rifts that drastically altered the identity of the Democratic and Whig Party. The discussion of the Fugitive Slave Law begins with a story about William and Ellen Craft, who were fugitive slaves living in Boston. When two-slave catchers from Georgia came to apprehend the Crafts, they found an organized group of abolitionists who opposed them at every turn, eventually forcing them to return home empty handed. The abolitionists’ actions actually broke the law because a clause in the Fugitive Slave Law stated that all citizens must aid in the arrest of a runaway slave. This illustrated Northern contempt for the law, solidifying its abolitionist position while further incensing Southern “fire-eaters.” Thus, the relationship grew ever more strained.

Wilentz also points to the divisions among political parties that occurred following the Compromise of 1850 as evidence that the agreement did little to heal deep divides over slavery. As he says, “all efforts to shore up the political center eventually wound up worsening the clash between North and South” (356). The almost-collapse of the Whig Party serves as evidence to this. Alex’s post titled The Rise of American Democracy: Chapter 17 traces divisions within the Whigs to the election of President Tyler and his subsequent falling out with Henry Clay over the national bank. Yet, a decade later, the issue of the bank had fallen into obscurity in the shadow of slavery, a much bigger, more divisive demon that created factions such as the “pro-Fillmore Silver Grays, Cotton Whig Websterites, [or] the antislavery Conscience Whigs” and ensured that the Whigs lost on all fronts to the Democrats. Even they, however, were not without their troubles. As the election of 1852 showed, the southern bloc of Democrats was growing ever more powerful, undermining the stabilizing influence of Northern Democrats.

April 6, 2014

Ask A Slave

The Ask A Slave video series features Jordan Black answering questions she experienced as a living history character at the historical Mount Vernon residence of George Washington. To set the context, she wears clothes that female slaves would usually wear, plays 19^th century flute music, and sits in a simply furnished living room with a framed drawing of George Washington in the back. The trademark of the series is the humor that Lizzie Mae, her character, uses to answer the questions, invoking satire especially through sarcasm. Despite the lighthearted nature, the videos expose that ignorance and underlying racism are still very present in our society.

Jordan Black’s message comes across more clearly thanks to her decision to use questions from only white people. Of course, this reinforces the slave-time separation between whites and blacks, which further help contextualize her video. The choice also underscores that many white people are either completely ignorant or simply uneducated about slavery. No example highlights this more clearly then in one of the women’s relentless questioning of how Mrs. Washington gets her tea in the middle of the night since the slaves are sleeping. This not only shows a deep misunderstanding of a slave’s role, but also exposes the woman’s misunderstanding of slave treatment. A further, more direct commentary on present day racism occurs when a different girl asks, “do you have any white friends,” exposing the fact that our society is still inflicted with deep lying color awareness. In the context of the video, this reality is a poignant reminder that while slavery is conquered, racism is not.

Olivia’s excellent post about Wilentz’ discussion of abolition drew my attention to Jordan Black’s method of commenting on the abolition movement. Thanks to Lizzie Mae, we get a unique perspective that, at least in some ways, that brings history into the present tense, meaning that, unlike any historical book, the commentary is not marred by the influence of time. Thus, Black chooses ignores any exploration of the difficult odds that abolitionists faced, instead choosing to undermine the abolitionists’ supposed moral enlightenment. To do this, she shows the abolitionists discussing the sheer amount of black people in Virginia and how uncomfortable it makes him. The abolitionists also compliments Lizzie Mae on her good point, “even though she is a woman.” Lizzie Mae responds by saying, “one thing at a time,” alluding to the fact that she freedom was first on the agenda, equality second. Olivia discussed a similar attitude when she talked about the decision many leading women’s rights activists made “to put the anti-slavery movement to the forefront” during the Civil War.

March 16, 2014

The New Democratic-Republican Party

Our most recent reading in Wilentz explores how the American democratic experiment dealt with its first official war. Specifically, the reading focuses on how the different demands and outlooks of the American people manifested themselves in the development of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Leading up to the war, several important rifts within the Democratic-Republican Party developed based on disagreements over war with Britain and over the extent of federal power. The Old Republicans, led by John Randolph, were dedicated to minimizing federal power while maintaining good relations with the British. The city and country democrats, though supportive of minimal government by barring it from aiding internal improvement, favored conflict with Britain. In the end; however, a new generation of young Republicans pushed the other factions aside.

Derogatorily named the war haws, this faction was vehemently anti-British in sentiment. Also, under the influence of Henry Clay, they were also strong supporters of federal aid for internal improvement, and thus the broadening of federal powers. This faction of the Democratic-Republican Party drew its support from the West and South. John Caldwell Calhoun, who was another prominent leader of the war hawks, exemplifies the young Republicans who entered the political fray in the early 1800s. As part of the slaveholding elite, Calhoun’s wealth rested on his ability to trade freely and effectively. This naturally manifested itself in supporting the improvement of infrastructure as well as in taking an aggressive stance against Britain in order to undermine its domination of the seas.

The sudden emerging prominence of the wealthy elite scared many of the Old Republicans. As Kaylie points out in her recent post, the Democratic-Republican Party emerged so that the “voice of the common people” had its outlet, meaning that the rise of an aristocratic-like elite seemingly undermined the principles upon which the Party was founded. However, as Wilentz points out, the young new Republicans were far from “neo-Federalists.” Unlike Federalists, these national leaders wanted to stimulate American commerce at the cost of severing ties with Britain. More importantly, unlike the Federalists, the war hawks were able to effectively grasp political power, shaping the direction of the nation for several decades to come.

February 17, 2014

Welding Democracy

In Thursday’s reading, both Sean Wilentz, in The Rise of American Democracy, and David Brion Davis, in Inhuman Bondage, explore the discrepancy between what the ideals of the American Revolution represented and what actually occurred.

Wilentz’s argument centers on the difficulty of creating a common democracy in a country that consisted of such a varied people, geography, and economy. To simplify these complex divides, Wilentz’s considers the difference between what the city dwelling artisans and merchants considered “democracy” and what the rural yeomanry considered “democracy.” These key demographics, though internally, effectively summarize a key divide in the newborn nation based on dissimilar political conflicts. In the country, a population of mainly farmers expected their democracy to mirror the influence their land afforded them, while people in cities were happy to relegate power to an institution as long as it considered policies which encouraged economic independence and trade opportunities. As a result of this, a divided America emerged in which each state, based on its population’s identity, crafted its own political identity. The Articles of Confederation compounded such disunity because the weak government that they created failed to formalize a national identity. Spurred on by Shay’s Rebellion, American leaders called together a Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to keep their democratic experiment alive.

Here, switching to Davis’ text concerning slavery helps capture the nuances of the regional divide that dominated the Convention. This divide was still rooted in the rural/city division, but, on a national stage, it took on the added scale of dividing the nation between North and South. The main discrepancy between the two, as we know, was slavery. As both Wilentz and Davis point out, by 1787, the North had exponentially reduced its slave population thanks to both economic and moral reasons. Even the Upper South was moving in a similar direction, but the Deep South was still deeply reliant on slavery. At the center of democracy is compromise, which, at the Constitutional Convention, manifested itself in the form of Northern “protection” of Southern slavery in order to protect unity. The concessions made to slave owners were large, including things like the 3/5 clause and the 20-year delay of the slave trades outlawing, yet necessary considering that “any attempt to free Southern slaves by law would lead to civil war” (Davis 155).

February 16, 2014

Preparing for Revolution

In his post from today, Willie talks about Taylor’s efforts to develop a “general feeling of tension” in order to clarify and justify the eventual revolution. I’d like to continue exploring this theme while focusing specifically on the tensions between colonial powers and the tensions between the colonists and natives.

The first major conflict that Taylor describes is the War of Jenkins’s Ear, which later became the War of the Austrian Succession. This war originated from British efforts to undermine their French rivals by weakening Spain—their ally. Considering the Spanish empire a has-been, the English hoped to grow their colonial power through easy captures of Spanish imperial possessions; however, Spanish resistance thwarted these efforts. Soon, France entered on the side of the Spanish as European issues turned the imperial powers’ focus toward the old continent. A prime example of this is Britain’s decision to return Louisboug to the French during the peace talks to gain possessions elsewhere. Here, Taylor points out that such a “Europe-first” policy reflected the fact that the North American colonies were not yet important enough to either the French or the British to warrant a massive investment of capital and manpower.

Two decades later, in the Seven Years’ War, which is also known as the French-Indian War, imperial actions underline a massive shift in thinking, especially on the part of the British. Whereas, in the War of Austrian Succession, the British abandoned their North American imperial pursuits in favor of European and Indian spoils, in the French-Indian War, the British made North America their top priority. As Taylor points out, the British ended up paying 4 million pounds to conquer Canada, which was “more than 10 times” of what the “French spent to defend it” (432). Naturally, Britain’s large investment in North America meant that they began to pay closer attention to the colonies, especially through taxation and military presence—things that caused tensions to escalate from 1963 onwards.

Meanwhile, as the British colonies became slowly central to world affairs, tensions between Native Americans and colonists continued to escalate. During the Seven Years’ War, Britain pushed France out of colonial America, meaning that the leverage Indians previously enjoyed during negotiations and trade was gone. In essence, natives’ role in determining the balance of power disappeared, leaving them even more vulnerable to exploitation. Through Pontiac’s Rebellion of 1763, Indians tried to reestablish some sort of level ground for negotiation, but succeeded only in enflaming tensions between them and the colonists. These manifested themselves through several bloody clashes, most notably those carried out by the Paxton Boys, who ruthlessly slaughtered and burned a peaceful Indian village.

February 10, 2014

Religious Revival in the American Colonies

Thursday’s reading in Taylor covers the tensions that led to, shaped, and perpetuated the Great Awakening of the 1730s. Up until this chapter, Taylor has not given religion more than the necessary coverage, and so the first conflict he introduces—evangelists vs. rationalists—precedes the Great Awakening. Yet, the tension between those who prefer a more logical approach to religion and those who seek an emotional experience clearly translates into the main divide of the Great Awakening: the Old Lights vs. the New Lights.

Fundamentally, the New Lights, who “believed in new dispensations of divine grace,” and the Old Lights, who “defended venerable institutions and scriptural traditions,” divided on the issue of religion. However, it is important to note that such a difference was the manifestation of other important distinctions, namely wealth, influence, and age. These are not the first time we’ve seen issues divide the colonies. Recall, for example, Bacon’s Rebellion, where the disillusioned frontiersmen violently protested against the aristocratic regime of Governor Berkeley. Therefore, the Great Awakening cannot be seen as purely a religious movement, but rather as an amalgamation of religious and social tensions. Taylor should have certainly made this clearer.

This does not mean, however, that Taylor ignores the role that societal conflicts played in the Great Awakening. To show their extent, he points out that the evangelists were themselves split between moderates and radicals. While the moderates wanted to reconcile existing authority with evangelical preaching, the radicals rejected any prior establishment, choosing to focus on the individual. As Taylor says, such notions had “radical implications” for a society “that demanded a social hierarchy in which…deference” was key.

The result of such unprecedentedly large religious/social movement was both revivalism and diversification. Churches, some of which had almost twice the amount of full female members as full male members before 1740, were flooded again as people sought to hear a new, electric breed of preachers. The emotion was so high that several leaders from different branches of Christianity, from Presbyterian to Lutheran, cooperated “across denominational lines.” At the same time, differences between the North and South became more pronounced. Due to a less centralized society, worse roads, and inferior printing infrastructure, the South experienced a later and less pronounced religious revival.

In compliment to Taylor, the essays regarding witchcraft in New England help illustrate other colonial tensions that manifested themselves in religious movements. Elizabeth Reis’ essay, for example, points to the different, more stringent standard of morality that women were held to. Considering Kurt’s post about President Obama’s State of the Union, we can see that different standards for men and women are still an issue. Also, I share Kurt’s hesitation to call English colonial society more equal to women, as Reis’ essay clearly illustrates a disparity in treatment. Another interesting contrast to Taylor can be found from Walter Woodward, who asserts that the social elite was some of the most zealous instigators of emotional witch trials. Taylor, on the other hand, notes that the social elite was staunchly rationalist, detesting any possible threat to the existing power structure.

February 4, 2014

Plantations and the American Revolution

In the film Dazed and Confused, Ms. Stroud, a US history teacher, yells above the commotion of the year’s final bell, telling her students that, while“ [they’re] being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth of July brouhaha,” to remember that they’re celebrating “a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males [who] didn’t want to pay their taxes.” As our exploration of early colonial history has shown, this is an overly simplistic view of America leading up to the revolution. Still, in contexts of this week’s readings, we can see that the statement carries some merit.

The readings deal with the Southern colonies in the Chesapeake and the Carolinas, which Taylor shows to be markedly different from their northern counterparts thanks to, primarily, their economy. Whereas the northern colonies sowed the seeds for a diverse, industrialized economy, the southern colonies quickly developed a single cash-crop system. In the Chesapeake, this crop was tobacco while the Carolinas specialized in rice cultivation. The fact that Virginia’s assemblymen were paid in tobacco—150 pounds per day in session—highlights how valuable a crop like tobacco was there.

Since wealth and power were so closely tied to farming, land was the most important commodity in the Southern colonies. In the Chesapeake colonies of the early 17^th century, this was no problem as even indentured servants were promised substantial acreage as part of their “freedom dues.” However, as tobacco became ever more profitable and the influx of immigrants steadily grew, land quickly became scarce. Most indentured servants stopped receiving land upon freedom, and those that did found that the most fertile land been seized by ever larger plantations. As Taylor points out, “in Virginia’s Middlesex Country the richest 5 percent of the white families owned more than half of the property” by 1700 (157). Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676 further highlights the growing inequality in the colonies and its resulting social unrest. Similarly, the split of Carolina into North and South Carolina in 1712 resulted from the power monopoly wealthy Carolinian planters established.

The southern colonies’ economic differences also manifested themselves in the way their treatment of Indians differed from their northern counterparts. Here, we can use Yuxi’s blog post from last week, which elucidates the interaction between the New England colonies and the various northern tribes, to clarify any similarities and differences. She points out that Natives were placed in “praying towns,” in which colonists tried to “enlighten” the Indians religiously. In the South, no such large-scale efforts were done to Christianize Natives. Rather, especially in the Carolinas, planters feared that the Indians would encourage slaves to escape, and so they commercially exploited their rivalries through the gun trade. Such manipulation was also evident in the North, as Yuxi points to the way the English presence inspired King Phillip’s War, which was the “first civil war among the Indians.”