Uncategorized – Page 3 – American History to 1877

April 23, 2014

The Civil War, Part I

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

A large factor leading up to the Civil War that Wilentz discusses in the reading is the panic of 1857. This panic occurred due to the combination of vast construction and industrial development that was funded by foreign investors, sudden sell-off of American securities caused by rising interest rates, and the the expectations of western lands. All of these factors lead to a bank panic where deposits were withdrawn, loans called in, and businesses went under, causing a depression that demanded a different solution because than that of 1837.

This depression demanded a different solution because of the spike in population during the 40’s because of immigrants who filled in the labor-intensive jobs in large cities. Now that immigrants made up a large portion of the working class, it was harder for current American citizens to find jobs. This labor reform spreading throughout the North was headed by George Henry Evans, who basically said that a wage slave would be free if he could own a portion of land. The slogan “Vote Yourself A Farm!” encouraged movement out west where there was more available land than in the highly populated cities on the East coast. These reformations represented the foundation for an America of free and independent labor.

As Emma talks about in her blog post, the North and the South each had their opinions that their way of life and production was better, but the growing idea that free and independent labor was the way to go pressured the South even more. This pressure simply added to the other factors to make the South secede.

This was again a very interesting reading, where Wilentz described the economic aspects that had a big impact on the nation’s future, in combination with several other factors, and could link it to the North vs the South leading up to the Civil War.

April 23, 2014

John Brown: Good or Bad?

In chapter 24 of Wilentz, further analyses the contradicting views of the North and South in terms of Slavery. The pro-slavery southern Democrats, and the strongly emerging anti-slavery Republican party in the North held their ground as to the path that was best fit for the future of America. As the abolition movement grew stronger, and the Southern states felt more and more threatened, the possibility of secession and a civil war become very imminent.

Wilentz outlines the conflict between the abolitionists and the Southern Democrats very clearly, and the made a point of recognizing how abolitions “confronted anew their dedication to nonviolence”(421). This effort was made a response to Bleeding Kansas. Yet many abolitionists refused to accept this dedication, and were committed to bringing an end to slavery by force. Wilentz describes the actions and consequences of the colorful figure of John Brown and his attempt to bring abolition by way of slave revolution.

Once again, Wilentz did a very good job in this chapter of providing information beyond what is commonly known and taught in American history classes. When Wilentz described the planning that went into his raid on Harpers Ferry was very interesting. I always assumed that John Brown just marched into Virginia and attacked the first thing that he saw. However, Wilentz discusses that a year of planning went into their planned attack of the southern slave holders, and that he planned to do various hit and run attacks across the south. i especially found interesting how Wilentz mentions how Brown spoke to free slaves in Canada. This really caught my eye as an example of how Brown sought to do adequate research in perpetration for his attack.

Ironically, even though Brown attempted to take the proper time and prepare for his invasion of the south, Wilentz points out how Brown “had made no previous contact with those neighboring slaves to prepare them; he had planned no escape route out of Harpers Ferry”(423). Brown lacked some simple but major details, that in large part doomed his abolition attempt. His entire plan was based around the slaves joining his revolution, yet he did not make prior contact with these slaves to gauge their interest.

Although his revolution was quickly put down and he was due to hang, Wilentz also points out how he still benefitted the cause while behind bars. He spoke about how he was content giving blood to free the slaves and rid the country of this horrible injustice. While Wilentz acknowledges Browns mistakes and overly extreme tactics, he humanizes him by expressing Browns relationship to God, and his intentions to do right. This could play into the slight Northern bias of Wilentz that my classmate points out in “The Powder Keg of the Civil War”, but I like to think that Brown did what he did with good intentions at heart, and genuinely cared about well being and justice of the enslaved people.

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 22, 2014

The South Gaining Support

The South saw Lincoln’s presidency as the end of their freedom. By the south I mean the slaveholding aristocracy that would lose its power if slavery was abolished. Since they were in control of politics and held all the power for the south, they basically were the south. But as we know from books such as The Impending Crisis by Hinton Helper, the south was not so unified behind this aristocracy. In order to gain support the aristocracy had to make a unified cause so that people would rally behind them.

I thought it was interesting how this book by Helper showed just how non-unified the south was before the aristocracy was able to gain the support of the common man. Helper complains that the slaveholders take advantage of the common man in any way that they can. An example being that public education was denied to save money on taxes. The book was written only a few years before the succession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. Somehow the aristocracy was able to unify people like Helper to fight for them even when they were severely mistreated.

Wilentz talks about how the aristocracy was able to make the common white man seem equal to the elite. They had to be given a common enemy and that enemy became the North, for the actions against American citizens. To do this they had to convince everyone that slaves should not be treated as people. That was not a very hard thing to do since they had been living with the idea that slaves were no better than animals for generations. Most of these people however did not own slaves, so I don’t know why so many would feel so strongly about defending slavery. For most common men, no longer having slaves would not hinder their work ability.

Most men want to feel superior to something, to fuel this notion could gain much support for the south. The southern aristocrats had to ban the men together by showing that white men are superior to black men and the north was trying to take that right away from them. The men were used to protect slavery for the aristocracy. And once Lincoln took office the south could succeed because the majority of people at the time did not want their rights taken away by the North. This was something that could not be compromised. Though they tried as Costello said, the compromises were not effective. There is no compromising when someone believes you will strip them of rights they deem inalienable.

April 22, 2014

The Powder Keg of the Civil War

Chapters 23-25 in The Rise of American Democracy summarize what is happening in America right before the Civil War. Like my classmate said, Wilenz focuses on the political aspects leading up to the war instead of the battles themselves. This is very different than anything I have learned, because I did not know all of the specific details. I just thought that the South wanted slavery, and the North did not, but it actually was a lot more complicated than that.

During this time, many attempts at compromise were made, but none were effective. One big controversial topic during this time frame was the Dred Scott decision. He was a slave who traveled to a free territory, so he thought he should be free. It was decided that he was not a citizen, and he was not free. This decision escalated the sectional tensions throughout the United States. Wilenz says, “For antislavery northerners, the decision proved that the entire branch of the federal government had fallen into the Slave Power’s clutches.” (397) In Kansas, fighting between pro-slavery and antislavery people broke out, causing mayhem. Also, there was a financial panic in the late summer and fall of 1957 caused by “a vast expansion of industrial development and railroad construction, heavily funded by foreign investors, was followed by a sudden sell-off of American securities abroad driven by rising interest rates, which depressed the value of American stocks and bonds.” (402) Also at this time, many immigrants were flooded into America, and they were treated very poorly because they were poor and Catholic.

One important aspect throughout all of this was sectionalism. Some many different events created a huge divided in the United States, which I believe leaded to the Civil War. Each side thought their way of life was more successful, and Wilenz definitely supports that throughout these chapters. “On certain essentials, most slaveholders could agree: slavery created an economy, society, and polity superior to the crass and cutthroat North.” (409)

Lincoln was also introduced in these chapters. It is interesting to me how he lost to Douglas in the Senate race, but would end up beating him for the presidency. He disliked slavery, and when he was elected president, the South took action. They began to secede, and quickly. Buchanan said “that secession over Lincoln’ selection was conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” (444)

As I read these chapters, I could not help but detect some bias regarding the North as morally correct. Wilenz seemed to make the South seem like the bad guy, and the North seem like the good guy. This said, Wilenz also speaks highly of Lincoln. I don’t recall him ever saying anything negative about him. Even though I do agree with this viewpoint, I think Wilenz should have made it more impartial.

April 16, 2014

Great Britain’s Impact on the Politics of Slavery in the United States

In the fourteenth chapter of Inhuman Bondage, David Brion Davis examines the impact Great Britain had on the politics of slavery in the United States, a topic often bypassed by most historians. Noting the South’s political dominance from 1789 to 1861 and the “pathetically weak and politically ineffective” abolitionism of the 1830s and 1840s, Davis goes to great lengths to explain how the United States’ monarchic “mother country” influenced the constant threats of disunion from Southern officials when it came to abolitionism. According to Davis, Southerners viewed abolitionism as a “British-sponsored crusade to destroy American society” and therefore was the reason for their “paranoid, disproportionate response” to Northern critics.

One of the main reasons why Southerners believed abolitionism in the United States was British-sponsored was because of the recent emancipation of slaves in British colonies – a point the author of “International Politics of Slavery” points out. Citing John C. Calhoun, Davis explains that the only way Great Britain was to remain financial superior was to eliminate its rival slave societies. Numerous influential Americans saw through Britain’s philanthropic veil however. Proslavery writers referred to Jamaica, a recently emancipated slave colony of Great Britain’s, when contending Great Britain had ulterior motives; Abel Upshur’s State Department published in 1843 that “the price of freeholds in Jamaica had declined by half; coffee and sugar production had declined by as much as 50 percent, and some large plantations were worth less than 10 percent of their preemancipation value.” Thus, it is no wonder why the South responded so hysterically to abolitionism in the decades leading up to the American Civil War. Only threats of disunion could stem what the South believed to be British-sponsored abolitionism and the consequent economic ruin.

Davis continues, explaining that as the nation came closer to civil war, the South began viewing the North as “a perfect replica of the British enemy.” Like Britain, the North was attempting to destroy their economy under a mask of “misguided humanitarianism.” Secession appeared to be the only act that could save the South’s economy. Overall, Davis does an excellent job of illuminating an often-unmentioned cause of the American Civil War. Great Britain did indeed play its part in the deadliest conflict in American history.

April 16, 2014

The Path Towards War

In chapter 21 and chapter 22 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes the political events leading up to the American Civil War. Like the blog posts written by my classmates, Wilentz focuses on the almost unwritten part of American history leading up to the war that I had not heard of before these chapters. Instead of focusing on the battles and major events leading up to the Civil War that we learn in American history classes, Wilentz discusses the territorial and political battles in Congress that separated pro-Slavery southerners from anti-Slavery northerners.

The warrant for William and Ellen Craft was an especially interesting event that I had never heard of before. Acting under the Fugitive Slave Law, two slave catchers traveled to Boston to catch and return William and Ellen Craft, but when Boston abolitionists heard of their journey, they helped the couple hid and escape to Great Britain. The abolitionist’s actions enraged southern slave-owners and President Fillmore, but it also shows the dividing factor between the two sides. The Fugitive Slave Law, which was put into place as part of a compromise, did not feel like a compromise to Northern abolitionists. This example shows the ever-progressing tensions between the two factions of American people.

Wilentz continues this trend into the following chapter, accurately titled The Truce Collapses. Continuing with the theme of the collapse of the Union into the Civil War, Wilentz ends this chapter by introducing the Dred Scott Supreme Court case, which is a major catalyst of the beginning of the Civil War.

April 16, 2014

Growing Disunion

In Chapter 21 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the disputes in the US over the admission and control of western territories (California, Texas, New Mexico) largely in regards to slavery. The disputes can be summed up into North vs. South. When President Taylor presented his plan for admitting California, and soon after New Mexico, many southerners further projected thoughts of secession from the Union. Henry Clay then stepped in to quiet the outraged southerners with his set of resolutions: admission of California and the rest of Mexico’s given up land with no restrictions on the subject of slavery, the next basically preventing a pro-slave state coming out of Texas, another attempting to resolve the fight over slavery in DC by proposing the abolition of slave trade, not slavery itself in DC, and lastly denying congressional authority over the interstate slave trade with more strict federal laws in the recovery of fugitive slaves to offset the personal liberty laws put in action by the north. Reasonably, the resolutions did favor the South slightly, and I say reasonably because if they didn’t, then the South would have no reason to comply.

Later, the conclusion was reached, disregarding which deal was chosen, that if California was admitted into the Union as a free state, the southern states would be under the power of the north. Because of the many compromises and of new land by the North, the South was drastically falling behind in how much control it had in the future of the nation. In Thomas’ post, he talks about the effects of the Compromise of 1850 and also the controversy caused by the Fugitive slave law. Basically the compromise of 1850 was a delay because at the rate that the North and South were dividing and playing against each other in controlling new land out west and fighting for or against slavery, the Union was bound to separate. The North had begun taking any advantage it had over the south to remain in control, and the South, in response to that, began talk about seceding to use as leverage for many pro-slavery laws. Thus, leading to the Civil war in the near future.

Overall it was a very interesting reading; I enjoyed Wilentz’s depiction of both sides of the arguments made by the North and the South. It really gave me a grasp of the larger picture of what was going on at the time.

April 16, 2014

The Fugitive Slave Law: Root of the Civil War

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 16, 2014

Battle for Compromise and Exiting Leaders

Chapter 21 of Wilentz was my favorite Chapter of “The Rise of American Democracy” yet. This specific period in time is one that I feel often gets brushed under the rug in a sense. While in every American history class there is bound to be some teachings of the Civil War, Wilentz describes specifically the true causes that lead the civil war, and the steps that the Government took to attempt to prevent the secession of the South. This chapter also brings names that are familiar to me in a more clear light with historical analysis.

As my classmate pointed out in “The Compromise of 1850. Did it Work?”, upon the conclusion of the Mexican-American War several key issues faced our country. The most apparent ones were the admittance of California, New Mexico, and Utah into the Union as states. There were numerous differentiating opinions on the correct way to go about doing this. As described in Wilentz, President Taylor wished to quickly admit California and New Mexico into the Union as free states, as he did not foresee slavery taking root in those regions. This obviously upset the pro-slavery factions who viewed this as a attack and complete destruction of the Missouri Compromise, which would lead to a permanent imbalance between the free and slave states. Henry Clay on the other hand drafted an eight step plan to have compromise between the two sides, and he worked to ratify this bill in Congress. Wilentz says of this, “Superficially, Clays compromise slightly favored the South”(344), but then goes onto to describe how the important decisions about the territories favor the North.

I found it very interesting how Wilentz describes the battles in relation to all of these contrasting views. There are all three sides that Wilentz tags with leaders: Calhoun as staunch pro slavery Southerner, Clay/Webster as seekers of compromise, and Seward as the clear Abolitionist. Having these leaders for the differing views made it very easy to follow and put the political battles in perspective. It somewhat reminds me of today, as our congress has many struggles agreeing on particular subjects. The battle for Healthcare is not all that much different than this battle in terms of different parties and people fighting for different opinions on an issue.

I also really liked how Wilentz described the role of Douglas after Clay’s version of the bill had failed. It was very interesting to see how his strategy to pass small parts of the bill at a time would prove to be effective for temporary compromise. It was also interesting to see Douglas as an actual political figure. All of my previous exposure to him is simply as the other person in the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. Being able to see a different side of him was very rewarding.

Also, in relation to William Seward, knowing that he would eventually be Lincoln’s Secretary of State, it made me wonder if a reason the South was so quick to succeed after Lincoln was elected was because he aligned himself with abolitionists like Seward.