Uncategorized – Page 5 – American History to 1877

April 13, 2014

The Impact of Ethnicity

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

Barrett and Roediger bring to light the extensiveness of race’s impacts on life in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. The interwoven nature of economic, social and political segregation created an intricate social system. Work and social status were dictated more by race or nationality than merit. I found it interesting that the authors discuss that this was not simply a matter of social issues or political motivations. The system of segregation was encouraged in the workplace as well in order to stimulate productivity and competition between different ethnicities, as well as to protect native-born citizens from having to take on hard labor. This strategy depressed wages, disrupted the possibility of a cohesive laboring-class voice in politics or the workplace, and allowed for greater profit margins for businesses owners.

The hierarchy that formed from this system placed people in working conditions deemed appropriate for their ethnicity. Though slavery was outlawed, the powerful men in economics still exploited race differences. Today it seems that Americans have a difficult time conceptualizing how deep the racial divides were and how brutal the system was. Max points out in his blog post “Ask A Slave’s Critique of the American Education System,” that there was a misconception among modern Americans that slavery was comparable to modern jobs. Recently freed people of color and the working class “not-yet-white ethnics” experienced exploitation in their theoretically “free” jobs in a way far more akin to slavery than almost any modern American occupation (8). These not-fully white ethnicities and immigrants were even referred to as “our temporary negroes” (8).

I found this differentiation between “white” and foreign European very interesting because a few days ago I registered to vote and was asked to check my race. There was no separate race for Italian, Slavic, English or Irish. There was only “white.” The melting pot in this country has become so thoroughly stirred that it is extremely difficult to determine heritage except by skin color. The other interesting part of my voter registration form was “ethnicity.” The form had two options for this section: “Latino or Hispanic” or “non-Latino or Hispanic.” The comparison to such a form in late 19th century would have been stark. The importance of heritage and denomination has faded because differentiating between groups has become more and more difficult. It is impossible, however, to say that ethnicity no longer plays a role in economics, social life, or politics. The fact that ethnicity/race are still on a voter registration form means that people are still paying attention to the role that it plays in our society.

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.

April 9, 2014

Lizzie Mae

The Ask A Slave web series really had me in awe. I honestly cannot imagine that people in our present day society are actually that ignorant. Many of the questions seemed so preposterous that it seemed fake at times. In the beginning of each video, it said that all of the questions were real questions though. This makes me really wonder how so many people are so uninformed about slavery.

I really enjoyed watching these videos. They were humorous, but at the same time very sad. It made slavery seem real. So often people think of it as something in the past, and they don’t think twice about it. The sarcasm really emphasized this. Like my classmate said, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are often optimized as being noble, upstanding heroes of America. They did have slaves though, and that is overlooked. Questions regarding “Lizzie Mae’s” children really stood out to me. People who asked questions made it seem like slavery was not that bad.

Another misconception was involving the abolitionist. The general public has the opinion that abolitionists fought for an end to slavery, when it fact it was not that simple. As shown in the web video, the abolitionist had not even talked to a black person before. He also did not believe in slavery, but wanted to send the slaves back to Africa or Jamaica. He furthered this distaste by implying sexism on her. All in all, this demonstrated that not all abolitionists actually cared that much about the actual black slaves.

These videos are a way for people to see a glimpse at slavery, and how our current world perceives it. This is not just an issue of the past though. When Lizzie Mae was talking about making her own clothes, the person asking the question said she did not know who made her clothes. Lizzie Mae then replied saying that someone like her could be making those clothes. This is true, because slavery still exists today. It is sad that people are still going through that, and we are supporting it.

April 9, 2014

Ask a Slave

I, like Thomas brought up in his most recent post, saw Ask a Slave series provided moments of comedy, and simultaneously provided moments of great fear for the knowledge of the American public. The slave character she portrays, “Lizzie Mae,” gives the unique slave perspective often disregarded in the text books. She brings up important issues, such as how the idea of “good” or “generous” slave master was an oxymoron. We glowingly look back at the Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who were noble in their freeing of their slaves upon their death. She brings up how Martha Washington held onto all her slaves and how Thomas Jefferson has been known to have had relations with his female slaves. She also talks about how abolitionists were not as great as we think, often they have never interacted with African-American slaves, they were mostly in favor of sending the slaves back to Africa, and they were still very sexist.

But as Rebecca alludes to at the end of her post, this series is almost more a commentary about present day views and beliefs than a informative video on the horrors of slavery. Lizzie Mae brings up how out of touch people are and this is evident by how each video starts with a disclaimer of “names being changed to protect the guilty.” Some of the things that stood out for me was how people still buy into the missionary justification today, that the teaching of Christianity was some how a fair trade for a life of hard labor. In addition, many people asked questions about who watched their children and where did they go to school, completely oblivious to the fact that slaves families were often broken up and sold, and their children were working, leaving no need for them to be watched or educated. Also, many people believe that fleeing north and the underground railroad was not risky, and there was just a super highway and advertisements for it that saved slaves by the thousands.

The moment that had the biggest impact on me was when Lizzie Mae brought up the issue of modern day slavery. We think because we do not have a slave in our house that sews our clothes for us in the living room like George Washington, that our clothing comes from well paid workers. In reality, their are child sweat shops in China that we are still exploiting.

April 7, 2014

Misconceptions About Slavery

In the web series Ask A Slave, Azie Dungey draws upon her experience as a living history character at Mount Vernon to expose some surprising misconceptions about slavery. As Thomas explained in his post, Dungey’s sarcastic wit distinguishes this series as particularly memorable, and she takes a lighthearted approach to the often taboo—or at least somber—subject of slavery and racism in American history.

One of my favorite videos was that featuring the abolitionist, a man morally opposed to racialized slavery yet clearly uncomfortable interacting with a black person. While many of the issues Dungey exposed were rooted in modern ignorance, the abolitionist showed an important contradiction at the time of slavery. The abolitionist, although good-natured, came from a town with little to no black population. As the conversation continued, he grew more uncomfortable and felt compelled to defend “good” slaveholders like Jefferson, and he seemed shocked to hear that slaves had no desire to relocate to Africa or Jamaica. As Thomas mentioned, the conversation ended with the abolitionist conceding that Lizzie Mae raised some intelligent points…for a woman.

A shocking modern misconception that Dungey brought to light was that Lizzie Mae’s position was an honorable occupation. Obviously since this is a humorous show, she used the most ridiculous examples at her disposal, but clearly a horrifying number of people do not grasp the concept of slavery. One person asked if she found her position in a newspaper advertisement, while another man actually had the gall to ask if her job was an internship with a human resources department. People asked where she went for vacation and what she did for fun, and a few even expected her to be proud of Washington for being president. When someone commented that she must be excited to meet so many famous people, she flatly remarked, “If you’ve seen one rich white man, you’ve seen them all” (season 2, episode 1).

Even some people who had a firmer grasp on the hardships of slavery acted as if slaves had normal choices and opportunities. People asked Lizzie Mae why she didn’t go to school in Massachusetts and where her children went to school. Someone asked why she couldn’t merely escape through the Underground Railroad. Clearly, some people failed to understand exactly how oppressive slavery was, as if Lizzie Mae could easily escape her situation with a little bit of effort and self-education.

I really enjoyed the web series for its humor and shock value, both of which I’m sure were intentional. I sincerely hope the majority of Americans know better than the views portrayed in these videos, since Dungey probably selected the worst questions she could remember. She did, however, effectively expose some embarrassing ignorance, regardless of how far that ignorance extends. Even though I didn’t suffer from illusions that Washington’s slaves held honored and happy positions, these videos still changed the way I think about slavery. I think anyone could benefit from seeing Dungey’s videos, especially given her talent and charisma as an actress.

April 7, 2014

The Rise of American Democracy: Chapter 17

In Chapter 17 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses primarily on discussing parties. In particular, he details carefully the “big” names that associated themselves with the Whigs and the Democrats, and discusses how these people influenced the early American party system, as well as early American politics in general.

Wilentz gives a fair amount of attention to the surprising ascendency of John Tyler to President of the United States. This makes sense, as Tyler’s presidency threw the political system into confusion and turmoil. Tyler ran with Harrison under the banner of the Whig Party, yet it soon became clear after Tyler gained the Presidency that he had no qualms with resisting popular Whig policy.

Tyler quickly fell into dispute with Henry Clay, previously a political ally, over the re-chartering of the national bank. A personal war soon broke out between them. When it became apparent that Tyler would not support a national bank, much like President Jackson, Henry Clay cut all ties with Tyler and isolated him entirely from the Whig party. This type of political squabbling is a theme throughout this chapter of The Rise of American Democracy. Wilentz does a good job of describing the cutthroat elements of American politics at this time. He notes all the scheming, strategizing, and manipulation of early American politicians in great detail, and the reader leaves with a real sense of how cruel and ferocious early American politics could be.

Particular interesting to me was Wilentz’s description of the Dorr Warr. Dorr and his fellow reformers attempted to push through a new constitution with the use of a state convention in Rhode Island. Angered, the conservative government already in power began to arrest Dorrite leaders. Violence ensued between the two parties, and the episode culminated with the arrest of Dorr. Legally, this incident is fascinating because it tested whether the majority in a state had a right to overthrow the government as stated by the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that Dorr and his supporters had no right to attempt a revolution.

This chapter, while not focused on the abolition movement, does highlight some progress in the department of racial equality. As mentioned by the authors of the blog posts The Connection Between Women’s Rights and Abolition and Ask a Slave, during this time period abolitionists were actually making headway with regards to racial equality. We finally start to see the North developing into a hotbed for the abolition movement. Women’s rights activists begin to sympathize with African-Americans, and people in general were more open to discussing the abolition of slavery than ever before. Thus, the conservative constitution in Rhode Island during the Dorr War “enfranchised black males who met the same minimal taxpaying requirements as native-born whites.” I personally was shocked by this, because this constitution legally viewed African-Americans as having the same rights, at least with regards to voting, as whites. Here we clearly start to see an example of the decline of the pro-slavery movement in the North.

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.

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.

April 2, 2014

A Region Divided by Party

Andrew Jackson was initially appeared to be the answer to the Souths prayers, as he was a pro-slavery, pro-Indian removal, pro-power to the people candidate from a farm in Tennessee. However, while President he began enacting policy that demonstrated a powerful executive branch, shown by his effort to establish and maintain a national bank. These actions caused many Southerners to jump off of the Jackson bandwagon, and the formation of the Southern Whig party began to take root in the South.

Jackson ran on a platform that he would be a man of the people, and as stated in Taylor, Jacksons fundamental question was, “Shall the government or the people rule?”(Wilentz, 160). This enabled most of the south to rally behind him, as they believed he was truly a man of the people. His actions in the white house however upset many of his previous supporters,believing he was becoming too powerful as an executive leader. This is described in my classmates post “Jackson:Bankers,Abolitionists, and Unions”, when they speak of previous JAckson supporters seeing the Bank War as a lust for power. Wilentz explains in Chapter 14 how many previous Jacksonian Democrats were attracted to Southern Whiggery, described by Wilentz as “a party of commercial development, friendly to the expansion of commercial banking facilities, partial to internal improvements, and pro-tariff”(Wilentz, 224). This sparked interest from the large planter classes, slaveholders, professional classes, rural Appalachian workers. These classes wanted the power to be possessed more by the larger business and plantation owners, more so than the Executive Government.

While this rift sparked separation over ideals in relation to power, both the Jacksonian Democrats and the SOuthern Whigs were proslavery, and worked to keep the non-slaveholders on board with slavery, in an effort to put a rest to abolitionist movements. It is interesting how Wilentz speaks about the rival parties fighting for southern support when he says, ” turning election contests into endless debates over which party was more loyal to the south”(Wilentz, 225).

Wilentz does a very good job of describing the reasoning behind the loss of majority Democratic support in the south. I liked how he spoke of the issues roots, and the feeling that JAckson had become too power hungry. I do wish that Wilentz would have spoken more about the leaders in the Whig party. While he does reference Calhoun as being a leader in Jackson opposition, he does point out how that he never did join the Whig Party. The only other leader Discussed in Davy Crockett, who switched allegiance from the Democrats to the Whigs. I have a feeling that Wilentz is a big fan of Davy Crockett, as he uses him as a segue into his description of the Battle for Texas, and speaks of him quite favorably as a political figure and frontiersmen.

This Chapter gave very good insight on how the South became a divided political region.

March 31, 2014

“Extremism” and Abolition

Wilentz and Davis both discuss similar abolitionism themes in the north, Cincinnati and New York in particular, that helped gain traction for abolition movements. I was equally as shocked as Alex was in learning that abolitionists faced angry mobs in larger cities in New York and extreme hostility. The rhetoric of the abolitionist movement was certainly new and categorized as “extreme” for their time. Wilentz even goes as far as saying some abolitionist groups even alienated the more moderate abolitionists because of there fervor. However, this is not the only side of the slavery argument that can seem extreme.

Wilentz goes on to speak of the interesting postal service debacle that has become a point of note in the Jacksonian Presidency. When the AA-SS began to send large amounts of anti-slavery and abolitionist rhetoric in the form of mail and pamphlets in the south. Attempting to spread the new moralist and Christian ideologies fighting against the moral injustice of slavery in the United States. Angry southerners and even postmasters took part in the ransacking of post offices and public burning of the documents. Technically highly illegal, Jackson turned a relative blind eye to this situation at first and eventually attempted to institute federal censorship of the post, which would have been an incredibly extreme law. This was put down in votes and never was formalized, but the simple suggestion was somewhat extreme, as was the response against the abolitionists.

Therefore it seems there were two extreme sides that continually were increasing and eventually coming to a head. Davis in the last couple pages mentions that abolitionists were increasingly espousing violent rhetoric and condoning or even advocating violence. The Christian rhetoric of acceptance and moralist changed to an old testament violence. Demonizing the southern slaveholder, many of these groups decided to abandon the simple moral arguments, discussions, and pamphlets, realizing that much more would need to be done in order to exact any real change in the southern states. With their power being increasing with the Dread Scott case and expanding slave owning powers, they lamented but accepted that this could possibly be a cause that would lead to much bloodshed, a prophecy which would certainly become true in their own efforts and eventually culminating in the civil war.