Uncategorized – Page 7 – American History to 1877

March 24, 2014

Religion: A Historic Aside to Jackson, Natives, & Slaves

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

Quick aside: There’s a great scene in Season 2 Episode 8 of House of Cards where Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is meeting with a group of American Indian Tribal Leaders. When they enter the room they notice an Andrew Jackson portrait on the wall and ask “If he’ll be joining us in the conversation.” Frank says surely not, this is a terrible oversight, takes it down, and then when the Tribe’s representatives leave he puts it back up and spends a considerable amount of time ensuring it’s not crooked. Read into that as you may.

Alright, now the real post.

Jackson held presidency in a time of great change. Another religious awakening was changing the social landscape and greatly increasing the number of American church attendees. There was somewhat of a moral uprising with Presbygationals insisting in the participation in secular leadership for upholding moral principles. Southern Evangelicals were pushing to convert enslaved people and began to enthusiastically press against slavery in some circumstances. Others were proselytizing to native populations and were able to, in their minds, “assimilate” many of the people into farming, christian communities. All this is fine and well, but in the end none of it mattered. Politics, not religion, remained the dominant force of the time even with what seems like an overwhelming majority of citizens to consider themselves Christian and the dominant theory of the time relating to moral theology, Slavery still held strongly rooted in the south and Indians remained exactly the opposite.

Jackson’s view and belief in state’s rights and the precedent set before him allowed southern states like Georgia not only to continually support the institution of slavery unhindered but also to begin annexing land held by natives in the name of states’ rights. Georgia, being the prime example, begain eagerly removing the Cherokee people and were prepared to stand up to National military force to do so. However, when the national forces were pulled back, it condoned the action of annexing and moving native lands farther and farther west. This continued until Jackson’s pro-removal policies were put into place slowly and surely, using vaguely worded laws in order to legitimately dissolve Cherokee Governments and hasten removal if necessary. This is directly related to Michael Dunbar’s post on Jackson’s supposed moralism. While it was somewhat a staple of his presidency and certainly of the religious times of the nation, I agree that it is an inherent oversight to gloss over the tragic and inherent racism that constituted a large part of his presidency and even legacy, as the House of Cards illusion can certainly suggest.

While there was a rise in moralist teachings of the church, ultimately these are powerless in politics. Whether this speaks to a depressing reading of the human condition or rather to the cold, Machiavellian politics of the time is unclear. However, in this circumstance, the popular religious teachings of the day could not change the harrowing times of the Jacksonian era for Natives and even Slaves.

March 24, 2014

Early 1800s Politics

In Wilentz chapters 8-11 what really stood out to me, and after reading Ela’s post what seemed to stand out to her as well, was that politics in the early 1800’s was still a developing system. Officials at both the executive levels in the states and federal government were the first wave of politicians under the constitution still, and each group was testing the limits of their power and seeing how much they could control the new nation’s future. Debates seemed to be more centered on who has the power to enact certain legislation rather than the legislation itself. A clear illustration of this is John Adams fight with Georgia as president, and in general all the slave states resistance to anything Adams wanted to accomplish.

Another interesting struggle in politics was the result of the 2nd Great Awakening. This marked a time of high tensions between different denominations of Christianity, and most of this tension had to do with slavery. It brought about what the book called “moralistic politics” that would begin to change what was a rather corrupt early government. John Adams seemed very corrupt, which I hadn’t known until the Wilentz reading, like when he promised the Secretary of State job to one of his largest opponents as well as other things Rebecca has already posted in great detail. And it was explained that one of Jackson’s biggest changes when taking office was exposing this corruption and moving toward a moral presidency, although his presidency may have been inherently racist.

This racism led to the creation of slave policies like the ACS. The policy did want to free the slaves for moral reasons, but still did not see them as equals. Liberia was then created as a new country in the African homeland where the African-Americans could be free, and also that the United States would be free of African-Americans. It was a huge oversight to think that these Africans could thrive in Africa, or even wanted to return, because the slave trade had been abolished, and these Africans were now Americans. This was the most interesting part of the reading for myself, because it seems like such a radical plan an very hard to execute, but the government was still willing to go to these great lengths to not interact with Africans. It is stunning that assimilation and equality were not options at this point for most.

March 24, 2014

Jackson Through Wilentz

This reading in Wilentz begins with the rise of Christianity in America, the Second Great Awakening, which is a nice lead-way into the rest of the chapters, in which Wilentz describes the importance and rise of American Democratic values. In the Second Great Awakening, any common man could be a religious and spiritual leader, regardless of family or level of education. Religion was also seen as a moral guide in politics and other areas of secular life. It is interesting that Wilentz notes that this is relatively new in American history, even though I always thought the Revolutionists and Founding Fathers founded this country on a more religious platform than Wilentz implies. It seems that from this Second Great Awakening, we still find many Christian morals and values leading American politics.

Wilentz then delves into Jackson and Adams election, and Jackson’s eventual presidency. It is interesting here to see the rise of Jackson alongside the rise of the Working Men’s Party. While I initially thought that the idea of unions and the glorification of the common working man could unite the North and the South, the election came down to a battle between uplifting the nation’s intelligence and prosperity against the suspicions of a centralized government, and how a centralized government is undemocratic. I find it interesting that both these approaches want the best for everyone, but the method in which that is approached differs.

In response to Rebecca’s approach, I find it interesting that Wilentz does, indeed, paint a positive picture of Jackson. Having little background in American history, I don’t know many other depictions of Jackson besides that which I’ve read for today’s reading. Rebecca adds many other complicated layers to the picture than Wilentz shows, which reminds me that every source is somewhat biased, regardless of having an explicit agenda. My impression from the Wilentz reading was that Jackson tried to stay close to central on many issues, which led to a lot of issues, such as the condoning of the removal of Indians, and other things that happened under his watch. However, Jackson is definitely introduced in a positive light.

I agree with Ella that there definitely seems to be a lack of defined political parties. I myself have been a bit lost in the reading as to which sect of which Party supports which cause, which I think speaks on the lack of overall national identity that Parties have, with differing voices within the same party in the North and in the South. However, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of just a single man (Jackson), as Wilentz discusses, Jackson’s win marks the complex development of American democracy through the huge turn out of white adult male suffrage seen at the election.

March 24, 2014

Andrew Jackson

Jackson’s election marked a new era of politics, one in which appealing to the population at large became crucial. Universal white male suffrage had largely prevailed, and populism swept national politics (Wilentz 164). Jackson succeeded in uniting a number of disparate groups with general calls for reform, and many others supported his campaign in the interest of defeating the unsuccessful John Quincy Adams. While the Era of Good Feelings ended a major period in American politics, the rise of Andrew Jackson signaled the beginning of another one.

The election itself in 1828 clearly indicated a huge change, as described by Wilentz. The slanderous campaign proved more personal than political, and Wilentz argued that “politically charged cultural styles” supplanted actual “political issues” (162). The Adamsites laid heavy criticism on Jackson’s wife and mother, an attack which later led Jackson to blame his wife’s death on Henry Clay. Wilentz asserted that the Adamsites aimed to portray Jackson as a “boorish, lawless, frontier lowlife” (162), although I was a little surprised that Wilentz did not give a couple more examples of the political slander taking place, given the level of detail with which he wrote. He scarcely mentioned the equally absurd attacks made on Adams, such as the fact that Adams had made the government pay for his personal billiard table and had been involved in shady affairs in Russia that likened Adams to a pimp (or so I remember from my high school history class).

Wilentz didn’t seem to quite capture the nastiness of the 1828 presidential campaign, although perhaps that was intentional, since he focused more on political issues and movements. I agree with his overall point, however, that politics had suddenly become much more personal. The Peggy Eaton conflict further highlighted this. In her blog post, Ella attributed this personal aspect of politics to a lack of defined political parties. I agree with her that such issues were often petty and distracting from larger political issues, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the lack of today’s defined political parties. In fact, this trend of personal politics has continued into today’s media. One need look no further than accusations of Obama being Muslim or Mitt Romney travelling with his dog on top of the car. Even if such fixations were true, who cares? Evidently, many Americans do.

What surprised me most was that finishing these chapters left me with the impression that Jackson was not so different from his predecessors. I was hesitant to adopt fully Wilentz’s perspective on this matter, but perhaps his writing showed that popular myths of Andrew Jackson as a near lunatic are unfair to his undeniable political skills. Wilentz did mention Jackson’s unusual background, including squandering his inheritance on “drinking, gambling, and women” at the age of fifteen (83). Such aberrations were never a focus for Wilentz, though, and Wilentz almost seemed to describe Jackson’s aggressiveness as a suitable virtue for a fearless leader. The Jackson Wilentz described seemed likely to raise his voice, perhaps, but not to beat down a man with his cane in the middle of a crowd after an assassination attempt. I don’t doubt Jackson’s intelligence and drive, but nonetheless, he always seemed a little unhinged to me.

While Jackson accomplished much during his political career, many questions also arose as to whether he was overstepping his authority. Even before his presidency, he met criticism as a major general for “expell[ing] the Spanish from Pensacola and provok[ing] a diplomatic row” with Spain (129). At times, he seemed to give little regard for what was appropriate to do, and instead he went to extreme measures to accomplish what he believed needed to happen. Although we didn’t read about his war on the bank in these chapters, it exemplified his approach to politics. When Jackson had a secretary of the treasury who would not support his plan, the secretary was fired and replaced. When Jackson couldn’t kill the national bank outright, he proceeded to move as much money as he could to local pet banks, a move which almost certainly contributed to the economic crisis for which Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, was blamed.

Andrew Jackson is a complicated figure, and although Wilentz’s portrayal of him departed from that with which I was most familiar, I appreciated the fresh perspective. Perhaps Jackson’s legacy is unfairly tainted, and his presidential career was born out of much larger political circumstances than anything of his own initiative. Admiring such a man is difficult in a modern context, considering, for example, his role in the violent removal of Indians, but remembering that context has changed drastically is crucial to understanding history.

March 23, 2014

The Personal Nature of American Politics and the Presidency

In her post from March 23^rd titled “Social Movements of the Early 1800s” Beth Wright explores how various social movements, including religious revivals and the Masons, political history of this period. I agree with Beth’s assessment of chapters 8-11 of Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, but I was also struck by how leader-orientated American politics still are in this time period, in terms of individual ideologies and relationships driving politics. These chapters generally the rise and fall of political relationships, with explanations of how various social and political events influenced these relationships. Wilentz’s references to Jacksonians and Adamsites reminded me that political parties and platforms were still developing in this time period (162). This focus on individual political ideology seems to be tied to structural characteristics of American politics even today. Though there are now distinct political parties, the President continues to campaign and be elected independently from senators and congressmen. In the Canadian parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is appointed from the winning political party and holds little legislative power in the house, beyond their role as a member of parliament and a cabinet member. In class we have talked about how early American politics can be seen as progression of trial and error as early leaders try to create a political system that has few precedents. In these chapters Wilentz shows us how the unique individual role of the president continued to be shaped through the early decades of American politics.

Before today’s defined political parties, electing a president with a strong individual political stance gave voters more flexibility to choose a leader that represented their changing and growing political values and needs. But Wilentz also demonstrates how this focus on relationships also became petty. Wilentz discusses one parlor scandal involving Margaret “Peggy” O’Neal Timberlake Eaton, the wife of Jackson’s secretary of war, John Eaton, who had a reputation for being immoral. Vice President Calhoun’s wife, Floride, led a boycott against all events to which Peggy Eaton was invited. Wilentz comments that “The cabinet broke down into anti- and pro- Eaton factions, the latter led by Secretary of State Van Buren […] For a time, the Eaton affair appeared to be the premier issue of the day” (167). I am inclined to argue that the pettiness stemming from the system’s focus on individuals and relationships undermined its value in successfully representing and fulfilling citizens’ desires for government. Wilentz writes, “[the scandal] cloaked a great and widening divergence between Calhoun and Jackson over fundamental principals of American Government,” which indicates not a value judgment, but an acceptance of the fundamental interconnectedness of high society and politics (167). We also see this interconnectedness in the election leading up to Jackson’s election. Wilentz writes, “a great deal of the campaign would be a propaganda battle of personalities and politically charged cultural styles rather instead of political issues” (162). Further demonstrates how the nature of politics and the presidency at the time was focused on the individual and how this permeated all facets of politics from campaigning, to the issues debated to daily political life.

Works Cited:

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

March 23, 2014

Social Movements in the Early 1800s

According to Wilentz, early 1800s American democracy was extensively interwoven with social movements. Religious revivals, the Masons, and new economic systems influenced politics by increasing pressures on certain issues, namely slavery and economic stability. The first that Wilentz discusses is the Second Great Awakening, in which new denominations, including the Methodists and Baptists, took root and began heated rivalry. Immediately following the American Revolution, he cites that there were fewer than 1 in 10 committed church members. However, by the 1840s this number had ballooned to 8 in 10. Wilentz holds that the emotional aspects of the newer denominations were largely what attracted American citizens (pg 141-2). I am curious about what other factors drove the people back into religious activities and whether or not the few decades without war encouraged this development. As a social concept, I also wonder whether wars later encourage more attendance to religious activities or push people away from them. The Methodist and Baptist groups, with their increasingly large numbers, began to affect politics with a surge of anti-slavery discussions. These organizations were also far more open to having not only members of all races, but religious leaders of color as well. The community that people found in these groups helped develop the foundation of the “radical” abolitionist movement that began in the 1810s. As Charlotte discusses in her post “The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders,” these developments began to include the rhetoric that slavery was morally wrong and also unconstitutional. These religious communities encouraged democratic thinking for groups of color and for the lower-class white Americans (142). Even though the religious organizations as groups were later forced to back away from the fight against inequality, they instilled members with a sense of its possibility and potential benefits.

The Freemasons were another group that caused political contention. The upper- and middle-class Americans involved in the secret society were accused of conspiring to control the entirety of American politics through the organization. Freemasonry was very popular in New England, but also grew to include many from the middle Atlantic states. The order became one of exclusivity, and it was of a kind that bred arrogance in combination with a not necessarily positive social distinction. The Freemasons had been long-established, however, it was the movement against them that caught new attention. Those against the order, the Anti-Masons, became a political entity of their own. The issue that they ran into was that many of the leading political figures on both sides, including the ones that they were most ideologically aligned with, were Freemasons.

Much of the pushback against the Freemasons arose from similar ground as the religious movements. The search for a more equitable society was becoming more and more prevalent issue. The differing economic situations throughout the states led to very different theories of how the national government needed to regulate the economy. Hamilton pushed for a national banking system with paper currency, whereas those such as Thomas Benton discouraged this development. His energies were rather spent in reorganizing land policy and creating relief programs for small Southern farmers struggling under heavy debt burdens. The combination of existing debt issues were compounded by falling cotton prices. Many contending forces and plans began to attack these issues. One of the loudest voices came from South Carolina, whose planters rallied against Adam’s ideas of taxation and tariffs on cotton. They perceived that the North was exploiting them in a time of economic need. This increased the divide between the North and South. Antislavery movements and the differing economies caused the North and South to drift even further apart from each other in terms of ideology and desired political involvement.

March 19, 2014

The “Golden Rule”

Thomas Jefferson “trembled” on behalf of his country when he remembers God’s just nature; he abolished the international slave trade on the first date the constitution allowed it, and all the while refused to veraciously stand against slavery (Wilentz, 114-15). Many wealthy northern politicians did exactly the same, and even many areas on the fringes of slavery condoned it as a “necessary evil,” despite not directly benefiting from it. All the while, southern plantation owners were claiming its “benevolence” and remained aggressive with the rhetoric of protecting and civilizing the slaves from their own bestial nature. Therefore, there came two forms of the “golden rule” being played out in the slavery argument, one of the plantation owners claiming benevolence, and the others of the non-slave owners who condoned the practice or did not actively fight it because those who have the gold make the rules.

There is no question slavery was extremely economically valuable and that, overall, the country benefited economically from the practice. There is similarly no doubt that, purely on an economic standard, new western states would benefit from slavery. With the addition of Maine, there was an imbalance of power that swayed towards the northern political sphere. More delegates for northern free states than southern. As Charlotte points out in her post, these political divides became more about geography and less about political philosophy, instituting a slave state gave more power to the south and vice versa. The question then becomes who the north was actually fighting for. It is convenient (and perhaps uplifting) to assume that the northern politicians were fighting for the abolition of slavery in new states when perhaps a complication of that reading could entail the northern politicians fighting for political power on the playing field of slavery with morality as the central argument.

Therefore, the Missouri Compromise was not so much a compromise on slavery, but rather on power and money. There was no compromise on slavery; slavery won. So long as slavery was still a part of the southern states and they maintained at least equal power on the senate floors, slavery was still an economic cornerstone of the south. Thus, the “Era of Bad Feelings” commenced with this unsettling notion that it was not a compromise but rather perhaps a delay of the inevitable. This ties neatly into Davis’ reading and again to Charlotte’s point that there were no innocent sides in this debate. It may have been a political one just as much as a moral one, albeit played out on a moral battleground. Underneath it all, however, was the addictive promise of wealth, cotton, and trade that was inherent with the slavery society.

March 19, 2014

The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders

Wilentz goes into the complex politics that surround slavery in the early part of the 1800s in chapter 7. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of Caribbean plantations in the 1790s led to an increase in sugar and cotton demands from Southern slave-holding states. This in addition to the recent land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase led to a revival in plantations of the South, which also caused much more debate over laws of slavery in the new territory. Included in this was the heated debate over Missouri.

Through the debate of the terms of Missouri’s admission, political parties (and Northerners vs. Southerners) became increasingly polarized and tensions grew. More than just giving Southerners more political power through the 3/5ths law, the Republicans said that their anti-slavery argument was a “preservation of individual’s rights” and
“strict construction of the Constitution demanded slavery’s restriction” (118). Thus, slavery was not only morally wrong, it was also unconstitutional. The Constitution allowed for future leaders to abolish slavery and prevent new slave states from entering the Union. The North began many anti-slavery campaigns, which created a lot of fear and anxiety in the slave-holding South, where many believed this sort of conversation would lead slaves to rebel and revolt. It was easier to keep track of sides due to geographic location, rather than over other issues (such as War of 1812), where political parties in different locations had differing opinions on the matter. This was presented as pretty much black and white — Notherners verses Southerners.

With Maine being granted statehood, Missouri was then admitted without slavery restrictions. However, an amendment was made that anything within the Louisiana purchase above a certain latitude was not to have slavery. However, even though this “compromise” was reached, the debate over Missouri was significant in its solidifying where Northerners and Southerners stood on slavery.

Chapter 9 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis goes into reasoning as to why Southern states thought slavery in new territory was so important. Because many plantations were expanding westward with the new land, they needed laborers to clear land and then establish the plantations. However, slavery was also such a thriving part of the Southern economy that it must have been hard to imagine a South without slavery. By 1860, two-thirds of the wealthiest Americans were Southern large planters. “By 1840, the South grew few more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton”, showing how the national and international community condoned slavery, even if not directly. Davis thereby adds an interesting perspective to the North verses South obvious debate that Wilentz describes — that maybe the North was not “innocent” in its bystander position.

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.

March 17, 2014

The War of 1812 and Western Expansion

In chapter five of his The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz convincingly debunked myths that the War of 1812 amounted to nothing more than a waste of resources. Declaring it a “bungled, needless, and costly effort,” while not a ludicrous accusation since the war was costly and messy, misses some important points (88). America had the worst of its troubles in the early stages of war, and even if the burning of Washington proved a “symbolic embarrassment,” it was followed by a number of accomplishments. The fledgling country displayed “skillful management of war debt,” returned many captured Americans to their homes, and at last established vital international credibility (88). While America did not win the war, I agree with Wilentz that this conflict was a pivotal moment in American history nonetheless. America had finally proven itself a viable nation amongst the other world powers. I therefore respectfully disagree with Charlotte’s assertion that the war was unproductive and accomplished little to nothing. I do not think Wilentz was attempting to argue this point, for he seemed more focused on providing counterarguments to similar statements from other historians. Instead, Wilentz identified the Indians and Federalists as the “losers” of the war while maintaining that it was an important success for the nation at large (88).

Wilentz also did an excellent job tracing the decline of the Federalist Party. I knew the party’s influence waned as the war they had failed to support drew to a close, followed by the so-called “era of good feelings,” but I was unaware of Federalist activity during the early stages of the war. Indeed, early on in the war, neither the outcome nor the level of support for the Federalist Party was yet clear. Many were, for good reason, skeptical of the war, and it was not clear until later that the Federalist Party would inevitably decline. As Wilentz described, Madison held a “vulnerable” position and incredibly limited military resources (77). Until Madison secured Pennsylvania in the election, DeWitt Clinton had a legitimate chance of winning the presidency and weakening the Democratic-Republican Party’s influence.

The outcome of the war is what ultimately solidified the Democratic Republican Party and doomed the Federalists to “political isolation” (80). I agree with Wilentz’s interpretation here, and I believe it raises the question: what if the war had ended differently? How might the political parties have been affected? Even in the last stages of the war, Madison was eager to proceed with peace negotiations due to a threat of secession from the New England Federalists. I cannot help wondering if the Federalist threat was a very real one, or if the Democratic-Republican Party would have emerged as the sole political party even under different circumstances. Thomas claimed in his blog post that the Democratic-Republicans’ ability to “grasp political power,” unlike the Federalists, defined the subsequent era in American politics. I would need to think about the issue more extensively before arriving to such a conclusion. Especially in an era where political parties were virtually nonexistent, exactly how important was the winner of this struggle? Would a Federalist rise to power have changed everything or almost nothing?

As for Frederick Jackson Turner’s suggestion that the frontier defines much of American history, this exact thesis was the focus of my American history class a few years ago. I may even have read excerpts from this same article, although I cannot be sure. At any rate, it’s an idea to which I have already devoted a great deal of thought, and I think it is a very useful way to approach American history. The best way to study history, in my mind, is to take a number of different approaches. Giving careful consideration to Turner’s argument alongside other viewpoints ultimately provides the best sense of history, one that encompasses a variety of theses.