American History to 1877 – Spring 2014

February 19, 2014

Breaking with Britain

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

Between 1760 and 1820, there were many changes that occurred in Europe and United States in terms of land ownership, conflict between peoples, and, most importantly, slave trade. After the American Revolution, the United states was able to further expand because of its freedom from Britain. Also, the allies of the US gained back land that they had previously lost to Britain before the war when the colonies were rapidly expanding. Many other countries and their respective colonies broke out into civil war and revolutions, resulting in massive reformation in North America and Europe. The French Revolution occurring shortly after the American Revolution as well as the Latin American wars of Independence continued the conflict among these European nations, and then led to many different treaties being made to monitor slave trade among each of the different countries. After these revolutions, slavery rapidly expanded, but by 1825, the US and Britain outlawed their Atlantic slave trade and had made treaties with other countries such as France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal that made the only legal slave trade be South of the Equator, in transportation of slaves to Brazil. Needless to say there were many illegal trade routes still going on and flourished for years.

As Thomas points out in his post, the division in the US was only made worse by this continuing of slave trade. The North had limited its use of slaves where as the South only relied on it more for production and making a profit, causing an even bigger divide in the newly found nation.

Davis really covers a lot of boundaries in this reading; he does not only focus on one revolution, one certain area and what happened but the broad spectrum of events that occur simultaneously and how slavery and slave trade was affected throughout all of these processes. He also incorporates the many cause and effect scenarios that led to the redistribution of land to all of the countries involved in the many revolutions because of alliances and treaties made.

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 17, 2014

Native American Agency among Feuding Colonies

As Kurt noted in his post, one central theme in Taylor’s 18th chapter was the roles that different groups played in the 7 years war. Specifically, I was interested in the complex relations that Native Americans had with the french and British during conflict. These interactions illustrated an aspect of Indian agency that I previously was ignorant of. It is important to acknowledge the role that colonies played in the elimination of Native civilizations. But a historical view in which Natives are seen exclusively as victims of settlement ignores the complexity of their intentions and motives.

Taylor illuminates this complexity through his analysis of Indian-European interactions in which the Indians play a larger and more independent role than may be expected. for example, he notes how pivotal the Six Nation Iroquois were during the 7 years war because of their location in between warring colonies. Each side needed native american assistance in their endeavors to beat the other. On page 424 Taylor makes a great point by saying, “Indians dominated the forest passages between the rival empires. They could obstruct the advance of their colonial enemy and terrify and destroy outlying settlements.” In this way, we see a relationship in which Europeans were actually partly dependent on Native Americans. This works toward dispelling the notion that Native Americans were purely victims.

In addition, we see the inner workings of how both Natives and Europeans choose to behave towards one another. Taylor illustrates the power dynamics of these relations. Regardless of what they really thought of the Indians, the French were more hospitable towards them because they knew they needed their help against the increase in English power. The British were the opposite–they were aware that they were in a position of power, so they showed less hospitality towards their Native allies.

February 17, 2014

Indian Impact on the Seven Years War

Traditional histories fail to fully explain the role Indians played in the Seven Years War. Falsely portraying the numerous Indians that allied with either the British or French forces as mere “bodies,” they ignore the impact the natives had on the outcome of the war. Taylor on the other hand, does a great job of expounding upon the Indian tribes’ critical role in Chapter 18: Imperial Wars and Crisis.

Referencing an observation an English trader made in 1755, Taylor notes that “Indians determined the military balance of power within North America.” He explains that their strategic location between the British and French colonies, combined with their guerilla method of fighting, made them an important asset to both the British and the French in the North American theater of the Seven Years War (424). While the French ultimately had more Indian allies because they treated them better, the British were able to gain some Indian support. As the author of “Britain’s Rise to Power” mentions, the British had an advantage in trade; they were able to trade mass quantities of goods to the Indians that were both superior to and cheaper than French goods. This not only prompted some Indians to ally with the British, but it also made Indian allegiance with the French weaker (428). Native assistance would ultimately prove invaluable to the British cause.

Initially, the British failed to utilize their Indian allies appropriately. When British general Edward Braddock marched on Fort Duquesne – a French fort located in what is now modern-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – only eight Indians accompanied his army of 2,200 men. The British would suffer nearly a thousand casualties and wounded men. Taylor astutely argues that “no expedition through the forest could prosper without significant Indian support and without heeding Indian expertise” (429). However, the next British attack on Fort Duquesne would be much more successful. Deploying new “ranger units” that consisted of colonists who used Indian tactics and British infantrymen equipped with rifles and tomahawks, the British, under the command of William Pitt, forced the French to abandon and destroy Fort Duquesne. The British would consequently build a much larger fort known as Fort Pitt (431). While this is only one example, the British attacks on Fort Duquesne display the critical role the Indians played during the Seven Years War. Without native assistance, it is possible that the British could have lost the war.

Taylor’s thorough history of the Seven Years War reveals an Indian population far more influential to the development of Colonial America than most history texts impart. I enjoyed reading about the economic forces that factored into many British-Indian alliances and thought his unique narrative of the war was captivating. In addition, he does a great job setting the stage for the American Revolutionary War.

February 17, 2014

The Indians’ Role before the American Revolution

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

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

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

February 17, 2014

A Social Narrative of Military History

One of the major aspects that we have focused while discussing American Colonies has been the type of narrative Taylor tells and how it differs from the ways history has traditionally been told. In general Taylor focuses more on the social narrative than other history textbooks, analyzing events from both perspectives and looking for non-linear causation. Chapter 18 “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75” is the first chapter we have read of American Colonies that primarily chronicles military efforts and conflicts; other chapters focused on land claims, settlement, the establishment of political systems and religion. Alex argues, in the post “Britain’s Rise to Power” that in chapter 18 Taylor “forsakes his previous style of a social narrative for more of a direct military history”. Alex was not the only one to make such a claim, with many of our peers expressing appreciation for the perceived shift in focus and argument. Though it is apparent that Taylor has chosen to focus this chapter on military events and conflicts, I disagree with the claim that he forsakes the social narrative. I would argue that it is not the events that are discussed, but the approach and perspectives taken in analyzing those events, which makes Taylor’s writing a social narrative.

In his post “The Changing Role of The Indians” Dana does a thorough job of summarizing and analyzing Taylor’s discussion of Native Americans in Chapter 18. Taylor’s focus on Indian rebellions as well as the impacts of imperial wars on Indian societies and life styles demonstrates that Taylor is not writing a traditional military history. Though he acknowledges that Europeans played Indian nations against each other, he makes efforts not to victimize them. Taylor acknowledges that Indians were not passive subjects of European colonialism when he writes, “To maximize their advantages, after 1701 the Iroquois cultivated a neutrality meant to preserve the balance of power between the French and the British […] A rough balance of power kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (Taylor 426). This is the type of social commentary and depth that many historical textbooks lack.

Furthermore, in the second half of the chapter Taylor focuses on the imperial crisis and the United States as an “Empire of Liberty”. These sections analyze the sociological and psychological the impacts of the military conflicts and events detailed in the first part of the chapter. Taylor examines notions of liberty and slavery, arguing that “free colonists intently defended their property rights because property alone made men truly independent and free” and “Broadly defined, ‘slavery’ meant to labor for a master without reaping the rewards” (Tayor 442). By exploring these social themes, Taylor takes chapter 18 beyond a timeline oriented military history to a thorough examination of the significance of these military events in how they impacted society.

Works Cited:
Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Penguin Books 2001), 421-443.
Dana Harvey, “The Changing Role of The Indians”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-changing-role-of-the-indians/
Alex Palinski, “Britain’s Rise to Power”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/britains-rise-to-power/

February 17, 2014

A Shift in the Colonies

In this chapter, Taylor describes the conflicts and wars that take over North America during the early 1700s, and how these wars shaped the colonies into pre-Revolutionary War America. Taylor does not focus much on the actual battles of the Seven Years War, but instead focuses on the social, political, and economic consequences and outcomes started by the war.

Due to these conflicts between the British and the French, relations with Native Americans shift in North America. British colonies were rapidly growing, as Taylor points out in 1754 there were over one million British colonists compared to the seventy thousand French colonists (426). This shift in size caused the French to value its relationship with Native Americans, as they were a vital contributor to victory in war. Although Indians wanted to play both the British and the French to maximize utility and to seek the lowest prices, the French were much more cordial and appreciative than the growing British. While British and Native American relations have never been stable, this war exacerbated the situation by making French and Indian relations stronger. The only redeeming factor the British had, Taylor points out, were their plentiful goods at lower prices (428). Despite the Natives favoring the appreciative French over the British, we can see that the British are becoming a powerhouse in North America.

The most interesting outcome the Seven Years War was the changes in the relationship between the colonies and Britain. As the colonies grew and expanded both on the land and by numbers, the British monarchy decided to reign in the leaders of the colonies and place more restrictions and taxes on the colonists. Taylor points out that the victory in the Seven Years War led the British to rethink its empire and change it to the country’s benefit, but also gave the colonists a sense of entitlement and power because they were the ones to fight in and win the war. The conflicting attitudes led to colonist’s revolting and the Revolutionary War.

In his blog post titled “Colonial Origins of the American Dream,” Max discusses this change in colonist’s mind-set towards their homeland led to the beginning of the American Dream. The American Dream, known to many as an American’s ability to work hard to achieve goals, is often thought of being an American idea after the Revolutionary War when Americans were independent from the British. The resistant attitude and their willingness to fight the homeland to achieve the end goal of freedom show that the colonists were already starting to work towards this American Dream.

This time in pre-Revolutionary War America proved to be a defining period in American history. British colonies changed as they fought against the French in the Seven Years War, started to alienate Native Americans, and developed a defiant attitude towards Britain. Taylor portrays these changing events and feelings well through this chapter on imperial wars.

February 17, 2014

The Military Growth and the Possibility of Independence

Chapter 18 of Taylor details the events that led to the expansion of the British Empire and the events that precluded Colonial thoughts of independence. England’s imperial power began to threaten both other European powers and Native peoples as colonists moved west, the crown claimed land to the south, and trade conflicts occurred in the North. This provoked conflicts between the French and Native traders as well as Spain. English victories bolstered confidence and extended an already vast colonial claim. However, the colonists and their trained soldiers from England were not always successful. As Emma discusses in her post “War War War,” the arrogant attitude that Braddock employed toward Native battle tactics was detrimental in early confrontations. The Europeans were most often victorious when employing the help of Native aides because they knew the land and their strategies were largely effective. These guides were experienced in guerrilla-style warfare that could decimate the more formal arrangement of European troops. Thus, even when the English had greater numbers and more effective weaponry, they struggled without Native help. The United States today still struggles with the battle between “traditional” or more structured war strategies and the hit-and-run tactics that smaller groups use. In the developing world, this style of fighting is more common because weapons and training are harder to come by, and it is also extremely effective against large and structured armies. Even small or relatively decentralized groups can cause immense damage with these tactics. Looking at the successes that military leaders had in these earlier Native wars may lend some advice when creating tactics to fight other such groups today. I also think it is extremely important to discuss the initial failures that the colonists faced. These factors lead to the development of an effective and experienced colonial military. Also, after English negotiations, the successes and failures in wartime helped develop a new mentality considering the frontier and Europe.

These victories did not bode well for Native peoples or for the country of England. The colonies progressively began to perceive their own value and, as trade expanded and population grew, the possibility to survive independently. The colonies had survived relatively autonomously from England, providing little in the way of taxes and lacking representation in the law-making body. However, when the financial situation in England sparked the need for real crown taxation in the colonies, the colonists, especially leaders like John Adams, felt the “taxation without representation” was an attack. Taylor’s analysis of discussions between some colonial leaders and those in Parliament reveal a deep discomfort with the taxation system and the presence of expensive and oppressive English military in the colonies (440-442). In previous chapters, Taylor discussed the colonists’ attachment to their independence, and nowhere is it more clearly shown than here. The interesting thing is that their initial independence had given the colonists the means to recognize and retaliate against the situation. They had become fairly well-educated and, in comparison, fairly well-off. They also had enough property and property rights to want to protect them. As their own markets broadened with new space and trade, the colonies were also able to realize the potential for true economic independence that would not have to depend upon exports to England. An increasing population provided constant demand and stimulated immense growth in comparison to the economically strangled England.

February 16, 2014

War in the Colonies

In chapter 18, Taylor explores the different relationships and conflicts that occurred in the colonies throughout the early to mid 1700’s. He makes a clear outline of the different groups and coalitions that existed in the new world, including the French, Spanish, English and Indians. In his outline, he expresses the various wants and needs that the different groups seek, and how the race for control led to overall conflict. However, the most intriguing argument that Taylor makes his how the conflicts during the colonial period influenced the future quest for colonial independence.

Taylor briefly describes the events and impacts of the Seven Years War between the English and the French and numerous Indian tribes. He explains how the war erupted when Robert Dinwiddie “tried to oust the French from the forks of the Ohio”(428). He further explains how Washington originally suffered an embarrassing defeat outside of Fort Duquesne, and then how he returns to fame after leading a retreat once General Braddock’s unit was ambushed. He closes out his description of the War upon speaking of the Battle for Quebec in open field. Even though he does describe these major events, this war played an extremely vital role int he shaping of the colonial landscape. I thought that Taylor focussed too little on the context of these different situations. For example, when Taylor spoke of William Pitt, he gave almost no background information on his prior experience or role in society. Even though he spoke clearly about his style of leadership, I still do not a firm grasp of where this man came from or what happened to him post war. As Taylor moved through the Seven YEars War quickly while touching on main events, I believe that he left out many important details and I still do not feel as if I have a firm grasp on the specifics of the War.

Taylor does int he end describe the impact that the war had on the colonist. Like my classmate pointed out in “Imperial Wars and Crisis”, the Seven Years War ignited the fire of independence from the colonies. Taylor accurately points out how the colonists saw first hand that they can make a significant difference, and have the power to achieve goals through military force. I do however wish that Taylor would haven spoken about how Britain essentially trained the army that eventually would fight against them in Revolution. But besides from that, Taylor did a very good job of explaining how the different taxes and tariff’s on the colonists in effort to pay off the war debt lead to a revolutionary atmosphere in America.

Although I would have liked Taylor to be more specific about the details of the Seven Years War, he does adequately discuss the different groups involved and their role throughout the conflict. He also does a good job in his description of the post war colonies. Overall this chapter makes good context of the implications these events had on the shaping of America.

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.