American History to 1877 – Spring 2014

March 16, 2014

Political Factions & Unproductive Wars

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

In chapter 5, Wilentz explores how nationalism plays out in response to war, and the different political makeup of the United States before and after the War of 1812. He begins by discussing the lead up to the War of 1812, and the rise of Republican nationalism through their support of the war. Federalists were against the war, and the two parties seemed to become increasingly distinct and oppositional voices over the war. However, it is interesting to see how the New England Federalists’ initial anti-war activities led this once anti-British party to become pro-British. This can be seen in their threats of secession from the Republican government and their talk of independent peace treaties with British in Maine.

During the lead up to the war of 1812, Wilentz also discusses the dissent among Republicans. New Republicans promoted westward growth and development, and connected internal gains and successful market with agricultural exports. However, to Old Republicans, this new sect seemed to resemble a new type of Federalists. However, this is far from accurate, as Thomas points out in his post. Federalists at this time believed that American success was dependent on trade connections with Great Britain.

As Wilentz points out, during the War of 1812 neither the British nor the Americans were successful at thwarting the other. This is ironic given that the policy over which the US first declared war was revoked right after the declaration, before either side had heard the other’s statement. After two years of fighting, Madison began negotiations with the British. However, it is interesting to note that nothing seems to change policy-wise with Britain and the US, which is what began the conflict and war.

I found it very interesting that American’s fear of Indians allying with Britain became a self-fulfilled prophecy based on the despicable treatment they indured by Americans, such as Harrison burning Prophetstown to the ground and opening Indian graves. Indians, understandably, became allied with British in their opposition of America’s westward expansion. It is also interesting to note that Wilentz mentions the large role Indians had in the deterioration of Britain and American relations leading up to the war. This is a side of the narrative I had never heard. It is also interesting to see how many of the same issues that the War of 1812 tried to resolve were the same as less than 50 years earlier. The issues, motivations, and causes for this war are nothing we haven’t seen before. However, as Wilentz points out, the end of this war led to a new kind of American hero (none who were Federalists), which helped bring the Federalist party to an end.

March 16, 2014

The New Democratic-Republican Party

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

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

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

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

March 16, 2014

Sectional Differences

The varying opinions and political parties of the nation have been, in many cases, geographically grouped. The Turner reading helps to explain some of these differences through the westward expansion of the Americas, while the Wilentz reading helps to express how the differences coalesce around the War of 1812. As discussed in Knowlton’s post, from last week, the government was set up in such a way that these divisions were bound to have some consequences.

Changing societies in different regions caused ideologies to vary between regions. Turner talks a lot about this in the first chapter of his book “The Frontier in America.” As the North grew away from agriculture and towards industrialization their ideologies changed from those of the southern agrarians. This caused strife between the two groups especially when it came to representation in the government with the three fifths clause. Wiltenz mentions that this strife almost tore apart the nation during the War of 1812. Some of the northern states had talked of secession openly because of Madison’s presidency. The U.S was almost torn apart before it could get a foothold in the global scale by the differing ideologies of the American people.

The War was caused by strife between the two regions of America and its former mother country, Great Britain. The American people had changed from the colonies to a nation that could sustain itself. This is a similar advancement to the advancement of the north to industrialization, or the western frontier to elite farmers. These are the social changes that Turner is talking about in his book. And it was the same change in ideologies of the societies in the different regions that caused strife between Britain and the U.S.

The same differences in society that Turner talks about with the frontier would be the cause for the Civil War. As the west was expanded and slavery extended to half the added states, the resentment between north and south grew. The talk of succeeding by the north during the war of 1812 would shift to the south. The north had thought they were unfairly represented and wanted someone other than the Virginians to be running the government. It caused them to want to succeed just as the southerners would when Lincoln took office.

March 11, 2014

Partisanship in the United States’ Early Years

A theme that stuck out to me most in the Wilentz reading for this week was partisanship, conflict. How often do we hear that the twenty-first century is an era of gridlock and uncompromising partisanship, perhaps even to an unprecedented degree? We hear exasperations that “[p]artisan polarization… is greater than ever,” and we all shake our heads at an inefficient, distance Congress (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/17/partisan-polarization-in-congress-and-among-public-is-greater-than-ever). While I don’t mean to say that current criticisms of the government are baseless, they certainly seem hyperbolized when one considers that the United States has almost always been divided. The issues change, as do the political parties, but as early as the late 18^th century, an intense struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists dominated American politics. Today’s problems are not so surprising when juxtaposed with past political fights and incidents such as the midnight appointments of John Adams.

As Dr. Shrout highlighted in class, modern popular views of history suffer from a misconception that the Founding Fathers had a clear vision and plan for the country (“Confederation and Constitution”). It’s important to take a step back and realize that the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing, and that is okay. They attempted to create something new, and such an undertaking required mistakes and trial-and-error. As Beth mentioned in her post, conflicts and the rise of political parties “tested the system” rather than harmed it. The democratic system, although frail, was designed to be egalitarian rather than monarchical, and conflict is inevitable in a system where many people, not a king alone, have the right to participate.

In light of this early turmoil, I appreciated Wilentz’s defense of Jefferson against more unkind portrayals. Jefferson certainly made mistakes, and the inconsistencies in his presidency are undeniable, such as increasing the power of the national government despite a campaign slogan that promised otherwise. No one could have foreseen, however, the events of Jefferson’s presidency, and labelling him a hypocrite grossly oversimplifies these initial stages of the United States. Despite Jefferson’s faults, he accomplished much during his two terms and did so under an inordinate amount of pressure from his opponents and his fellow Democratic-Republicans (Wilentz 64).

Some of the problems of early America that Wilentz covers were especially interesting because typical history textbooks sometimes gloss over such details. I knew of the fragility of the new nation in terms of the Articles of Confederation, but I had scarcely heard of some of the issues Wilentz addressed. Burr and Wilkinson’s conspiracy to attack Mexico and convince some western states to secede, for instance, shocked me (Wilentz 60). Even my knowledge of America’s international struggles with Britain and France was limited, and I soon discovered that I had also severely underestimated the internal strife that the nation faced in its earlier years.

Acknowledging the well-founded anxiety of the founding fathers, then, one can easily follow Paul Semonin’s logic on an often forgotten piece of American history. Of course America wanted to assert its viability as a nation, even if paleontology seems now an unlikely mechanism for doing so. As Wilentz explained, various conflicts in Europe left the British in charge of the Atlantic and the French in charge of European land. Little room in this picture was left for America, except as “a neutral with no military leverage whatsoever” (Wilentz 62). As we mentioned in class today, the founding fathers had already been anxious about repaying war debts to France, lest France decide to reclaim America as its own territory (“Confederation and Constitution”).

As Yuxi explained in her post, in an odd way, the mastodon became a crucial “emblem of power for… insecure” leaders, a story that has since been overshadowed by other contemporary events. Although the new nation had many obstacles to overcome, its foremost political figures met that challenge with passion and zeal. Yes, their commitment often engendered anxiety and internal strife, but it also created the United States as we know it today.

March 10, 2014

The Voice of the People

In this week’s reading by Wilentz we read about the very beginning of the United States’ government and the emergence of the common people’s voice through the formation of the Democratic-Republican party. Although the party ultimately failed, the concerns voiced by the people would “plant the seed” for a bipartisan congress, as Yuxi mentioned in her post. The creation of the societies, made up of mostly planters and artisans, were designed to voice a dissenting opinion to what they saw as unfair benefits to the elites. However, the self-created opposing party never challenged the voice of Washington, but rather the documents and laws created that did nothing to help the commoners.

Beth mentioned that the conflict stemmed from an aversion towards a monarchy or a fear of a dictatorial president. Although, this was part of the reason, I do not believe it to be the only one. As Wilentz stated, the Democratic-Republican party, when voicing a disputing opinion, even in Congress, were sure to do it a way that did not directly oppose Washington (52). While openly challenging the highly-supported George Washington would be difficult, I believe it would have been done if the party truly believed Washington was becoming too powerful of a leader. Rather, the parties were willing to improve the government in a way they believed to be best.

The Democratic-Republican party especially feared that the voice of the common people would never be heard in the shadow of the elites that currently governed. While some may have been afraid of a government similar to that of a monarchy I believe the real push behind the formation of parties was a desire to hold the elites accountable to the Constitution and to create a government they themselves wanted. Even though some parts of the centralized government may have been modeled after Britain, it was simply that, a model and not a true representative of a monarchy.

March 10, 2014

Democratic Development: The Democratic-Republicans and the Roles of Women

Wilentz’s second chapter of The Rise of American Democracy depicts the rise and struggle of the Democratic – Republican Party near the end of the 18^th century. The development of an opposition was a major development for American democracy. The interests of a new group came forward and tested the system of expression and opposition, in what Wilentz describes as a “democratic widening of American politics” (pg. 18). Much of the conflict that spurred this group’s formation stemmed from a wish to keep the governmental system more democratic rather than ruled by a dictatorial president or an elected monarch. Federalists such as Hamilton believed that centralizing power (through control of both money and political power) was a part of keeping order, and that there was a right and natural separation between classes. Jefferson, on the other hand, had a love of working people and called for a system where their voices could be heard and protected. He pushed for the Bill of Rights that could protect the people from the abuses of a coercive government. Jefferson also kept contact with the people through print, and through what he wrote, we can see how his party’s ideals challenged the Federalist system. This party challenged Federalist leaders due to its progressive nature and the tenderness of the new government. As Yuxi mentions in her post “Women Suffrage, Mastodon, and American Democracy,” the debate was testing not only ideologies but also the structure of the system. Proper management of concerns between elections and the ability to challenge those in power grew from the formation of the Democratic-Republicans.

More equitable representation was a major battleground for the Democratic-Republicans. It was a first step in addressing the many fundamental discrepancies in equality in the American society. Lewis discusses women and their roles as one of the major, explicitly unmentioned minorities. He holds that women were mentioned through the gender-neutrality of the Constitution’s wording and through some implicit assumptions that were held at the time. Though we often praise the Constitution for being an documentation of citizen’s rights (often as a better alternative to the unwritten constitution of England), it is an imperfect document that vaguely addresses the rights of many of its citizens. These issues included whether women earned the same protection and travel rights as white men or slaves. Women were considered citizens who were indirectly represented and protected by the government, unlike slaves who were controlled, represented, and protected by their masters. White women and children constituted an area between slaves and white men, in which they were counted as a citizen for apportionment and protection under the law, but they were not allowed to participate in political society. They were fundamental to the formation and continuation of white society, which was recognized, but were denied the vote due to the societal structure. These norms and the hierarchical organization were so much a part of their societal configuration that there was no great pressure for them to be clearly stated (unlike the issue of counting slaves for apportionment), and the vague discourse of the issue proves a discrepancy of opinions that the framers did not have the ability to address. Other conflicts, such as apportionment, finances, and construction of the representational system, were more pressing at the time. The Constitution left the matter open enough so that women and other races were not permanently blocked from political equity, but the timing of its construction prevented it from being endorsed from the beginning. I find that the Constitution’s relative neutrality was helpful for women’s eventual suffrage. However, it frustrates me that the battle for equal rights for both African Americans and women took as long as they did. The arguments for these rights have been present for centuries, but yet took centuries receive the necessary political pressure to take strong action. The fight from Jefferson’s Republicans marked the start of the system that challenges norms and grievances that has allowed- and allowed at the time- for democratic development. These changes are difficult to make, and take a very long time, as they ask for the structure of society to drastically change and often face a strong opposition.

March 9, 2014

women sufferage, mastodon, and American democracy

This week’s readings are primarily concerned with refining the ideological foundation and implementation of the Constitution. The readings provide different perspectives ranging from political elites, common people, and even discussions of symbolic sign to justify the Constitution and American democracy in general. The debate between Hamilton and Madison and the subsequent evolvement to Democratic-Republican societies challenged assumptions about deference to political leadership. Moreover, the discussions between different political groups demonstrated that government power was still constrained by the perception and the understanding of ordinary citizens. The emergence of the societies (parties) had also changed the political landscape by raising concerns of how people could voice their concerns between elections. The aforementioned discussions and concerns planted the seed for the formation of a bipartisan congress and new institutions that were not specified by the Constitution. Another discussion was about the role of woman in the Constitution through the proportion of suffrage during the Philadelphia Convention. James Wilson from Pennsylvania suggested representation in the lower house should be “in proportion to the whole number of white& other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years and”. He claimed that if the purpose of government was “the improvement of the human mind and the protection of personal rights, women must be included”. He also argued that women were never any less honest, virtuous, or wise than men. Therefore, women and men should have the same right in the society. Philosophically, Wilson contended that government was created for society and particularly a domestic society because marriage was the foundation for social relationships and for patriotism because women’s role as wives and mothers. Therefore, they had to be represented by the new government created by the Constitution. I found his arguments quite compelling, modern and progressive considering the era he lived in, which also means that it was not well conceived at the time. However, this radical statement made during the Philadelphia Convention foreshadowed the rise of a new liberal nation that we live in today. Finally, we learned about mastodon, a symbol of the new nation’s conquering spirit. Mastodon, native to North America, helped the founders to envision themselves as rulers of the new world. People at the time imagined the mastodon as a ferocious carnivore to express an American superiority and capability to defeat the British lion. Furthermore, mastodon was an emblem for the leaders to justify their dominance in the New World and the conquest of the American west. Even though mastodon was later found as an herbivore, it served as an emblem of power for the new leaders who lived in a psychologically insecure society at the time.

February 19, 2014

Virtue is not hereditary

I found Gordon S. Wood’s essays on the Revolutionary War to be very interesting. Wood deciphers many of the different social classes and their motivations behind the revolution, while also pointing out many of the complex contradictory aspects to the revolutionists’ claims. One point he makes, that I found particularly interesting, was that “society was becoming more unequal, but its inequalities were not the source of instability and anxiety” (111). Wood goes on to argue that the idea that hard work and labor paid off, and that people were chosen based on their skills and not on the family they were born in to was such a novel idea. In this way, society was becoming more and more unequal because one’s ability to be heard was based on public endorsement (and skill), rather than maintaining status quo by following in one’s family’s footsteps. While the notion of popular participation in politics was first used by colonists already in power as leverage against their opponents (royal authority), “once aroused, [popular participation] could not be easily put down” (112).

It was interesting to read Wood and the chapter from Inhuman Bondage together because both mainly focused on distinct groups, allowing many of the revolutionists’ ideals to be seen as contradictory to their actions. As Willie mentions in his post, in some ways, this seems like a case of the rich wanting to get richer by making themselves the “natural aristocracy” while the lower classes remained stagnant. While, as Willie also remarks, Wood deciphers many of the more complex issues to this, reading Inhuman Bonding shows the huge discrepancy between the revolutionists’ fight for independence and fight to preserve slavery — the epitome of dependence which they so slandered. This chapter shows how the colonists were fighting against being dependent on the British, while using their dependents to help them in the war. Emma, in her post, points out the irony here, mentioning that “America is supposed to represent freedom and a new life, yet it doesn’t” because of the enslavement.

While I’ve only heard an aggrandized and heroic version of the origins of the Revolutionary War, Wood sheds light on the many layers of reason and motivation behind it in society at this time. I liked that he explains how the Revolution was as much social as it was political, showing the different social classes and their arguments for independence or loyalty.

It is interesting to note many contemporary parallels to things Wood mentions. For example, Revolutionists believed that courtiers relied on favors and preferments for their position and rank. Favors and preferments still happen today in politics all the time, when a politician supports another politician’s move in order to secure a returned favor in the future. Additionally, to see how children born into lower class today do not have the same opportunities for education as someone born into a more privileged family is interesting to note in light of all the revolutionary leaders stoof for. While revolutionary leaders “did not expect poor, humble men […] to gain high political office. Rather, they expected that the sons of such humble men […] would thereby rise into ranks of gentlemen and become eligible for high political office”, it is provocative to see how there is a stagnancy for those still born into lower class due to the lack of privileges they have access to. While social standing is not hereditary, opportunities still (for the most part) are. Maybe we haven’t come as far as we hoped to.

February 19, 2014

Gordon Wood and the American Revolution

I found Gordon Wood’s piece on the revolution to be refreshing. He spoke about the base issue of the war (patriot dissent of the British social system) in an effective manner. Wood’s tied in the everyday relations between Patriots and Courtiers by illustrating the dynamics of their interpersonal relationships. The soon-to-be Americans had developed a sense that rank was to be earned in the New World. Woods himself makes a reference to a Thomas Paine quote that captures this sentiment quite well. The saying goes, “virtue is not hereditary.” Clearly, this was opposite to the British social structure in which people gained their status and title form their parents.

A specific example would be of a fairly well off farmer who, through hard work, attained his wealth, yet was still subject to the rule of the political structure ran by men who inherited their titles. It is easy in this scenario to see Wood’s theory at work on a very personal level. This farmer would despise that fact that despite being a self made man, he would still have to adhere to a social and political system that, in the years leading up to that war, were not in his best interest. The loyalist aristocracy in the colonies was a tangible variable, being a group of people, that represented a violation to the values that Patriots had begun to develop. In this way, I think that Wood’s not only puts forward a great argument, but also makes it easier to understand.

In addition to this, he took time to address the obvious confusions that would arise. Specifically, he noted that the very values Americans used as reason for separation from Britain would conflict with the fact that slavery still existed after the revolutionary war. This is an issue that Wood’s did not delve into, as his piece was on the revolutionary war. But is important nonetheless and comes up in our other texts. As Ness noted in her blog post, it is a large part of Davis’s argument in his book Inhumane Bondage, and essential to understanding the progression of events between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War

February 19, 2014

The Role of Slaves before the American Revolution

For the first time all semester, it seems that two of our readings differ greatly with one another. Wilentz, as noted in “American History from a Canadian Perspective,” focuses primarily on the struggle of colonists to achieve an established democracy. Wilentz notes that slavery was a concern at constitutional conventions—particularly during discussion of a three-fifths clause—but his analysis stopped there. In contrast, Davis writes his chapter with an emphasis on the role of slaves. He starts with pointing out this contradiction: “though slaves throughout history had yearned for their own liberation…the American rhetoric and ideology of freedom brought a wholly new perspective to blacks whose ears—and whose understanding of contradictions—were at least as sensitive as those of their masters” (Davis 144). Davis also points to historical recounts, including a quote from a historian who argued, “Americans began haphazardly but with detectable acceleration to legislate Negroes into an ever-shrinking corner of the American community” (Davis 145). He also acknowledges the growing petitions from slaves to establish their own liberation.

Interestingly, Davis discusses the then-common dissent of slavery throughout the colonies. However, some colonists saw the inscription of slaves to be fundamental to their “freedom.” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “if we do not make use of them [the slaves] in this way, the enemy probably will…an essential part of the plan is to give them freedom with their muskets” (Davis 148). Davis foreshadows a conflict of the civil war—the argument over slavery—manifesting itself in the days before the American Revolution. He highlights that as soon as 1777, northern colonies were already outlawing slavery. Lastly, he notes, “today we can see that such fears [of African Americans] were based on a profound but unacknowledged racism that made the white fear of black crime and economic dependence almost universal” (Davis 153). Davis concludes by noting, “the very idea of slavery is a fiction or fraud, since liberty and equality are fundamental rights that no one can legitimately lose” (Davis 156).

I appreciate Davis’s discussion of the role of slaves (and slavery) in the colonies. As the aforementioned post highlights, Wilentz portrays the “romantic” version of the build-up to the American Revolution. Davis instead examines the apparent contradiction between colonists’ liberalization and slaves’ entrapment, which is an observation not present enough in contemporary American history.