Abolition – American History to 1877

April 29, 2014

A Different Outcome

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

The movie Confederate States of America was extremely interesting to watch. The movie started out with typical Southern music playing, and I knew I was in for an extremely biased and racist movie. That is just my perception though, because I am used to way of life we live now. If the Confederates won, we all would probably have had different thoughts regarding slavery today.

One big thing that struck me was the portrayal of Lincoln. Lincoln to us is one of the best presidents, who won the Civil War, brought the Union back together, and ended slavery. He is very well respected, and even called “Honest Abe.” In this movie, it is the opposite. Lincoln is seen as a coward, losing the war, and tries to escape to Canada through Harriet Tubman. He is disguised in blackface, and when he is caught, pretends to be a slave. He becomes a prisoner of war, and is sent to Canada for exile. This perception of him really irked me because even if he did lose, I don’t think he would have done all of this. I think Lincoln should have gotten more respect than this portrayal.

Another interesting part of this movie was that they outlawed every religion except Christianity(included Catholicism) and wanted the Jews to leave. This strictly goes against the right to have freedom of religion, and if this actually happened, would lead to less diversity today. America is prided on the fact that it welcomes all different types of people who practice different religions, and I believe there is beauty in that. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that it should be the national religion. That is almost like taking a step towards communism.

Another important difference was the aggressive nature of the military. In this movie, the C.S.A. believed strongly in manifest destiny, and wanted to expand their empire into Mexico, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands. Also, they bombed Japan first, and basically started a war. Everything was on the offensive in this movie depiction, which I don’t think is right. They also had a Cold War with Canada, and even created a wall. They partially agreed with the Nazis, and did not fight against them.

Because of all these events that occurred, I believe if the Confederates won the war, America would have never progressed. It was 1980, and woman still did not have the right to vote. Slavery was still widespread, and Canada was beating America out in many different ways. If the Union had not won, I do believe that America would not have been seen as the good guys, like we are today. We would still be a racist, slave filled society that is caught up in the past, and not progressing towards the future. As my classmate said “We see the Civil War today as the war that freed the slaves, an almost necessary evil that killed hundreds of thousands but ended the system of slavery.” The thing is, if the Confederates won, would all those deaths be worth it? Nothing really changed, and the system was back to its primitive ways.

April 22, 2014

The Powder Keg of the Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

April 16, 2014

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

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

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

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

April 9, 2014

Lizzie Mae

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

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

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

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

April 7, 2014

Misconceptions About Slavery

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

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

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

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

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

April 6, 2014

The Connection Between Women’s Rights and Abolition

In “Chapter 20: War, Slavery, and the American 1848” of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz briefly discusses the roots of the women’s rights movement and its connection to abolitionism. The Seneca Convention, which was held in July 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, was the first major American convention devoted to women’s suffrage. Led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Stanton, the Seneca Convention issued a declaration that affirmed that “all men and women are created equal”—an alteration to the original United States’ Declaration of Independence. Wilentz argues that the Seneca Convention was not merely concerned with women’s suffrage, but was an extension of the growing anti-slavery contingency. According to Wilentz, the Seneca Convention was “a logical extension of the fight for liberty, equality, and independence being waged by the antislavery forces” (334). While I agree with Wilentz’s assessment that a definitive relationship existed between the struggle for women’s rights and abolition, he failed to acknowledge how this association negatively impacted the short-term successes of the women’s rights movement.

When the Civil War erupted, the leading women’s rights’ activists decided to put the anti-slavery movement to the forefront, in hopes that the abolition of slavery would pave the way for women’s suffrage to occur shortly thereafter. The women believed that dedication to the Northern, anti-slavery cause would draw attention to the necessity for constitutional equality on the basis of race and gender. Unfortunately, the end of the Civil War did not introduce increased attention to women’s rights—the 14^th Amendment uses the word “male” three times in its definition of citizenship, thus exemplifying Congress’s dedication to a male-dominated social and political hierarchy in America.

While my classmates have not yet commented on chapters 17-20 of Wilentz, Kurt noted in his blog post from last Thursday that Wilentz does an effective job identifying the roots behind the loss of Democratic support in the South. In regard to the foundations of the women’s rights movement, I agree with Kurt that Wilentz introduces the subject to his readers in an effective way, as he links different historical issues into the greater context of American history. Similar to Kurt’s critique that Wilentz left out necessary details to strengthen his argument concerning the leadership dynamics within the Whig party, I wish he had discussed the implications of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery on women’s rights. Specifically, I think it is very interesting that the leaders of the women’s rights movement split into two separate factions during Reconstruction. Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Suffrage Association, and racist references dominated the rhetoric of their cause. In contrast, Lucy Stone’s American Suffrage Association supported the 15^th Amendment and did not consider black suffrage a threat to the eventual success of gender equality. While I recognize that the women’s rights movement was not central to Wilentz’s argument, I believe that the interesting dynamics between the two movements should have been addressed in greater detail.

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.

March 31, 2014

Jackson: Bankers, Abolitionists, and Unions

Wilentz goes through the second half of Jackson’s presidency in chapter 13, taking the reader through first the drama of the Bank War, then through the growing abolitionist movement, and then through the Union movement taking place in urban centers, such as New York and Boston. Even before coming to the last section of Wilentz’s chapter, I found a peculiar amount of contradictions in Jackson’s stances, as well as how various groups alligned themselves politically.

Jackson first closes down the BUS by redistributing the dungs from the national bank to loyal state banks. Wilentz explains that Jackson’s motives were that the national bank was tied with northern industries, and did not support or fund frontier expansions. This fits with Jackson’s earlier moves, as Grey mentions in his post, around Georgia’s state power to deal with the Cherokees as they saw fit.

However, it is interesting that many people who backed Jackson initially saw this Bank War as Jackson’s lust for power. While he may have said that he did not want a powerful federal government, he also was able — as only one man — to bypass Congress in issues related to the Bank. Additionally, Jackson redistributed the funds to only a few states — showing a sort of favoritism in politics that he seemed vehemently against. This is an interesting contradiction.

Another contradiction I found was Wilentz’s reason for why Jackson did not become involved in some of the abolitionist issues that arose over censoring mail and abolitionist literature distribution. Some Southern states wanted to prohibit this literature from circulating. While Congress said this was unconstitutional, there was no enforcement in the states themselves. This was an issue of state rights over federal rights, so one might assume that Jackson might blindly favor state rights, allowing for the censorship of abolitionist literature. However, he was against this. Wilentz reasons that “though Jackson disapproved, he did not want to stir up more trouble” by calling states out in the unenforced laws. Wilentz seems to be, once again, painting a favorable picture of Jackson. Jackson had no problem stirring up trouble by redirecting funds from the National Bank, and speaking his mind on other issues, even when it directly threw him up against Congress. I don’t think it is fair for Wilentz to therefore reason this.

I see many similarities between the abolitionist movement and unionists that Wilentz does not interestingly spell out more clearly. This era seemed marked by many “for the people” movements, both for the workers (unions) and for slave laborers. While Wilentz discusses “a new humane model of equality, [and] freedom” in terms of abolitionist movements through the religious lens, I think this can be an interesting parallel to the unionizing and Workies in the Northeast.