aristocracy – American History to 1877

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 South saw Lincoln’s presidency as the end of their freedom. By the south I mean the slaveholding aristocracy that would lose its power if slavery was abolished. Since they were in control of politics and held all the power for the south, they basically were the south. But as we know from books such as The Impending Crisis by Hinton Helper, the south was not so unified behind this aristocracy. In order to gain support the aristocracy had to make a unified cause so that people would rally behind them.

I thought it was interesting how this book by Helper showed just how non-unified the south was before the aristocracy was able to gain the support of the common man. Helper complains that the slaveholders take advantage of the common man in any way that they can. An example being that public education was denied to save money on taxes. The book was written only a few years before the succession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. Somehow the aristocracy was able to unify people like Helper to fight for them even when they were severely mistreated.

Wilentz talks about how the aristocracy was able to make the common white man seem equal to the elite. They had to be given a common enemy and that enemy became the North, for the actions against American citizens. To do this they had to convince everyone that slaves should not be treated as people. That was not a very hard thing to do since they had been living with the idea that slaves were no better than animals for generations. Most of these people however did not own slaves, so I don’t know why so many would feel so strongly about defending slavery. For most common men, no longer having slaves would not hinder their work ability.

Most men want to feel superior to something, to fuel this notion could gain much support for the south. The southern aristocrats had to ban the men together by showing that white men are superior to black men and the north was trying to take that right away from them. The men were used to protect slavery for the aristocracy. And once Lincoln took office the south could succeed because the majority of people at the time did not want their rights taken away by the North. This was something that could not be compromised. Though they tried as Costello said, the compromises were not effective. There is no compromising when someone believes you will strip them of rights they deem inalienable.

I found Gordon Wood’s ideas in his piece Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution to be a good reminder that sometimes the unstated obvious can provide new revelations about history. Reminding us that there was “no mass poverty, no seething social discontent, no grinding oppression”, the sentiment established in the Taylor readings of a successful colonization process is revisited (Wood 110). The foreground for political participation at this time came at the whim of the gentry elite. The reading describes this as encouragement from above to participate in politics, which seems to be derived from the upper class desire to gain even more independence and wealth at the expense of the lower classes.

Furthermore, he parallels a number of social groups experiencing the revolution differently. For instance, Wood mentions the social assault between the couriers and the patriots. These opposing groups seemed to provide a basis for the desired political system of the elite gentry. The paper also makes the connection between the independence that these colonists were fighting for and the continued dependence, which the disenfranchised peoples at the time were experiencing. Specifically, women and African Americans experienced the fight for independence without the benefit of independence.

Wood evokes another paradoxical relationship when relating how the aristocratic landholders in the colonies were fighting for independence (something they had a substantial amount of compared to the lower class colonists) from fellow aristocrats in England. This seemed to be a classic case of the rich getting richer and establishing themselves as the “natural aristocracy” while the poor fell to the wayside. This is not to discount the fight waged for independence in the war to come but as Wood points out there is much more to the equation than seems at first glance. There seems to be social tension within the colonies themselves, although it may have gone unnoticed by the lower-middle classes.

As Alex writes in his post from early today, there is a “broad spectrum” of factors to be considered when looking at the revolution occurring in America. I found the approach that Wood takes to be very interesting and very novel as compared to the other readings regarding the political and social environment surrounding the revolution.

Tag: aristocracy

The South Gaining Support