Jefferson – American History to 1877

March 19, 2014

The “Golden Rule”

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

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 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

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.

February 16, 2014

Freedom at a Cost

This chapter shows the progression of the colonists from a people marginally dependent on the English to a unified group fully embracing the idea of independence. The beginning of the chapter covers the expansionary efforts of the British government but then Taylor dives into explaining the underlying tensions between the colonists and the crown. Citing examples such as the Paxton Boys slaughtering of Indians at Conestoga, Taylor elicits a general feeling of tension from this time period. However, the tension between the groups led to a general feeling of unification within the groups. As Max mentions in his post from February 15, the colonists were experiencing attitudes of unity while under the recently overbearing rule of the British.

John Adams’ concerns about the precedent set by royal taxes, namely the Stamp Act, seems to have laid the groundwork for the American Dream that Max mentions in his post (442). The American Dream in its most basic form is the hope and belief that anyone can “make it” if they work hard enough. Although, this notion is constantly challenged in today’s society, the British attempts to assert authority ultimately formed the American attitude of independence and embrace of the potential for social mobility.

Starkly contrasting the British acceptance of inequality, the owning of lands by a large portion of the population (not including slaves) allowed the colonists to garner a newfound sense of independence. Furthermore, I found Taylor’s perception of slavery as “labor for a master without reaping the rewards” to be very interesting phrasing to describe the colonists and the British (442). To broaden this definition of slavery to include “independent” colonists as slaves if they did not own land seemed like a very novel idea. As we have discussed in previous posts, slavery was not necessarily along racial lines but developed into that based on economic motivations.

Without trying to oversimplify this idea, it seems necessary to mention that the colonists’ embrace of this independence and lack of reliance on the British allowed them to begin the process of breaking away from the crown. Many of the colonies to the north such as Nova Scotia and Quebec still relied on the British government to hold up their economies. However, the thirteen colonies to the south were on the brink of civil war with the British. Thomas Jefferson’s quote at the end of this chapter describing America as an “’empire of liberty,’ by and for the white citizenry” was a mindset that setup the colonies for success in gaining the initial freedom from Britain but also set the colonies up for a civil war nearly a hundred years later–a cost that we will soon see to be magnanimous.