Puritan – American History to 1877

January 29, 2014

POTUS and the Rhetoric of Colonization

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

A few key quotes struck me as I was watching the State of the Union Address yesterday, and they mainly fell into the first opening minutes of his speech as President Obama seemed to employ the rhetoric of the idyllic American Colonization. It is often the same wording utilized when recounting the typical American dream, but is undoubtedly similar to the romanticized notions of the Plymouth colonies. The President first states that the similarity and bonding power of this nation is in the “simple, profound belief in opportunity for all, the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead in America.” The idea of responsibility, hard work, diligence and even to an extent, patience, is the way to prosperity. If “get ahead” in the President’s statement was changed to “finding the Lord” or “be rewarded by God,” it would almost sound identical to a Puritan Philosophy during colonization. They took pride in hard work, diligence, and had faith that these facets of their lives would ultimately come with reward. This is all mirrored today by Economic Growth and the strengthening of the “working middle class,” as Kurt had mentioned in his previous post on the President’s address.

Americans want to think that today, and Obama, despite admitting the flawed nature of this dream, is attempting to rally behind that same, rhetorical cornerstone to incite unity in our nation. When asking for Congress’ action, he implores for congress to “give these hardworking, responsible Americans that chance.” It is the government’s responsibility to ensure to the best of their ability that these ideals remain true.

On a similar note, the President mentions expansion four times in his address, growth another five, and brings up the notion that “But America does not stand still, and neither will I.” When I heard this in the context of our classes so far, it does illicit this emotion of boundlessness for the United States. It feels as if the rhetorical tools used here liken that of a modern Manifest Destiny, of hope of new eras, new opportunities, and new uninhabited land (obviously a false assumption) with the first settlers in what would become the United States. Americans still want to have these stories told to them. We still want to believe that if we work hard, are diligent and are unremitting in our efforts, we have this boundless horizon with which to conquer, much like the early settlers in our nation. These are the tenants that the President hoped would bind us together as we listened to his address, the rhetoric of colonization and of a unending and unyielding possibility, even if they come from a heavily romanticized recounting of the past.

January 28, 2014

Violent Puritans and the Not-So-English Middle Colonies

Focusing now on how the Puritans interacted with the Indians, Taylor develops significantly the portrayal of New England from last week’s reading. His descriptions of Puritan anxiety to suppress natives and of imbalanced trades capture the darker facets of New England, practically unmentioned in chapter eight.

The special attention given to King Philip’s War certainly addresses Shane’s concern last week, that Taylor writes of “internal problems” in New England with little regard for potential “external threats.” Charlotte, similarly, wrote that the violence present in Jamestown seemed to create a contrast to New England relations with natives; like the Americans of classic Thanksgiving stories, the Puritans of chapter eight appeared “democratic” and “egalitarian.” Although Taylor mentions the persecution of religious dissenters, until chapter nine, the harshness of the Puritans is far from apparent. Instead of families searching for religious freedom and harmony, the Puritans referenced in King Philip’s War feel “compelled to destroy their Indian enemies” to prove “their own worthiness” in God’s eyes (200).

This point also raises questions about religion as a justification to exploit native people, an issue which Taylor does an excellent job of highlighting. Puritans claim that they’re permitted to exploit others because they are in God’s favor, but the fact that they do so successfully is also used as proof that God does in fact favor them. The rationale seems circular and flawed, yet the Puritans saw no faults with it, and their religious convictions only increased violence in their interactions with natives.

I appreciate Taylor’s emphasis on the effects of King Philip’s War within English colonies, as I was mostly familiar with its damages to the many native tribes involved in the war. Taylor’s observation that the New English faced “shocking and demoralizing” losses and mass destruction from the Indian rebels creates a more complex context for colonies in the New World. The New English may have decimated the natives in some respects, but both sides suffered dramatic losses, and English losses often left settlements vulnerable to their European enemies, such as the French. Taylor’s forte as a historian is arguably showing the complexity and diversity of American colonies over time. Though he struggles to incorporate all elements of the story at times, the story he does tell challenges common notions of colonial America and reveals much overlooked in a high school US history course.

This trend of pulling focus from the English continues in Taylor’s description of the middle colonies, when he devotes almost half of the chapter to the Dutch Empire. I found the detailed information on Dutch activity in the New World especially intriguing because in my former experiences with US history, the Dutch are merely mentioned in passing. The brief background usually presented only serves to clarify later English activity, yet Taylor closely examines the Dutch in their own context, thereby enriching the following account of English middle colonies. I didn’t realize how extensive the Dutch Empire was in the New World, and while Taylor’s focus on the non-English has some flaws, in this instance it also created a richer context for the middle colonies, much more diverse than New England and the Chesapeake Bay colonies.

Taylor’s writing best suits one already acquainted with American history, for his approach to history, while a fresher perspective than that of a textbook, does overlook points generally emphasized in the history of colonial America. As someone mentioned earlier in class (my apologies, I don’t recall who), John Smith, a renowned and significant figure in American history, receives little attention, while Taylor’s account of the French fur trade spans a considerable number of pages.

In these chapters on the English middle colonies, Taylor once more struggles to include the important information about the English without giving them the spotlight. He provides invaluable and often overlooked information in many instances, but his writing is best used when supplemented with other material and discussion; it perhaps lacks the focus to serve as a fundamental resource on American history. I enjoyed reading about the Dutch history in the region but was surprised by the resulting lessened importance of English colonies. I’m left wondering: what exactly is best to include in an account of American history?

January 22, 2014

English Colonization in the New World

Chapters 6 and 8 of Taylor’s American Colonies describe the English journey to colonization. Taylor highlights that the situation in England during the time of exploration was unstable and that the leaders were eager to share in, but not directly fund, the exploration and exploitation of the New World. The English settled in a very different land with resources that were not as readily accessible as those from the areas of Spanish conquest. Many questions arose as to how the colonies could not only survive, but also generate the cash flows like those that Spain and France were receiving. The English answers to these questions involved different commodities and styles of living.

Despite early failures, the English developed successful colonies that grew to have different economic and social drivers, especially considering commerce and the treatment of native peoples. As one of my classmates mentioned in his post “The Instability of Trade, Economy, and Structure,” the Spanish used religion as a front for plunder and the enslavement of both the land and the people. However, Taylor leads the reader to conclude that the English approached the problem of native people differently. The people of Jamestown did not initially wish to enslave, but rather assimilate natives and “transform the Indians into lower-sort English men and women” (Taylor, pg. 128). Statements from colonial supporter Sir William Herbert explain that this was to keep the colonists from escaping to the apparently less strenuous life of the Indians. I find this motivation curious due to the fact that Jamestown suffered greatly because the colonists themselves refused to undertake the labor of producing corn, which led to food shortages. Conflicts with the native people arose when the English expected to be provided for, leading to bloodshed that was less for the direct seizure of wealth and more for means of survival. Through this sporadic violence, the colonists began to cultivate tobacco, and production exponentially increased. The English of Chesapeake discovered a sustainable agricultural method of benefiting from colonization, but only after forsaking positive native relations and many lives.

The other branch of English colonization arose from the Puritan settlement of New England. This is the first group of colonists presented to the reader as middle-class Englishmen searching for subsistence rather than wealth. They lived in a strict society that revolved around small-level farming. Many of their conflicts were not over wealth, but rather aspects of life with religious implications. In this society men and women were more equal, and men were more equal to each other. Shipbuilding and fishing entered into their society in the mid and late 1600s, and with them came both societal disruption and sustainable commerce.

Both varieties of English settlers found success in American colonies through different means than either the French or Spanish. They had great differences from each other, and both found unique niches in the colonial economy through agriculture and trade (though New England’s trade was initially more local).Their colonization produced systems that could support themselves and become sustainable, independent economies.