Sean Wilentz – American History to 1877

March 24, 2014

Jackson Through Wilentz

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

This reading in Wilentz begins with the rise of Christianity in America, the Second Great Awakening, which is a nice lead-way into the rest of the chapters, in which Wilentz describes the importance and rise of American Democratic values. In the Second Great Awakening, any common man could be a religious and spiritual leader, regardless of family or level of education. Religion was also seen as a moral guide in politics and other areas of secular life. It is interesting that Wilentz notes that this is relatively new in American history, even though I always thought the Revolutionists and Founding Fathers founded this country on a more religious platform than Wilentz implies. It seems that from this Second Great Awakening, we still find many Christian morals and values leading American politics.

Wilentz then delves into Jackson and Adams election, and Jackson’s eventual presidency. It is interesting here to see the rise of Jackson alongside the rise of the Working Men’s Party. While I initially thought that the idea of unions and the glorification of the common working man could unite the North and the South, the election came down to a battle between uplifting the nation’s intelligence and prosperity against the suspicions of a centralized government, and how a centralized government is undemocratic. I find it interesting that both these approaches want the best for everyone, but the method in which that is approached differs.

In response to Rebecca’s approach, I find it interesting that Wilentz does, indeed, paint a positive picture of Jackson. Having little background in American history, I don’t know many other depictions of Jackson besides that which I’ve read for today’s reading. Rebecca adds many other complicated layers to the picture than Wilentz shows, which reminds me that every source is somewhat biased, regardless of having an explicit agenda. My impression from the Wilentz reading was that Jackson tried to stay close to central on many issues, which led to a lot of issues, such as the condoning of the removal of Indians, and other things that happened under his watch. However, Jackson is definitely introduced in a positive light.

I agree with Ella that there definitely seems to be a lack of defined political parties. I myself have been a bit lost in the reading as to which sect of which Party supports which cause, which I think speaks on the lack of overall national identity that Parties have, with differing voices within the same party in the North and in the South. However, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of just a single man (Jackson), as Wilentz discusses, Jackson’s win marks the complex development of American democracy through the huge turn out of white adult male suffrage seen at the election.

March 19, 2014

The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders

Wilentz goes into the complex politics that surround slavery in the early part of the 1800s in chapter 7. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of Caribbean plantations in the 1790s led to an increase in sugar and cotton demands from Southern slave-holding states. This in addition to the recent land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase led to a revival in plantations of the South, which also caused much more debate over laws of slavery in the new territory. Included in this was the heated debate over Missouri.

Through the debate of the terms of Missouri’s admission, political parties (and Northerners vs. Southerners) became increasingly polarized and tensions grew. More than just giving Southerners more political power through the 3/5ths law, the Republicans said that their anti-slavery argument was a “preservation of individual’s rights” and
“strict construction of the Constitution demanded slavery’s restriction” (118). Thus, slavery was not only morally wrong, it was also unconstitutional. The Constitution allowed for future leaders to abolish slavery and prevent new slave states from entering the Union. The North began many anti-slavery campaigns, which created a lot of fear and anxiety in the slave-holding South, where many believed this sort of conversation would lead slaves to rebel and revolt. It was easier to keep track of sides due to geographic location, rather than over other issues (such as War of 1812), where political parties in different locations had differing opinions on the matter. This was presented as pretty much black and white — Notherners verses Southerners.

With Maine being granted statehood, Missouri was then admitted without slavery restrictions. However, an amendment was made that anything within the Louisiana purchase above a certain latitude was not to have slavery. However, even though this “compromise” was reached, the debate over Missouri was significant in its solidifying where Northerners and Southerners stood on slavery.

Chapter 9 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis goes into reasoning as to why Southern states thought slavery in new territory was so important. Because many plantations were expanding westward with the new land, they needed laborers to clear land and then establish the plantations. However, slavery was also such a thriving part of the Southern economy that it must have been hard to imagine a South without slavery. By 1860, two-thirds of the wealthiest Americans were Southern large planters. “By 1840, the South grew few more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton”, showing how the national and international community condoned slavery, even if not directly. Davis thereby adds an interesting perspective to the North verses South obvious debate that Wilentz describes — that maybe the North was not “innocent” in its bystander position.

February 19, 2014

Early Division Between the North and South

The opening chapter in Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln offers a description of the general state of the colonies in the 1770s. Throughout the chapter, Wilentz establishes his central argument that as a result of the Revolutionary War, Americans became enthralled with the idea of democracy. In particular, patriotism and democracy, two influential ideals that emerged during the Revolutionary War, inspired many people of middle class status to become involved in the political process. Wilentz notes that, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and each other” (11). Wilentz goes on to categorize one example of this newfound middleclass political involve as being Shays Rebellion of 1786. In response to overbearing financial policies imposed on middle class workers, Daniel Shays led a group of similar working-class people to revolt and interfere with the local court system. While this example displayed the unregulated nature of democracy, Shays ability to create a formidable uprising at the grassroots level clearly shows the impact that even working class people had during this time.

While colonial political power extended to the common white man and wasn’t left solely to aristocrats, there certainly existed a divide between the northern and southern colonies. As Olivia highlights in her blog post entitled “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” the rift between the two sides was clearly attributed to slavery. As we discussed in class yesterday, however, it is possible that other factors may have been at play during early colonial independence that formulated the division between the two regions. Although southern delegates eventually were allowed to continue slavery under the education, a source of division between the two sides could also be attributed to the Revolutionary War’s key events occurring primarily in the north. For example, while Wilientz highlights the increased democratic processes that began to take shape in everyday colonial life after the Revolutionary War in the north, similar events in the south were not recounted. While there most likely are examples of the increased sentiments of democracy seen in the south as well, the lack of evidence in Wilentz’s text begs the question as to whether a grassroots uprising like Shays Rebellion would have had the same effect in the south. If not, one could make the argument that the ideals of democracy did not permeate as deeply in southern colonies as they did in the north which, in addition to their varying opinions of slavery, would further divide the two sides.