slavery – American History to 1877

May 5, 2014

Rethinking Racial History

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

Of all the things I have learned in this class, I think the most valuable for me was how to rethink the racial History of the United States. In the general narrative of America’s history many interesting stories were marginalized as well as the people who lived those stories. The two periods that especially intrigue me are the period before slavery was normalized and the very beginning of post-slavery america. These interest me the most because there were stories of black Americans that I had not previously been aware of.

In the time before slavery was radicalized and normalized, there were actually a fare amount of freed people in the United States. They lived lives that surprised me greatly. I remember reading taylor and learning about the free black Americans who lived in the north east. Some of them were well off, and some of them had slaves. These two things were very important for me in terms of deconstructing the racial history that I have been taught. The fact that there were African Americans who had enough agency to accrue wealth for themselves before slavery really gained its footing speaks volumes. In addition, the fact that these African Americans themselves own slaves further problematizes the dominant narrative of american history in which only whites owned slaves. Furthermore, it raises interesting questions as to what type of rationale black slave owners had for owning slaves themselves. These things served me well in that they allowed be to develop an extremely nuanced view of History that I think help to sharpen my critical analysis abilities overall.

April 30, 2014

Confederate Commercials

The mockumentary “The Confederate States of America” was a fictional movie about an alternate history had the Confederates won the Civil War. In the movie, racism prevails and with that, the continuation of slavery. The movie was a satirical piece that was, although amusing, thought provoking. It addressed various events in history and continually portrayed the south as an oppressive force. The South would eradicate Native American culture, enslave Chinese labor workers, force the Jewish to leave the country, and create a “separate and unequal” world with Latin Americans. In an attempt to reunite the country, the South would even change history books by rewriting slaves as loyal servants and forcing Northerners to own slaves, something the Northerners would eventually appreciate.

What particularly struck me were the “commercials” in the film. These advertisements gave a glimpse of what modern life could be like. The ads consisted of job advertisements for unqualified doctors or “breeders” to treat slaves or for a police chase t.v. show called “Runaway.” The commercials included everyday products with names like “Sambo,” “Darky toothpaste,” and new revolutionized slave technology. Although these commercials appear to be greatly exaggerated, with the use of overt derogatory statements, it makes one wonders if certain aspects of these commercials would have been possible today. Like others have posted, I can’t help but wonder if I would find still find these commercials absurd and racists if I was raised in Confederate culture. I wonder if slave culture would have continued or if racism would be more prevalent then it is today. Even in contemporary culture where the Union won the war there are still modern commercials that are taken down because they are deemed to be prejudiced or insensitive. If Confederate beliefs had somehow influenced more legislation or history in the past, how much would it have changed society today? Would there be products, ads, and shows specifically targeting a race? One could claim that those do exist today.

As those below me have mentioned, the film is a mockumentary that is meant to be satirical and highly exagerating but parts of it are based on truths. Racism did clearly exist in the South and, unfortunately, does exist today. This film may have been about an alternative history but it forces one to think of modern culture today.

April 30, 2014

The CSA: A Review

While watching The Confederate States of America, my expectations and predictions differed from the movie. Although all of it was speculation, the writers of the movie seemed to focus more on the dominance of race and seemed to forget about the other factors that would happen in a major transition of leadership and ideologies. As Max said in his post, “The Accuracies in ‘The Confederate States of America,'” the movie played up the south to be a “wholly racist region of the country,” which we know is in fact not true.

Mostly, I did not expect to see that there were still slaves in modern times, because after new technologies were introduced, slave labor became obsolete and not economically beneficial. One thing I found interesting was the “mass exodus” discussed: how many Enlightenment thinkers and woman’s rights activists moved to Canada to “escape” the new country’s ideologies. One can’t help but think that there would be an eventual transition of ideas and beliefs associated with the changing times and technologies, not that the same core ideas would last to the 21^st century.

Another point I found interesting was the discussion of what happened to Lincoln after General Grant surrendered to General Lee and ended the war. Lincoln allegedly sought help from Harriet Tubman in an attempt to cross the border into Canada, but the two were caught and Tubman hanged. Lincoln spent his final days exiled and had an interview prior to his death, where he stated that he “wished he had really cared about freeing the slaves,” which is somewhat historically correct. One can’t help but think that even if Lincoln had not freed the slaves, wouldn’t some president or rogue state do so soon after him?

There are several questions that I still have in regards to the movie. The “commercials” shown in the Confederate State’s of America documentary were not only absurd, but also silly. Although, I can’t decide whether they are silly because they are actually absurd, or silly because I don’t think I could ever imagine living in a world like that. Another question that bothers me with the movie is what happened to the northerners during the time that the southern states were putting their leaders into power? We saw that there were some major figures that moved north into Canada, but what about the rest? Were there not any revolts? And what happened to the rest of the blacks in North America? Were there not any revolts from them?

The Confederate States of America’s most hilarious accusation were their alleged aggressions against Canada. It seemed that everything that happened in the movie was just a reversal of how they are today. But personally, I think that even if they south had “won” the civil war, things would have eventually turned out similar to what they are today. There is too much advancement in technology and around the world to believe otherwise.

April 29, 2014

The Accuracies in “The Confederate States of America”

Much like the Ask A Slave series, it is very clear that the Confederate States of America was also produced partially for its entertainment and comedic values. This “mockumentary” plays up the stereotype of the South as being a wholly racist region of the country, and depicts the way our country would have turned out today had the Confederacy won the Civil War. Despite its partly humorous intention, one aspect of the film that was particularly shocking to me was the series of commercials for extremely racist products that were advertised. While some of the products were simply made up, the end credits of the film note that some of the more racist ones had actual historical origins, giving their inclusion an overall sense of meaning.

An example of such a product that was advertised in the film was for Gold Dust Washing Powder, a cleaning aid sold in the United States from the 1880s to the 1930s. In the film, the product was advertised with two African American babies coming through and cleaning a household. Additionally, the commercial’s narrator used phrases like, “Are you a slave to housework? Let the Gold Dust twins emancipate you from the burdens of cleaning.” The implied image of two African American children coming to clean your house is an overt example of the racism inherent in the advertisement. Additionally, the use of the words “slave” and “emancipate” suggest a further connection between the product and the institution of slavery.

While I was initially appalled by advertisements like this one, I was even more shocked to learn at the end of the film that “both black children and whites in blackface were cast as Goldie and Dustie in popular Gold Dust Washing Powder advertisements.” The inclusion of these facts at the end of the film serve to justify the ridiculous claims the film makes about life in the U.S. after a Confederate victory. Moreover, it shows that we should not think of the Civil War as the end of racism and prejudice in the U.S., as these advertisements exhibit the many forms of discrimination that have endured over time. Additionally, as Emma highlighted in her blog post, the film notes some of the other historical accuracies of the Confederacy’s post Civil War plans. One example of these was the idea to expand the Confederacy’s influence into the Caribbean and South America to create a tropical empire to fuel the South’s plantation-based economy. The racist advertisements and historically accurate plans for the Confederacy’s victory suggest that despite some of the film’s ridiculous claims, it is a valuable narrative in that it brings to light some important facts about the Civil War era and complicates the history that many Americans take for granted.

April 28, 2014

Southern Resilience

While no side of a war wants to concede defeat, the Confederacy seemed particularly resistant to a Union victory, especially towards the end of the war. Though we have been taught of the importance of slavery to Southern livelihood, Davis in Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage further explores Southern dependence on slavery. He emphasizes that “few wars in human history have led to such a radical outcome as the liberation of some four million slaves” (Davis 298). He quantifies that the modern comparison of the South losing slavery would be the United States’ GNP falling by “an estimated $9.75 trillion” (298). Even the North expressed concern that Southern defeat “would spark European intervention in order to protect the crucial supply of cotton” (314). As noted in “Great Britain’s Impact on the Politics of Slavery in the United States,” the South observed the effect of slave emancipation in Jamaica, which severely diminished the country’s production of valuable crops. With this background in mind, it becomes clear why the South pragmatically fought for slavery; without it, their economy would fail.

The do-or-die mentality of Southern leaders altered the Civil War. President Lincoln recognized Southern dependence on slavery, and he even lamented that “if all early power given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]” (306). This observation necessitated the Union approach Southern defeat with caution. Likewise, the South exhausted all resources in attempt to emerge victorious. The Confederacy lost over 260,000 soldiers, which “represented 18 to 20 percent of the Confederate states’ white adult male population” (300). More importantly, the South significantly expanded the powers of its central government. Davis observes, “In both North and South the central governments assumed unprecedented powers, typified by the military draft, which was first inaugurated by the South” (301). The Confederacy viewed the loss of resources and change in governmental power as necessary by the Confederacy in an attempt to win the Civil War-a war that they knew would have vast ramifications on their economy and life.

April 27, 2014

A Bloody War

In the last chapter of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses the Civil War and the process of emancipation. Throughout the chapter, he talks in detail about the social and political battles during the war, and the feelings and emotions of each side as the war continued. Although I already knew that the American Civil War was the bloodiest American war to date, I did not fully realize the extent of this statement. Davis brings up the question, “Why was it that a democratic nation that prided itself on rational moderation, peace, common sense, expediency, and compromise became the scene of the world’s first “modern” war, pursued by the North until its armies achieved unconditional victory, totally crushing the South?” (page 300). Both sides of the war lost so many men, with the number of casualties over 600,000. Disease contributed heavily to these numbers, as they were overcrowded and had poor sanitation. Execution of prisoners of war was a surprising contributor to the death toll. I did not realized that both sides killed prisoners of war, like at Fort Pillow when the Confederate government massacred all of the black Union soldiers. Events like this show the deep-seated hatred on both sides of the war, and how either side was willing to take the next step in order to win.

Davis further discusses this idea of doing anything to win when he addresses how both sides expanded government power during the war. Both sides installed a draft to increase their army’s numbers, and the Union also started issuing bonds, printed more money, and started taxing income.

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. Davis highlights how this war devastated the country through the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the devastation of the land and plantations in the South. Although we will never know if slavery would have or could have ended without a war, the American Civil War still stands to be the bloodiest event in American history. The last few sentences of this chapter and book wrap up the Civil War by reminding us that the Civil War is our past, and that sometimes if takes a struggle to have greater equality and justice in the world.

April 23, 2014

The Iliad of Southerners’ Woes

Although many secessionist leaders denied it in the decades after the American Civil War, the institution of slavery was undoubtedly the cause of the conflict that left the United States divided in the 1860s. Identifying these self-justifying denials as the reason for one of the greatest falsifications in American history, Sean Wilentz attempts to set the record straight, claiming that Southern secession was directly related to slavery. By referencing the state secession conventions of 1860 and 1861, he justifies his assertion. According to Wilentz, the conventions clearly identified the attacks on slavery by the northern democracy as the fundamental issue of their secession; he mentions that even cooperationists agreed with this, quoting a moderate Alabama delegate who recognized the fight to extend slavery as “the Iliad of all our woes.” Wilentz continues, contending that “nothing could disguise the Confederacy’s overriding purpose, dear to Rhettist aristocrats and southern Master Race democrats alike: to create a republican government formally based on racial slavery.”

In addition to targeting slavery as the main cause of Southern secession, Wilentz maintains that slavery also served as “the highest good that united the secessionist cause.” He notes how “ the secessionists propagandized the interests of both slaveholders and nonslaveholders as… identical” in order to strengthen the secessionist movement and cites prominent editor James De Bow who acknowledged that although there were a great number of nonslaveholders, they directly benefitted from the institution of slavery. In addition to benefitting them economically, slavery also had the potential to benefit them socially as purchasing slaves signified upward mobility in the South. Therefore, it made sense for nonslaveholders to support the secessionists in order to protect their own interests. As the author of “The South Gaining Support” mentions, the secessionists also attempted to unify their cause by appealing to the nonslaveholders’ “white supremacist pride and fears.” Immediate emancipation would mean a shameful submission by slaveholders and nonslaveholders alike. The ultimate result was a strong sense of nationalism in the South. As Wilentz notes, “throughout the lower South, men dressed in uniforms and waving flags of various designs volunteered to fight for a nation that did not yet exist.”

Overall, Wilentz does a great job at uncovering the true cause of the American Civil War and justifying his assertion. He combats the denials of secessionist leaders by turning to the declarations of the secession conventions. Furthermore, Wilentz makes a strong argument as to how the South became so unified. Slavery was clearly the Iliad of Southerners’ Woes.

April 22, 2014

The Civil War’s More Immediate Causes

While past readings of The Rise of American Democracy have shed light on some of the long-term causes of the Civil War, in chapters 23-25, Wilentz gives us the war’s more immediate political origins. As Emma alludes to in her post, Lincoln lost the 1858 Illinois senate election to his political rival, Democrat Stephen Douglas. Although Wilentz highlights many events as contributing factors to the Civil War, he states that the most influential of these events was Lincoln’s 1858 loss to Douglas.

Central to each candidate’s campaign was what came to be know as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, a series of seven debates held throughout the state which gave the public a chance to see firsthand what each man stood for. Wilentz notes that Douglas’s campaign was ultimately centered on the idea that an individual territory should have the right to decide whether it shall be a free or slave state. Contrasting this stance, Lincoln ran his campaign on the idea that at its most basic form, slavery should be viewed as an issue of morality. In quoting one of his speeches, Wilentz notes Lincoln’s distinction between freedom and slavery, “The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings…It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it’”(417). Despite losing the election based on the Electoral College’s tally, Lincoln won the election’s popular vote, exhibiting that his framing the issue of slavery as an ethical one resonated with the people of Illinois.

Wilentz goes on to say that even with Lincoln’s loss, the Republican Party outside of Illinois was victorious during the 1858 elections (419). He asserts that the ground made up by the Republican Party in 1858 created favorable conditions for Lincoln’s campaign for the presidency two years later. Ultimately, Lincoln shaped slavery as an issue of morals, a belief that garnered his party political influence and created a defined campaign platform for his presidential candidacy. Whether he was willing to admit it or not, Wilentz shows how Lincoln’s strategy surrounding slavery was the tipping point that eventually pitted the North and the South against each other once and for all.

April 16, 2014

Growing Disunion

In Chapter 21 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the disputes in the US over the admission and control of western territories (California, Texas, New Mexico) largely in regards to slavery. The disputes can be summed up into North vs. South. When President Taylor presented his plan for admitting California, and soon after New Mexico, many southerners further projected thoughts of secession from the Union. Henry Clay then stepped in to quiet the outraged southerners with his set of resolutions: admission of California and the rest of Mexico’s given up land with no restrictions on the subject of slavery, the next basically preventing a pro-slave state coming out of Texas, another attempting to resolve the fight over slavery in DC by proposing the abolition of slave trade, not slavery itself in DC, and lastly denying congressional authority over the interstate slave trade with more strict federal laws in the recovery of fugitive slaves to offset the personal liberty laws put in action by the north. Reasonably, the resolutions did favor the South slightly, and I say reasonably because if they didn’t, then the South would have no reason to comply.

Later, the conclusion was reached, disregarding which deal was chosen, that if California was admitted into the Union as a free state, the southern states would be under the power of the north. Because of the many compromises and of new land by the North, the South was drastically falling behind in how much control it had in the future of the nation. In Thomas’ post, he talks about the effects of the Compromise of 1850 and also the controversy caused by the Fugitive slave law. Basically the compromise of 1850 was a delay because at the rate that the North and South were dividing and playing against each other in controlling new land out west and fighting for or against slavery, the Union was bound to separate. The North had begun taking any advantage it had over the south to remain in control, and the South, in response to that, began talk about seceding to use as leverage for many pro-slavery laws. Thus, leading to the Civil war in the near future.

Overall it was a very interesting reading; I enjoyed Wilentz’s depiction of both sides of the arguments made by the North and the South. It really gave me a grasp of the larger picture of what was going on at the time.

April 16, 2014

Battle for Compromise and Exiting Leaders

Chapter 21 of Wilentz was my favorite Chapter of “The Rise of American Democracy” yet. This specific period in time is one that I feel often gets brushed under the rug in a sense. While in every American history class there is bound to be some teachings of the Civil War, Wilentz describes specifically the true causes that lead the civil war, and the steps that the Government took to attempt to prevent the secession of the South. This chapter also brings names that are familiar to me in a more clear light with historical analysis.

As my classmate pointed out in “The Compromise of 1850. Did it Work?”, upon the conclusion of the Mexican-American War several key issues faced our country. The most apparent ones were the admittance of California, New Mexico, and Utah into the Union as states. There were numerous differentiating opinions on the correct way to go about doing this. As described in Wilentz, President Taylor wished to quickly admit California and New Mexico into the Union as free states, as he did not foresee slavery taking root in those regions. This obviously upset the pro-slavery factions who viewed this as a attack and complete destruction of the Missouri Compromise, which would lead to a permanent imbalance between the free and slave states. Henry Clay on the other hand drafted an eight step plan to have compromise between the two sides, and he worked to ratify this bill in Congress. Wilentz says of this, “Superficially, Clays compromise slightly favored the South”(344), but then goes onto to describe how the important decisions about the territories favor the North.

I found it very interesting how Wilentz describes the battles in relation to all of these contrasting views. There are all three sides that Wilentz tags with leaders: Calhoun as staunch pro slavery Southerner, Clay/Webster as seekers of compromise, and Seward as the clear Abolitionist. Having these leaders for the differing views made it very easy to follow and put the political battles in perspective. It somewhat reminds me of today, as our congress has many struggles agreeing on particular subjects. The battle for Healthcare is not all that much different than this battle in terms of different parties and people fighting for different opinions on an issue.

I also really liked how Wilentz described the role of Douglas after Clay’s version of the bill had failed. It was very interesting to see how his strategy to pass small parts of the bill at a time would prove to be effective for temporary compromise. It was also interesting to see Douglas as an actual political figure. All of my previous exposure to him is simply as the other person in the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. Being able to see a different side of him was very rewarding.

Also, in relation to William Seward, knowing that he would eventually be Lincoln’s Secretary of State, it made me wonder if a reason the South was so quick to succeed after Lincoln was elected was because he aligned himself with abolitionists like Seward.