Dr. Shrout – Page 2 – Popular Politics in Early America

November 6, 2013

What Do You Mean, "You People"?

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

In ““No Irish Need Apply”: A Myth of Victimization,” Richard Jensen examines the myth of Irish-Catholic exclusion from mainstream American jobs and activities and its origins as a protective tool for the Irish community. He argues that Irish claims of its (NINA) existence were a political statement that enhanced and perpetuated non-individualistic work culture.

In order to fully understand the myth of discrimination in the Irish pathos, Jensen needed to show the full extent of evidence there was that supported it. He seemed to have boiled it down to a single piece of sheet music with the refrain “No Irish Need Apply!” in 1862(409). It is important to note that this was based off a song from London about discrimination against Irish maids, because of the fact that the American version is about Irish working men. I think this is significant because of the association of labor and masculine activities mentioned in Wilentz such as day drinking and putting out fires. In Kenny’s chapter on racial perceptions of Irish in American culture, he writes that racially-based stereotypes were mainly directed at men rather than women. In a paper I wrote for a different class about the rise of white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina, masculinity and race were also closely related because African Americans and women in the antebellum South were dependents. White supremacy in this case was a reaction to the eclipsed dominance of the white man.

Both Jensen and Kenny return to the 19^th century Irish phenomenon of collective violence. Jensen views mob violence as one of the instances where Irish acted out in a way that demonstrated solidarity against what was perceived as hostility and “othering”. Kenny points out that these massive bursts of social and political violence provided the strongest evidence for nativists making racial claims about Irish. By comparing these two statements, it is easy to see how the solidarity could have been viewed instead as self-segregation based on racial standards.

November 5, 2013

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Here’s the Drunk History of Oney Judge, Washington’s slave ( Drunk History of Orey Judge )

Chapters 7 and 8 Wilentz have the feel of a parable of greed and redemption. The boisterous lower-class patrons of Bowery Street gain power in the political machine by politicizing their actions, but which spirals out of control in the chaos and loss of the Panic of 1837. It seems that Bowery is the embodiment of the Roman Coliseum and the Elizabethan Round Theatre, except that the top tiers held the prostitutes and not the Patricians. This is what the lower classes did when the upper classes were not around.

Like Ben Hartshorn ’13 and Michael Lamoureux ’14, I was left with the impression that Wilentz hit the nail on the head by presenting Bowery Street as a microcosm of the working class in Jacksonian America. I think this microcosm is more believable as a frame of reference for Northern cities than in “Shopkeeper’s Millennium”. That said, you see some of the same issues with sustaining the temperance movement on Bowery as you do in Rochester. Joseph Brainerd’s Presbyterian Church, which was determined to help workers to better achieve the fruits of their labor, in 1836 was only 37% new members, and of these 87% were women. Overall, very few masters (14.9%) and even fewer journeymen partook (only Frederick Byrd) (280-81).

The great difference between Rochester and Bowery is the role of the Unions in temperance. In Rochester, it seemed that the workers didn’t stay around too long to settle down and join a union. In New York, the Unions found an enemy in the Temperance movement. To the Temperance movement, they had become too similar to the drunken Fire Brigades and “benevolent societies” by creating “foolish nostrums, panaceas, and social hatreds” and meeting in taverns and porterhouses (283).

November 4, 2013

Another useful map of American politics

Here is another nice visualization of American politics in antebellum America – I especially like how this one shows increases in political participation through voting.

Enjoy!

October 28, 2013

Print Media – Unveiling Hidden Voices

This week’s readings complemented each other well in outlining the development of black nationalism and political community in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. I found Newman’s tracing the development of a political voice for free people of color through print extremely effective. His claim that persistent use of print media led society “to reconsider its justification of bondage” and a tearing down of racial stereotypes is well supported in the countless pamphlets, articles, and speeches he uses to demonstrate the expansion of the political voice for black people (182-183). In this way, Newman reveals that in a time when the freedom was often limited for free people of color, print media was an outlet where disgruntled black people could vent their frustrations and share their ideas in a public forum. Moreover, Newman shows that the process of publishing for free people of color was a political statement in and of itself (184).

One aspect of Newman’s argument that relates to our discussion from last class is his analysis of the adaptations made by free people of color to ensure their political voice, specifically through what he calls “patron-client politics.” This method revolved around black activists garnering support from white elites to connect them to the parts of the world often inaccessible to free people of color (187). Unlike Reid, who in last week’s reading painted free people of color as victims to a system similar to patron-client politics, Newman writes about this system as an avenue of advancement for black people. While both claims are convincing and well supported, it is interesting to see two very divergent views on social systems that share very similar characteristics.

I think Fanning’s piece was a great expansion of the scope established by Newman. By bringing the role of the Haitian Revolution into discourse about the development of black nationalism in the early-nineteenth century we begin to see some of the possible inspiration behind the changing political climate for free people of color. As Fanning notes, black people in the North used the Haitian Revolution “as a rallying cry” for their own movements (63). Like Newman, Fanning also effectively notes the importance of print culture in the creation of a political voice for free people of color. As Eli mentions in his post from last week, the Pennsylvania personal liberty laws made free people of color second-class citizens perceived as undeserving of full protection under the laws. Eli’s argument is supported by Fanning. Haitians, realizing what Eli indicated in his post, appealed to those free people of color inflicted by the injustices of personal liberty laws – they were sure to indicate that the laws of Haiti did not allow white men to own land within their country. Fanning also reveals that American merchants supported the recognition of Haiti in major newspapers (67). While depicting the importance of print media in the growth of black nationalism, Fanning also underscores the success of print to spread previously quieted voices and ideas within American society and throughout the Caribbean. Both Newman and Fanning do well in highlighting how free people of color found a way to make all they could out of a white-dominated political system and how, amidst challenging circumstances, were successful in establishing their own political identity.

October 28, 2013

Problems in Haiti

In her article entitled The Roots of Early Black Nationalism, Sara C. Fanning writes about the political significance that Haiti held for African-Americans after going from a slave state to a black-led, independent nation in 1804 following its revolution. More specifically, Fanning’s thesis is that Haiti gave free African-Americans (who, despite not being enslaved, still faced disenfranchisement, the possibility of being enslaved, etc.) hope by existing as a successful society where people of color were the ones in charge. Fanning has lots of convincing evidence about Haiti itself showing why it would be an inspiring place to people of color in the United States. For one thing, black people’s rights were preeminent to those of whites in Haiti’s constitution—for example, whites could not own land in post-Revolution Haiti. (65) It is not surprising that black people in America would be inspired by such a system. Fanning also points out that Haiti was economically successful even as the United States under Jefferson put the country under a trade embargo—Fanning discusses the importance of its ports and how sailors complimented its economy and government. (66-67) Those are just two of many ways Fanning points out that would make Haiti look promising to black Americans.

Fanning also points out that there were civic groups in the United States, made up of both African-Americans and white Americans, that pushed Haiti as a good place for African-Americans to emigrate to. (74) That, combined with concerted efforts by Haitian leaders, resulted in 13,000 African-Americans immigrating to the islands in the 1820s. (75) However, Fanning must admit that many of them soon returned the United States. She chalks these returns up to cultural differences and feelings that there was no more work to be done in Haiti following France’s recognition of the state. Fanning uses primary sources to show that Haiti’s policies and cultural realities did make the country a significant beacon of hope to politicized African-Americans.

Despite the successes of Fanning’s argument, I believe that she does not pay enough attention to early Haiti’s instability and how that may have affected African-Americans’ views of the country. She acknowledges that Haiti’s first president, Dessalines, was assassinated two years after Haitian independence and that the country was momentarily split in two. However, she does not address how those events may have affected African-Americans’ view of the country and its status as a symbol of hope. I’m sure many people would be skeptical of the long-term health of such a country so unstable so soon after its revolution, let alone the idea of moving there permanently. Yes, Boyer’s reunification and lasting rule of the country probably dissuaded those fears somewhat (though he was eventually overthrown and exiled), but what about the tension in Haiti between black people and mixed race people that Fanning briefly alludes to? (65) Many African-Americans were of mixed race or at least must have been related to or known people who were. Wouldn’t that have been troublesome to many black and mixed race Americans? Looking at all these tensions and issues of stability, I would not be surprised if they played a role in the many African-Americans who moved to Haiti and came back. However, Fanning does not address those as possible reasons when discussing the many who emigrated and returned to the United States. So, while Fanning does some things right, I believe that she does not give enough consideration to early Haiti’s many problems.

October 23, 2013

The Unfreedom of "Freedom"

Patricia Reid’s “Margaret Morgan’s Story” challenged me to think about aspects of slavery among border states that I had previously never given thought. Her juxtaposition of the concepts of slavery and freedom within the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania ultimately led to a thorough examination of the legitimacy of freedom for African Americans in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. This analysis was supported in large part by Reid’s excellent critique on the personal liberty laws passed in Pennsylvania in 1826. While Reid explains the initial, benevolent intentions of the laws, she proceeds to reveal their myriad weaknesses in protecting African Americans. When compared to the personal liberty laws of New York or Massachusetts, the laws of Pennsylvania had no effect in changing the political voice or power of African Americans – if accused of being a fugitive slave, African Americans were not even provided a jury trial (369). If anything, Reid effectively emphasizes that the political stance of free African Americans was weakened by placing the jurisdiction of their trials into the hands of elite white slaveholders. For many African Americans, freedom was entangled in a convoluted system of unfreedom.

Continuing her mockery of personal liberty laws in border states, Reid highlights the proceedings of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania trial of 1842. When the issue of these laws were taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, the status of Margaret Morgan and her children – previously free African Americans who had been accused of being fugitive slaves, kidnapped, and then sold into slavery in the South – was never addressed, although state laws of both Maryland and Pennsylvania dictated that they were free (373). In depicting the proceedings of the trial, Reid demonstrates that the personal liberty laws of Pennsylvania were wholly ineffective. In this light she also reveals the lack of importance placed on African American issues by the white elite in the nineteenth century – equal treatment towards free African Americans was a non-issue because in the minds of many blacks were not, and would never be, equals. Reid uses the example of the Pennsylvania personal liberty laws as a kind of satire for the entire system by which African Americans were to be protected against injustice. Collectively, I think this writing contributes greatly to supporting her overarching thesis of a growth of “pro-slavery constitutionalism” throughout the middle of the nineteenth century (360)

While Reid’s criticism of personal liberty laws is both detailed and insightful, the first half of her work dilutes her argument. In trying to establish the legal framework for the unfortunate events of the Morgan family and the subsequent Prigg trial, Reid provides readers with a background that is largely excessive. I think Reid could have made a much more powerful argument had she spent more time emphasizing the opinions and perspectives of those directly affected by the liberty laws, freed African Americans. With this in mind, I think the questions presented by Henry and Ian are very important. These questions underscore Reid’s lack of layman perspective in her work. What did the populace think about freed slaves? How did African Americans view personal liberty laws? Reid’s use of quotes from both a freed African American and Frederick Douglass were critical in establishing the black perspective in her argument, but the paucity with which they were used left me wanting more depth in this portion of her analysis (370, 365). Despite her missed opportunities, Reid is still able to clearly articulate that manumission did not imply freedom, and freedom in no means implied equality for African Americans in the nineteenth century.

October 23, 2013

The Doubled Edged Sword of Pennsylvania's Liberty Laws

In Patricia A. Reid’s “Slavery and Abolition: a Journal of Slave and Post Slave Studies,” she references a quote by Fredrick Douglas that indicates an interest system regarding runaway slaves. Douglas once said “white men have been known to encourage slaves to escape, and then, to get the reward, catch them and return them to their masters” (365). This statement describes how the retrieval of slaves became somewhat of a business for white men during the 19^th century. Previously, I had known it was common for a reward to be given for a man to return another person’s slave. Yet, I never guessed that whites working alongside slaves in lower class jobs during this period would try to influence them into escaping only to have an upper hand in securing the reward. It is shameful at best but, it reiterates the idea that slaves were not considered people but, were property used for monetary gain.

An interesting situation that Reid details in her work was the predicament of being a free black within Pennsylvania. Reid describes how slaves and free blacks could easily integrate into Pennsylvania society because, this state, unlike Ohio, did not record free blacks (367). For slaves, this seemed like a blessing in disguise, as it was a close state in terms of distance in which they could feasibly assimilate into society. Yet, Reid reveals how this apparent blessing was actually a detrimental issue for black individuals of any status during the 19^th century.

Even though Pennsylvania enacted personal liberty laws in 1826, which were supposed to halt free blacks from being wrongfully uprooted and returned to slavery, the very system of the state essentially negated this law. Though this law was in effect, the free blacks were not granted a trial by jurors, or any due process of the law, leaving the decision of their case up to a white authority (369). As free blacks were not recorded in the state, if they did not have a strong white authority to speak on their behalf, like in Richard Allen case, they were left with little proof of their position (368). With this type of system in effect, the freedom of free blacks in Pennsylvania was unfortunately always in danger. Without strong white support behind them, a posse of slave catchers could appear and carry a number of blacks back to the south to be sold back into slavery, which is what occurred with the Morgan family. Though Pennsylvania tried to halt these practices with their laws, the system they had in place negated such affects, leaving free blacks generally unprotected in an often hostile environment.

After reading over Henry’s post, I completely agree with his questions regarding why both Maryland and Pennsylvania did not have significant legislation reflecting their people’s views. Though Pennsylvania did have a gradual emancipation policy, this was a limited route to abolition at best. Maryland meanwhile, did not feature such laws but, did have white slave owners releasing their slaves, which is what happened with the Morgans. In regards to Henry’s potential answer, I’d have to agree once again. Slavery as a whole was a critical social issue that had caused the Founding Fathers, as well as the Constitutional Convention. Though the United States had grown in many ways at the time of this issue, the idea of total abolition was still a distant possibility for the country as a whole. Even if people viewed it as wrong, it was so deeply ingrained into American culture that it was going to take a war that ripped the country in two to end this practice for good.

October 23, 2013

Reid's Legal History of Free African-Americans' Rights

In her article for Slavery and Abolition, Patricia Reid looks at the how fugitive slaves and free African-Americans were treated under the law in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Specifically, she looks at the story of Margaret Morgan, a free slave who was at the centerpiece of the Supreme Court case that essentially invalidated laws requiring slaveholders to show definitive proof of the freedom status of a black person accused of being a fugitive slave. Reid begins by outlining how border states like Maryland and Pennsylvania were important because of the large numbers of free and enslaved African-Americans living in the same areas. Reid points out that a significant number of slave owners in Maryland voluntarily freed their slaves due to abolitionist sentiments. (361) However, at the same time, the state passed laws restricting the movements of all people of color due to a fear that having so many free blacks around would encourage escape attempts and enable fugitive slaves to hide.

Unlike Maryland, Pennsylvania was a free state, also with high abolitionist sentiments. Reid cites Pennsylvania’s 1826 personal liberty laws, which put the burden of proof on the claimant slaveholder attempting to recapture a fugitive slave. (368) However, these laws were weakened by the fact that Pennsylvania did not keep records of free African-Americans, and also because the personal liberty laws put final decisions in the hands of white authority figures rather than in the hands of a jury. Morgan’s case of disputed freedom went all the way to the Supreme Court, who decided that Pennsylvania’s personal liberty laws were unconstitutional as they interfered with a slave owner’s constitutionally guaranteed right to escaped slaves who fled to free states. That finding made slave owner’s claims to their human property preeminent to blacks’ claims to the constitutionally guaranteed right of a fair trial, legally implying that blacks were not protected under the Constitution, which was enumerated explicitly years later in the Dred Scott case.

Reid convincingly argues for everything I discussed in the above paragraphs. She cites primary sources and countless laws and amendments to make clear the progression of laws restricting African-Americans’ rights in Maryland and Pennsylvania, regardless of their freedom status. She also makes a good case that those restrictive laws were bright on by legislators’ concerns that having so many free blacks in a slave state or a border state brought on enough ambiguity to structurally threaten slavery, as it provided slaves with more escape mechanisms. She also acknowledges the role of railroads and ships, both of which were large methods of transportation on the coasts of those states, as escape methods and therefore further threats to slavery.

However, I believe her argument begs the question of why, if Maryland and Pennsylvania had such abolitionist populations, were those sentiments not more reflected in legislation? If so many people in those states were against slavery, or at least in Maryland’s case in favor of freeing their own slaves personally, why were they not electing officials who would legislate more explicit protection for freed slaves? Reid cites the citizens of Pennsylvania’s York County as “disgusted” at what happened to Margaret Morgan, and also that a York County jury found the slave catcher in the case guilty of kidnapping (372). If so many people held those views, then why did Pennsylvania not have laws recording free African-Americans as such? My guess is that perhaps outright abolitionism was still a relatively radical view. Perhaps most people felt that they themselves did not want to own slaves, but were alright with it happening in the South and thus alright with laws to bring back fugitive slaves. However, it would have been nice for Reid to spend some time on this.

October 21, 2013

Rebellion; A Slave's Only Choice

Eugene Genovese’s “Slave Revolts in Hemispheric Perspective” offers an interesting perspective on criteria that appeared as necessary for a successful slave revolt, specifically relating to those within the United States. In his piece, Genovese lists a series of conditions that were favorable to have in order for an African slave revolt to occur. Things such as; “African-born slaves” outnumbering American born ones, a slave structure where an autonomous black leadership could develop, and a variety of other pieces were almost necessary if a slave revolt was to occur (12).

Unfortunately, as Genovese describes, these criteria were rarely ever allowed to come to fruition within the “old south” of the United States, suppressing large scale revolts. For one, though slaves were at times trained in the use of firearms, there was rarely ever enough in one given area to adequately overthrow the white owners and they were also untrained in any tactical usage (16). Furthermore, as a result of westward movement, it was difficult for strong ties to be created amongst slaves due to the constant physical reshuffling and potential for any leaders to be sold out (15). With factors such as these restricting them, Genovese indicates how slaves struggled to generate any significant momentum for a slave revolt in North America.

Though slave revolts struggled to gain momentum within North America, in places like Brazil this was not the case during the 19^th century. Genovese elaborates on how a factionalized and weakened political system opened the door for a series of slave revolts in Bahia from 1807-1835. These revolts occurred as a result of the tensions between the bourgeois and landowners, which created the perfect climate for African slaves to take acquire a strong foothold in revolts, desertions, etc. (23).

For every potential successful rebellion, Genovese describes a number of gruesome results of failed rebellions. In describing “The Great Rebellion” in Berbiece, Genovese indicates how the defeat of the revolting slaves led to mass executions “conducted with all the cruelty Europeans invariably attribute to nonwhite savages” (34). The article also depicts how even when slaves showed moderation in the rebellions, they were still put down in cold blood regardless of how violent they were (35). In how Genovese describes these retaliations, it almost like he is casting the whites as the savages the slave owners believed slaves to be. He casts their brutality towards the slaves, who were merely fighting for their freedom, as something comparable to the brutality which we today associate with mass genocides.

Throughout our semester so far we have discussed a number of different types of rebellions and riots that were used to express the positions of the rebels. Yet, within all these various rebellions, the participants took a number of steps before reaching any type of violent gathering. They spoke to officials, wrote petitions to their representative bodies, and so on. Yet, the slaves mentioned in Genovese’s piece were not able to take any steps as these. As underprivileged and silent people, the slaves typically had no voice where they could express their problems with freedom. It could be guessed that by speaking out as an individual, a slave would face a harsh punishment. Without the ability to speak for themselves, the African slaves were left with only one option in terms of expressing their position, rebellion. Yet, unlike white revolts, where even an unsuccessful rebellion had some positive influence, slaves were faced with a much more negative result. By the eighteenth and nineteenth century revolts for slaves were almost suicidal, as the retaliation was so brutal (49). Without this “social right,” African slaves were left with little to no options to express their hatred for their position in society.

October 17, 2013

An Expansion of Women's History

This past week, we read Theda Perdue’s Cherokee Women. I found it very interesting because I have not read many direct accounts of Native American life and society structure, and unsurprisingly ones I have read tended to focus on men. As Michael Lameroux points out in his post, this book fits into what I have seen from a few other books in my history classes in the past year or so. For example, last year I read Woody Holton’s Abigail Adams, which focused on how John Adams’ wife Abigail took an active and often equal role in their marriage. I also read Maya Jasanoff’s Liberty’s Exiles, which spent a good deal of time on Molly Brant, a woman of the Mohawk tribe who wielded great power in her community during the Revolutionary era, in great part due to her romantic relationship with the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs. However, those books focused on women of the upper echelons of their respective societies, and also ones who likely would not have had as much power were it not for their husbands’ positions. Perdue’s book, on the other hand, exposes the importance of the roles of a wider swath of Cherokee women.

Perdue begins by establishing that the Cherokee did have defined gender roles, which she describes as “theoretically rigid” but in reality not so, due to men’s propensity to help. Women’s duties included agricultural chores, which seems to have been typical of native societies who depended heavily on crops. (18) Another example of a similarly structured society is that of many western African cultures, where agricultural tasks were similarly seen as women’s work to the point that men who participated were lesser than their peers. However, Perdue makes it clear that things were much more fluid among the Cherokee, pointing out that men were often expected to help in these agricultural duties rather than discouraged. Perdue also points out the important role of the menstrual cycle in Cherokee society. Cherokee women derived power from the menstrual cycle as it was so tied to pregnancy and childbirth. Perdue’s account of the myth of the “stone man” shows that this reverence for women’s menstruation was a deep-rooted part of Cherokee culture.

If I had one issue with the book, it is that I am a bit worried about the primary source material Perdue uses to make these claims. In the introduction, Perdue outlines the difficulties of finding reliable primary source material on Native American women, noting that many of the early accounts of Native American life come from Europeans who lacked context for what they saw and likely misinterpreted a lot. That, combined with the fact that historians have neglected women in general until relatively recently, makes this a difficult subject to research. However, after the introduction, Perdue does not remark much on those concerns. I think that it is difficult to make definitive claims with such limited source material, and believe Perdue should have done more to justify why her sources were worthwhile and good enough to back up her claims.