Dr. Shrout – Page 4 – Popular Politics in Early America

September 12, 2013

The "Careful" Mob?

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 this week’s readings, I found it extremely interesting that both Pauline Maier and Wayne E. Lee argue for a historical reexamination, and eventual redefinition, of mob culture in the eighteenth century. There are several points where Maier and Lee overlap in their respective works, and collectively I think these commonalities only bolster the argument they strive to make. The first of these overlaps is found in claims that, by and large, mob action and riots were carefully planned and often used only as a last source of appeal to authority, both in Europe and Colonial America. Maier and Lee both state that mobs emerged only after all other legal options of airing political grievances had been shut down. With this in mind, each author emphasizes that this was very likely the case because each mobs seems to have practiced a “riot protocol” that almost all people seemed to follow (Lee 18). Lee continues to argue that the protocol was so specific that we can actually find patterns of mob action throughout early America. This provides us with a unique image of a riot as what was once a very formal, calculated affair, and mobs as groups of people who were “so domesticated and controlled” (Maier 17). Moreover, we can see through Lee and Maier that mobs in the eighteenth century were seen as legitimate political actors because their actions were often reinforced by the government in the form of “paternalistic” responses to the mobs’ grievances (Lee 17).

A second shared point between Maier and Lee that I agree with is the idea of the mob as a community affair. Maier states that there was indeed a community aspect to mobs and that the targets of mob attacks were those viewed as bad neighbors or citizens – mobs were often acting out of the best interest of the community (12). Lee also emphasizes the mob as a community, particularly when he discusses the festive nature of rioting. From these two works I gained the feeling that in the eighteenth century, riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and a means by which people could assure camaraderie amongst themselves.

With respect to my colleagues, I align myself with Ian’s comments about his skepticism toward “mob legitimacy.” I have a difficult time simply reconciling mobs as, according to Maier and Lee, “careful” and largely non-violent groups, especially with our contemporary perception of mobs as groups that exercise their influence through exclusively violent means (Lee 14). With that said, there is one point that I slightly disagree with in Ian’s post, and it is that the riots that ensued in colonial America were in response to an “oppressive government.” While I understand and fully agree with the broader point he is making about preserving colonists’ liberties, I would agree more with Max’s comments and argue that one point both Maier and Lee strive to assert is that these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists’ demands. I think this can be seen in Lee’s statement that oftentimes crowds would riot with the hope that the government “would react in a paternalistic way” (Lee 17). In this case, I do not think rioters’ problems were explicitly in response to government policy, but rather in simply getting authority to hear their political voices.

September 11, 2013

The Legality of a Riot

Before reading Pauline Maier’s “Popular Uprisings and Civil Authority in Eighteenth-Century America” I was a little skeptical about mob legitimacy in this era. From today’s perspective, mob’s carry too many negative connotations to be considered good in any sense. Yet, Maier does a magnificent job of portraying how mob action was an accepted and necessary social tool of the era. She goes even further, by shockingly breaking down the negatively viewed ideas of mobs and rebuilding the term in a way that grants sympathy for those involved. Maier does this by providing explicit details that exemplifies how North American Colonial mobs were truly not violent and uncontrolled like their British counterparts. Instead, they were the efforts of an abused people who fell to mob action as a last hope in their efforts to secure their liberties as a people.

One statement from Maier’s work that struck me was Thomas Jefferson’s statement regarding mob usage. His statement was; “What country can preserve it’s (sic) liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance” (Maier 26). After mulling over the idea of mob action for a little, I realized that this statement is the epitome of what a mob was for Colonial British America. It was not an effort to create mayhem or chaos, which are ideas that are normally associated with mobs. Rather, it was the colonist’s last ditch effort to show their rulers the effects of unruly and unfair laws placed upon them. When impressment reached the point of potentially crippling a society or acts like the sugar act could destroy an entire colony’s economy, the colonists fell to mob action. This was not their first course of action though, as colonists from the poorest of the poor to even the magistrates followed all legal steps before turning to extralegal actions.

In Wayne E. Lee’s “Crowds and Soldiers in Revolutionary North Carolina” the legal procedures that colonists tried before arriving at mob action are laid out in a clear cut manner. In elaborating on the Enfeild Riots, Lee does a great job of depicting how the colonists took every legal step from a petition, to speaking with the attorney general, and finally to the raising their notion with the Assembly before arriving at mob action (Lee 24). By reading these steps, it only legitimized the “legality” of the colonist’s actions. In my opinion, the colonists followed every step of the law and it was their fault they had to resort to this action, but their government which forced them into this desperation. Their only hope was preserving their liberties under an oppressive government, which any American citizen can sympathize with no matter their class in society.

After reading through Ben Hartshorn’s post regarding mob action I would have to agree with him on every point but one. He states that “the shape and rules of mob violence had not changed very much” in comparison to the mobs of England, Germany, and Scotland (Benjamin Hartshorn Philadelphia, PA). In this juncture, I would say based on both Maier’s and Lee’s pieces that we can see a clear cut difference between the mobs of the colonies and those of Western Europe. The clearest and most distinct difference rests with the organization and lack of violence between the groups. It is stated in Maier’s piece how the English at times were excessively violent and destroyed numerous pieces of property that had no relation to their target. Following that, Maier mentions how the colonists rarely destroyed anything that was not their target and rarely, if ever, turned to violence that was not ultimately necessary, which helped them avoid significant deaths. If anything, this difference alludes to the superior organization of the colonists compared to western Europeans when it comes to their extralegal activities. With this in mind, I would have to respectfully disagree with my friend on the similarities between the mobs of North America and Western Europe.

September 4, 2013

Hodes' Use of Speculation

In her article for Rethinking History, Martha Hodes uses a combination of primary source material and her own speculation to tell the story of Eunice Richardson, a Civil War widow who later remarried a West Indian man of color. I enjoyed Hodes’ writing and appreciated the fact that the article’s arguments were rooted in primary source documents, namely from Eunice’s correspondences. However, I’m conflicted about Hodes’ use of speculation in her creation of the possible scenarios that would have led to Hodes’ courtship with her second husband, William Smiley (though Hodes was totally honest about when she was employing such speculation). In my time doing history in school, I have always been told that any argument I make must be rooted in hard evidence in primary source documents. Hodes clearly does not do this at certain points.
For example, on page five, Hodes discusses the possible ways Eunice and Smiley could have met in Massachusetts, concluding that the most likely place was a Congregationalist church in Pawtucket, based on the church’s reputation for being inclusive of non-whites and those of other Christian sects. However, I felt that Hodes glossed over the fact that neither Eunice nor Smiley were Congregationalists, which was the only hard evidence she had on the matter. Again, Hodes did not try and fool the reader into taking her speculation as absolute truth, but I’m unsure about how seriously one can take an argument that relies so heavily on speculation. Similarly, on pages six to seven, Hodes now having decided on Alabama as their most likely meeting place, speculates that Eunice’s trip to Vermont was part of a courtship custom of the time to test Smiley’s resolve as a suitor. Hodes admits she is speculating when she first mentions it, but then that one piece of speculation is used as an underpinning of her later arguments as if it is hard fact. I have some trouble with that kind of argument because it goes against so much of what I have learned about writing history.
However, after reading some classmates’ posts on this article, I gained more respect for Hodes’ work. In his blog, Ben Hartshorn says that “writing about Thomas Jefferson (who filed and recorded his prolific writing so well) would not require this sort of reconnaissance work.” He makes an interesting point. Someone like Thomas Jefferson produced countless writings of his own—not to mention, his status as a wealthy landowner in 18th century made his contemporaries more likely to pay attention to him and record his words—a poor widow like Eunice Stone did not have that benefit. So, as long as one is honest about what they are doing, it can be useful to engage in some speculation (backed up by primary source material and a knowledge of the times’ customs) to see the possibilities of an interesting life that unfortunately went undocumented. So, while Hodes’ methods can be a bit jarring at first, upon further consideration, I certainly can appreciate her motivations.

September 3, 2013

Solcz Blog 2

I whole heartedly agree with the editors of “Beyond the Founders” interpretation of the importance of the newspaper in early 19^th century politics. Particularly, I support the belief that the newspapers “represented and embodied” the ideals of each political party (41). In an era where communication across a state could take days to accomplish, there was a great schism in terms of shared ideas amongst party members. Even more so, those who supported these parties but, were not actively involved in them struggled further to acquire knowledge about all the various policies and ideas of the group. Due to this phenomenon, the newspaper provided both party members and followers access to the crucial details of their party’s ideals, policies, etc. Without the papers, the various drunken banquet toasts that were so important in terms of the stance of different parties would have been lost in the night’s events, rather than becoming a rallying point for members.

Today, it is social media that is replacing the newspaper as the entity that embodies and represents all the public needs to know about a political group. For me, twitter is my go to for any political information that I need, as I follow various groups and people that represent the ideologies I believe in. I am not alone in this usage either, as in a link I posted with this blog, it outlines how a number of political parties use twitter, Facebook, and many other forms of social media to spread their messages and garnish support for any upcoming elections of people or policy. The newspaper may be outdated in terms of its effectiveness in present day but, its usage lives on within the vast networks of connections we have through social media.

Though I initially disagreed with Noah Webster’s points on an aristocracy and the problems of giving people power, after reading Eli’s position on the argument I have swayed my position a bit. Eli’s statement regarding Webster being a product of his time was the catalyst that sparked my transition. Webster made his comments not long after the American Revolution, which thereby meant not long after the Americans ceased to be British. It would be unreasonable to believe that American ideology was suddenly so different from the British perspective regarding the ruling of a country. Many probably still believed that the rule of their land should be placed in the hands of an elite group, but a group that represented their interests. In today’s world, I know I do not want any man walking down the street having control of our country’s directive. It takes a specific type of person with a unique mind to have the ability to rule such a diverse land, something few people within this country possess. With this in mind, I concur with Eli’s position on Webster not being so radical even in today’s political arena.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/345532/description/Social_Media_Sway

September 2, 2013

American Politics Infographic

Check out this handy infographic of changes in American political parties: here.

August 29, 2013

Blog 1

Though I have written a piece supporting the Anti-Federalist claims against the Constitution and the democratic system established within America, I still find Noah Webster’s claims against democracy shocking. In many of the Anti-Federalist papers written during the 1780s, a number of authors point put the issues of allowing a few to speak for the many. I could be wrong about this but; I believe it was one representative for every fifty thousand individuals within the United States. For the Anti-Federalists, this was an abomination to allow within the democratic society, as it created a ruling aristocracy. Yet, Webster seems to have believed that this was the only possible way the system would be successful. His words about the “insufferable idiots” that comprised the United States went well beyond any Anti-Federalist positions to the point of conforming to British aristocratic beliefs. It was a common thought amongst the British elite that the generally uneducated farmers which comprised the United States were unsuited for running such a vast land and would inevitably fail in their venture. This notion seems comparable to the statements of Noah Webster regarding his pessimistic stance against American Democracy, as he believed the system as destined for doom.

If anything, one could view Webster’s insults to the common American citizen as prejudice. By differentiating between the fools/knaves and the honest man, Webster alludes to a comparable discrimination such as black and white. At the bare minimum, he is saying that anyone with property like himself is a clearly more charismatic and sophisticated individual than those without any. It is no wonder Webster was at odds with Jefferson after statements such as these. For Jefferson, these “fools and knaves” that Webster so feverishly insulted were the backbone of his view for the future of the United States. Jefferson’s view also could potentially be seen as the major influence behind Fredrick Jackson Turner’s stance on the West influencing democracy. Turner’s position institutes that the lower class individuals that spread West with dreams of a better life were the catalysts that sparked democracy’s successful growth into such a strong governing force. For Jefferson, this was the vision of his utopia.

August 29, 2013

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!