alsalvatierra – Popular Politics in Early America

November 21, 2013

Two Realities

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 “Epilogue” by Richard D. Brown, he examines the necessity and importance of an informed citizenry. He transitions between expressing sentiments that the US is destined for a future where the current, ignorant generation will ruin the country and the idea that the people in our society are actually prepared to run the country, despite our cynical notions of modern intellectual America. It is interesting to see the transformation his paper undergoes in regards to quotations (heavy in the beginning) and conclusiveness (not so much at the end).

He begins with they typical condemnation of modern America as a “Nation of Nitwits”, harnessing a common bleak perception of the country’s future in the hands of our youth who apparently are scholastically inferior to their predecessors. He touts a “cultural illiteracy” as the potential downfall of the nation as there will be no one to administer the country and its values if they do not have the adequate the education to prepare them for such a role. Brown then turns to the idea that “American workers are in the world’s upper echelon for productivity” which he ascertains must count for something in a world where time is money and the measuring stick for nations is GDP not happiness or any other type of immaterial determinant. At this point, his credibility wanes as he uses sweeping phrases such as, “most people recognize that American society…” Which type of people is he referencing? Is he going for an international perspective or is he just focusing on the self-awareness of Americans? I am not a fan of ambiguous writing among historians especially when it is a means for an argument.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in his argumentation when he claims that Americans during America’s early republic were “comparatively well informed because they read newspapers and books and paid closer attention to political contests than they do.” He asserts that people at this golden age prioritized academic pursuit and knowledgeable pursuits in favor of the frivolities that modern Americans indulge in. He later claims that the people in that age however were often manipulated by politicians who thought “people want information and are constantly liable to be misled.” It is a reversal from his previous theory that Americans centuries ago were sufficiently educated to make decisions for the government and posterity. Apparently, politicians were pretty “dirty” figures, as he labels them, centuries ago as well.

This week Michael wrote about how the “talking heads” of society are put on a pedestal for the common man in contrast to the early America. I agree that the concept of individual common citizens making up their mind without the intervention of a politician would be liberating. The need for a sovereign electorate free from the entrapments of modern media and what Brown mentions as “talk radio” inhibit the populace’s ability to educate themselves and form their own opinions without interference from an outside source. The modern world does pose many distractions which may factor into Brown’s fear of the future.

November 6, 2013

Naught but a Myth

In “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization”, Richard Jensen presents his views, substantiated with what seems like many studies and evidence, on why the the Irish were not really disfranchised to the extent that many contemporary Irish would have told. The “No Irish Need Apply” signs which formed the symbolic nexus of such claims are debunked as nowhere near as commonplace as people would have and really sets the tone for the article’s analysis of how Irish came to feel so marginalized. As Jensen asserts, labor was one of the most concerning elements of Irish life, so he spends much of the essay explaining how the work force was truly not so discriminatory.

Jensen uses very consistent, if not excessively repetitive argumentation, that there is no record of people seeing NINA signs on public businesses nor of business literature from the given period espousing anti-Irish business beliefs to the point that the Irish should be eliminated completely from employment consideration. The feelings of victimization and “chip-on-the-shoulder” ideas that emanated from these predicaments pushed the Irish to believe that all other ethnic and religious groups like the British and Protestants solely had nothing but hostility for towards them as potential citizens. These sentiments carried over to the United States where they realized that if they were to live prosperously they would have to bond together and profit from the advantages that a group of like-minded individuals conferred.

The group of the “Other”, which the Irish perceived as anyone outside their ethnic group or not wholly akin to them, was the enemy. They could not be trusted or reasoned with. This misunderstanding only led to outbursts of violence on the part of the Irish in attempts to maintain a solid status without being infringed upon by the “discriminatory” Americans. Assertions in this vein often seemed to have little sound basis. This facilitated a portrayal of the Irish as having a sort of irrational and groupthink mentality that all “other Americans were prejudiced against them, and were deliberately holding back their economic progress.” Jensen counters this notion by citing numerous statistics concerning the upward social mobility of the Irish as a collective group which was usually average or above average, showing no signs of discrimination. Thus it proved difficult to reconcile Irish anxieties with labor with the statistics that were disseminated in the period.

I agree with AJ’s post that “likely, the strong group ethos that encouraged Irish to always work together, and resist individualistic attempts to break away attributed to the popular myth.” It is very evident that the Irish were so caught up in maintaining a strong core of Irish support, they were hard-pressed to make significant progress in assimilating into other segments of American society. I enjoyed reading this article as it presented compelling arguments as a result of debunking previous myths and arguments perpetuated by historians without significant evidence. Jensen cites studies and methodically, step-by-step, undermines assertions that previous historians had made in order to present the most compelling argument.

October 31, 2013

Religion: Yea or Nay

In Chants Democratic, Sean Wilentz discusses the formation of the working class in the late 18th to early 19th Centuries. In the midst of the Second Great Awakening, a divide is created between “religionists” and “free-thinkers”, the rich and the poor, capitalists and socialists. Wilentz discusses these developments in great detail, providing an account of how certain evangelical movements led to the inclusion of morality in debates of politics, economics and of course, religion.

Along with much of what we had discussed earlier in Shopkeeper’s Millennium, a huge shifted transpired in the work relations between employers and workers in the 1820s as the temperance movement assumed an integral role in the New York. The motivations behind the temperance movement included both paternalistic moral reasons but also concerns of the effectiveness of workers with drinking tendencies. The employers did not want to be seen as advocates of temperance just so that it “could yield 25 percent more profits” but also to “improve their souls.” These masters walked the thin line between economic interests which would be seen as purely selfish and moral reasons which fit in perfectly with the ideals of wealthier peoples trying to exemplify evangelical benefits. Oddly enough, though, there also seemed to be assertions that helping young men to remove themselves from the drink would allow for more efficient labor and thus foster a more productive, successful country. This provided an interesting incentive of loyalty to the country so that people would work diligently.

A different perspective of morality was introduced with respect to social tensions and the social inequality prevalent throughout New York. The General Society and the Institute of New York City worked to create an environment that would even the playing field between the rich and poor in a system with “aristocratic mercantile abuses” and trying to “awaken the spirit of American Independence.” These institutions saw it as their duty to return the nation to a state of relative egalitarianism where each person’s worth could be measured as a function of their contributions to society and not as a product of how rich their family is. This morality is much differentiated from the one aforementioned problem but it was a very real problem that many saw as needing to be rectified by society. As Wilentz states though, “their fresh interpretation of artisan republicanism in turn fit well with the moral imprecations of the temperance men and the Association for Moral Improvement”, indicating that these two themes of morality and the duty to correct wrongs were very common in different fields during this early stage of American freedoms.

I appreciated the Wilentz’s writing in that provided many sources and quotes to substantiate his argument and the linear progression between different topics such as those I just discussed makes for very easy reading. It is much more satisfying to digest than say Fanning’s article because Wilentz gives each of his claims much evidence and leaves no question untouched. Last week, Eli posted about partial acceptance which seems to relate to the topics I have just written about. As the employers distanced themselves further from their workers and receded into private terms, the workers saw themselves as being accepted as a form of capital but discarded as a potential liability what with their drinking tendencies. The employers had to take the good and the bad with their workers.

October 28, 2013

Lack of Evidence

In “Slavery & Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies”, Sara C. Fanning discusses the extent to which the Haitian Revolution and the subsequent efforts by the Haitian government to lure northern free African Americans to the freedom of the new colony. She argues for the idea that Haiti, contrary to the beliefs of many modern historians, played a large role in fostering the political and cultural actions of American free people of color. Although I believe that she makes a decent argument and I am sure that there is some validity to it, she does not go about it in the most efficient way.

In forming her argument, Fanning assumes too much knowledge on the behalf of the reader. For example, Fanning refers to “northern free blacks subscribing to American republican sensibilities but were faced with a society retreating from its own revolutionary promises.” This may seem fairly clear but she does little in the successive sentences to elaborate on such a point. She gives no indication as to which revolutionary promises she is regarding and neglects to mention whether the fathers of the revolution really had free men of color in mind. Would it have been really so rational for American free men of color to expect white men to begin an emancipation of slaves in the wake of the American revolution which barely had anything to do with them. She could have approached this theme by first mentioning the ideals of the French revolution which actually related more to the men of Haiti and their freedom. This indicated for me the a less than ideal paper structure.

Fanning’s use of sources and quotes is also a bit disconcerting. She implements very sparse usage of quotes-only block quote in the whole paper-and this absence immediately jumps out at me as something that could be rectified to help the quality and structure of her paper especially one in which the argument of her paper is based on how a certain group of people is affected by revolutionary discourse. I would want to hear more about African-Americans were saying at the time, but her supply is few and far between. She is prone to making sweeping, generalized remarks without providing the necessary evidence. On pg. 66, she discusses how Thomas Jefferson may have viewed an African American exodus to create a state in Haiti. She says that he called them “the Cannibals of the terrible republic” but then goes no further to explain how he “recognized the connection between black nationalist thought in the United States with Haiti and feared it.” I believe this phrase should have been substantiated.

I do, however, agree with Max’s similar assertion that “these actions led to real influence in the United States.” As Max points out, I find it hard to accept many of the claims she makes under the cloud of what seem to be assumptions. More examples in key sections could solidify her argument however the lack of evidence is crucial when you are making an argumentative paper.

October 23, 2013

Crossroads of Slavery

In Patricia Reid’s “Margaret Morgan’s Story: A Threshold between Slavery and Freedom, 1820-1842”, she recounts the Morgan family’s predicament in terms of the laws of Maryland and Pennsylvania which were in constant flux and ambiguity. The Morgans lived in the ultimate border state, Maryland, in which “the status between ‘slave’ and ‘free’ was regularly blurred.” They had been free for some years, manumitted by their owner, however the unclear nature of the laws in the states made it simple for slaveholders and catchers to capture any black they saw and transport them back into servitude. Margaret noted this and the increasing paranoia among Maryland legislators that free blacks posed a bad example for the enslaved and that they were bad for business. These revelations pushed her to move her family further north, to Pennsylvania.

Maryland was seen as one of the important bastions of slavery that if it were to give way to abolitionist sentiment, the rest of the slave states would soon follow, expanding these interests. Slave owners and the governmental legislators they influenced had other plans though. They gradually began to institute harsher restrictions to make it more difficult for blacks to maintain their free status. They were forced to prove their freedom in more than one way, often in manners that were greatly inconvenient. These laws and statutes only served to put a tighter leash on the Maryland blacks who were free and looked to extract them from the state as a whole. Maryland occupied a unique position as a state wanting to benefit from the all the profits that slavery provided for the powerful slave-holding class.

As Reid says, “Marylanders depended on northern and southern insterstate comity to govern relations with respect to slaves and slaveholders migrating in and out of the state.” Maryland was at the crossroads of the north and the south, slavery and freedom. Their legislators made a conscious decision in the 1830s, just as the Morgans were leaving to Pennsylvania, to give slavery a grand welcome back into society. Maryland used their close proximity to the North and South to install “new legal parameters…discriminatory statutes that both the North and South employed.” I agree with Ian’s post this week asserting how a short distance between just a few states could make a large difference in terms of how slaves could be prosecuted in a court of law. I concur with his statement that, “for slaves, this seemed a blessing in disguise, as it was a close state in terms of difference in which they could feasibly assimilate into society.”

I liked the method in which Reid made her argument and used the microhistory of Morgan and her case to illustrate how slavery and freedom legislation was progressing during the period. Her writing is very clear and concise and her use of primary sources and block quotes only served to legitimize her explanations. She inserted short facts about slave-catching, one of which particularly caught my attention: the conviction of slaveholders could yield up to US$2000 or 7 to 21 years of hard labor. I would not have expected slave catchers to have been prosecuted so harshly at that time.

October 17, 2013

Cherokee Balancing Act

In Cherokee Women, Theda Perdue presents the story of a people which has received scant coverage in recent writing: Native women. Perdue asserts that recent literature regarding Native cultures has skipped over the female population because it assumed that since women were not prevalent among Native sources then they did not contribute much to Native society. Perdue counters that this primary source absence is due to men controlling all the documents and literature in society so that women were victims of neglect in respect to being mentioned. One of Perdue’s overarching arguments, however, is that men and women cooperate to create a balancing system between their roles and beliefs in society.

As Perdue states early on, “women balanced men just as summer balanced winter.” This indicates how women and men were similar in that they occupied powerful roles in society but ones that were separate so that they would not intrude or disturb each other. Native Americans like virtually all other civilizations at the time imposed gender norms on their people which held that men engaged in war and hunted while women stayed at home and farmed the land to nourish their family. This explanation implies a semblance of equality between the sexes but it neglects to mention what Ian and AJ have both addressed- women enjoyed an almost dominating role over men because they were connected to, among other things: corn, babies and the home. As I will show, women could cross into various spheres. They both made the apt claim that women, unlike in most Western societies, held the capacity to wield substantial power over men and engage in behavior men may not have found possible. I also agree with AJ’s assertion that the work “distanced itself from other reads by presenting it in a manner that makes it manageable to the average history reader.” Perdue definitely organizes her work in a very categorical method, outlining the basics of a situation then delving into the specifics of the topic as a segue into the next topic.

The men and women in society saw gender as “an affirmation of cosmic order and balance” so that if they did not fill their own roles the society would not function correctly or to its potential. This is shown in the Cherokees’ reaction to men who attempted to fill the position of women, resulting in joking and being compared to bears, a sign of ineptitude and incongruence. Women, on the other hand, were afforded the ability to alter their identity into men. Women who became warriors were seen as particularly powerful because they overcame their innate weakness and the limitations traditionally ascribed to females. Such women “possessed extraordinary power: through war and menstruation she had male and female contact with blood.” Women were elevated into supreme positions as War Women and beloved women, these positions according them the power to live and interact in any circle of society, whether it be farming, fighting, birthing children, or maintaining the home. This balance between men and women can thus be seen as a system of women exercising much influence in daily life, in spite, of their absence from the period’s primary sources.

October 9, 2013

Rochester, of Social Control

, It is often said that the power of observation grants an enormous amount of power over others. From the panopticon jail where the inmates are perpetually kept alert by the possibility of a guard watching them to a cop on the highway, where just the sight of a police car can stop a speeding automobile in its tracks. Paul E. Johnson applies this theory to the shopkeepers and businessmen in many passages on economy, religion and social functions throughout A Shopkeeper’s Millennium.

In the early 1820s when the businessmen often housed and interacted with their employees for extensive periods of time, the upper class members could exercise subtle but significant power over the people they housed. They would drink with them, socialize and otherwise engage with them as though they were part of the family. This influence of businessmen was evident in that they would initiate trends of social behavior that were appropriate for different events such as drinking and socializing, which their employees would readily adopt in order to conform to the town’s standards and follow the lead of their boss whom they assumed ascribed to the common tradition. When it came to pass, however, that these businessmen opted for a more private life and they evicted many of their workers, the power and influence they had once possessed dissipated and two separate social spheres were created.

These social spheres culminated in a society where the wealthier peoples of Rochester still retained a large amount of power over their workers but in their private affairs the workers could get away with whatever they wanted from wanton drunkenness to abstaining from attending church. This kind of divergent behavior directly stemmed from the absence of a “moral authority” which would enforce temperance restrictions and Christian principles upon them. Johnson explains this progression, saying “but while masters asked wage earners to give up their evil ways, they turned workers out of their homes and into streets and neighborhoods where drinking remained a normal part of life.” This kind of condescending rhetoric aimed at the marginalized factions of society did little to relieve the tensions permeating the stratified peoples of Rochester.

This sort of behavior demonstrates the evolution in the Rochester community from 1820 to 1830. Price mentions that “before the religious behavior of 1830, the relationship was impersonal and strictly businesslike.” I am not sure if he means to address the newfound religious dichotomy in Rochester or the work scene, but I see it in a different light. Prior to the religious revivals and Finney’s actions, the workers and lay-people of the town had lived with their business leaders in a sort of mutual bond where they spent time together with their families and otherwise lived relatively harmoniously. This was a relationship not marked simply by business. After the religious revivals when the churches were filled with majority-upper class peoples, I believe the religious and geographical disparities fostered a greater sense of impersonality.

I would also like to question Johnson’s assertion that “Finney’s male converts were driven to religion because they had abdicated their roles as eighteenth-century heads of households.” This seems to be a fairly vague generalization of the social realities of Rochester. Men did not simply give up their positions as heads of house but instead opted to wield different types of power and administrate their business and the household from a more manufacture-oriented point of view and not only as someone who has symbolic, economic power. In the wake of the temperance movement, women would play larger roles in being moral authorities for sinners to aspire to. This kind of behavior is why their was such a vast economic, social and religious gap between the rich and poor peoples of the town.

October 2, 2013

It's all about Class

In The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Atlantic Working Class in the Eighteenth Century by Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, they argue that the nature of mobs and revolts in the eighteenth century altered and did not consist solely of homogeneous groups, but rather of many classes, races, and vocations all advocating for a single cause. They note the presence of several nationalities in mobs during the pre-Revolutionary phase in the American colonies and sets them up in opposition to “the symbols of Royal Majesty and civil authority and ruling-class power” portraying the irony in whites plotting against whites.

Linebaugh and Rediker claim that modern historians have neglected to tell the story of these multi-faceted mobs but it is important to address what united these diverse groups: class. Yes, it may be surprising to find black slaves and white sailors working in unison to protest the affluent ‘white peoples’ of New York, it is more clarifying to note how they both fall into lower socioeconomic classes and they fought against these ‘whites’, for the most part, because they were wealthy and race was an obvious complement. These groups felt quite disfranchised and violated by the same culprits, just in different ways. The black slaves protested their servitude and the harsh conditions under which they lived while the white sailors protested the impressment which was being practiced rampantly in the streets of the colonies by the British administrators. These trying circumstances necessitated the unification of these varying groups in order for them to achieve their goals but I don’t believe it was any kind of progressive effort to integrate racial groups. Mobs are desperate and do what they can to achieve their own ends. In my view, class trumps race or any other political category when administrating a revolt.

The Hydra is used as a classical metaphor to describe how the working class would subvert the power of the wealthy. It is interesting to see how the use of such classical texts served to “assist the scientific revolution through the revival of neo-Platonism” but also “supported the doctrine of European progress in social development.” The working class used its newfound power and newly receptive audience to such revolutionary principles to fuel its cause and gain supporters to the revolutionary cause. These philosophies engendered by the Renaissance were, of course, instrumental in fostering the revolutionary sentiments in the colonies where they saw the inherent injustices in taxing peoples unrepresented by government and a need for some semblance of democracy.

In last week’s post, Ian made reference to the justification of factions, saying, “generally, they are a good thing, as they represent the ideas of different groups of people, which all come together to vote on the country’s directive.” I agree with this assertion which essentially addresses the argument Linebaugh and Rediker are making that the rebellions in colonial America, endorsed by so many diverse groups, were beneficial in that they voiced many peoples’ concerns. This was the necessary beginning of American freedoms to express your opinions without fear of backlash, but also of having a government and society tolerant to many philosophies.

September 19, 2013

Clash of America

In Thomas P. Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion, he recounts the context and progression which ultimately resulted in one of the most violent civilian events in the nation’s history, the Whiskey Rebellion. It is amazing to look back on the norms of the western frontier at this time. They were so far removed from the eastern city hubs that they never received consistent information regarding the revolution and endured intermittent raids from their hostile native American neighbors. It was this space, literally and figuratively speaking, which allowed the rural peoples of the frontier to distance themselves further from the alien peoples of the east who attempted to tax, manipulate and exile them.

Throughout the rise of the American state there became a divide, often present among large nations, between the rural westerners focusing on farming and the urban easterners benefiting from mercantile trade. There was a complete clash of interests which demonstrated itself on a micro-level of the problems the fledgling nation had previously endured with Britain. The Americans hoped to engage in British politics and have a greater say in how their country was administered while the frontiersmen did the same with the new state, hoping to have a local government to represent their own needs and grievances more appropriately. Wade brought up a good point last week in his post when he said, “these colonial governments were not oppressive as much as they were disconnected or aloof to colonists’ demands. It was this disconnectedness moreover which fostered such tensions-often going unnoticed-between the east and west. Slaughter then states how the crux of the problem was the implementation of an excise tax which effectively taxed anything and everything that was produced internally and through which the government hoped to raise the most revenue (and boy was it effective).

As one might expect, the wealthier urbanites and politicians advocated for the excise taxes because they catalyzed a powerful central government and boosted the potential for merchants. This group would of course soon call themselves Federalists. The Westerners would have none of it though, hoping that they could somehow break off and create their own state or at the very least conduct a governing body which could voice their specific concerns and not fall privy to the national politics. The frontiersmen felt completely detached from the body politic which levied taxes and controlled much of the land out west without actually having a personal stake in the community. The illogical conclusions of some people and the influence of group thought led many people to assume that being tied to a hypocritical nation (not following the virtues it set forth in it’s Declaration of Independence), would eventually result in the downfall of their way of life. Many melodramatically believed that their human liberties would be revoked and that they would be consigned to a life of slavery which is a bit hyperbolic for me. It all seems a bit irrational when you look at it now, but you must remember that these were real people with real problems. They experienced the oppressive presence of the easterners who wielded the vast majority of power and dictated the path of politics, and felt threatened. What would you do?

September 11, 2013

What is a Riot?

In The Culture of Riot and War, Wayne Lee attempts to illustrate the people of North Carolina, and on a much larger platform, the US, tended to riot. He also tries to explain the roots of these riots often stemming from previous traditions in England or politics. Lee begins his argument arguing that the culture and social norms of a society dictate how a riot will be conducted. The more common people intending to riot often enlisted the aid of political elites so as to decrease the likelihood of being prosecuted by the law. People’s reputation within the, usually small, communities at the time was important alas people made efforts to enact riots with a sense of politeness and decorum so they appeal “to a broader range of society.” The key prerequisite for a successful riot would be whether it indicated legitimacy or not. The inherent nature of a riot suggests violence however citizens to use violence if there riot was not legitimate or did not meet the standards of society.

Lee also makes a point of saying that rioters often followed a prescribed order of affairs so that they could be predictable and similar to movements enacted before. First, the rioters would make their grievances known, perhaps in the form of a petition, in the hope that some kind of authority figure would recognize their predicament and grant them some solution. The ideal authority figure would exercise “paternal tendencies” and empathize with the aggrieved citizens. As was sometimes the case, no authority figure or government would recognize the injustices that had been perpetrated so the rioters felt they had no productive option other than to force action. If enough people felt that their rights had been infringed upon people would unite against the authority figure to anger each other and in turn foster an even greater desire to upend the order of things.

As shown in the Enfield Riots, the common folk had been manipulated by Corbin and surveyors who had deigned to overcharge the colonists for land which eventually affected the more affluent citizens of town, strengthening their cause. As Max pointed out, “once new segments of the population begin to gain political power at an increasing rate, more of the population comes to desire their share as well.” This indicates how the divide between the social classes played a large part in the common folk’s motivation to establish themselves in a case consisting of land appropriation. Lee makes the point that in contrast to the normal riot in England, the American version rarely featured injuring or killing anybody. This habit of peaceful, “careful” rioting gave credence to the legitimate nature of a riot.

In the Sugar Creek war, a similar tale of colonials being taken advantage of by Brits revealed a peculiar link to the British. In order to get their message across, the Colonials chose to whip some of the surveyors which hearkened back to military procedures the Americans were clearly mirroring, perhaps in an effort to prove legitimacy. A similarly peculiar process was that of taking the word of a magistrate of the colony in order so that he would enforce the Stamp Acts, for example. Sometimes, however, they required these magistrates to sign a contract in the pursuit of legitimacy. In this way, Lee demonstrated how the cultural norms of North Carolina dictated how they would riot.