mariehemann – Popular Politics in Early America

November 18, 2013

Douglass' Predicament

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

Frederick Douglass is often portrayed in a positive manner to the general public in historical thought, as he experienced slavery first hand and after he found freedom he became an ardent activist for abolition and African American rights. He wrote extensively about his opinions and himself, as David W. Blight demonstrated he wrote at least three autobiographies. Through these writings, however, Blight was able to uncover a Frederick Douglass who was stingy and hypocritical. Blight demonstrates on two occasions the hypocrisy of Douglass: his strong support of the Republican party which often abandoned black and while attacking individualistic northerners who wished to forget was issues while preaching self reliance to African Americans.

Both examples of hypocrisy are in direct relation to Douglass’ desire to remember the civil war, and provide no aid to the south in Reconstruction. He was appalled by the idea of helping the south recover and the adoration of southern war heroes. Douglass felt that forgetting the war meant forgetting its ideals, as he felt that the northern cause was primarily against slavery; or at least he wanted everyone to think it was. His goals put him in a difficult position, as the Republican Party led the Union War movement he wished to remember, but they did not do much for the African American cause.

In the issue of individualistic northerners, a characteristic he agreed with, and their desire to forget the war, which he opposed, we see the issue brought up in class last week in our discussion of women where a disagreement with one characteristic of society did not mean disagreement with the society as a whole. Douglass did not want to change all of society; he just wanted African Americans to achieve equal footing. His desire to celebrate the union victory proves this, as historically the victors of war are praised while the losers regarded in a negative fashion. The sentiment after the civil war to “forgive and forget,” however, was a more revolutionary sentiment. Douglass vouched for a more conventional view of war in hopes to aid his desire to change society.

In AJ’s post, he raised the question of Douglass’ credibility, asking if he would be more credible if he had participated in the physical conflict of the war. While this is a possibility, the bind he found himself in after the Civil War, as Blight puts it, “between the country’s historic racism and his own embrace of individualism.” This predicament led him to portray hypocritical tendencies, both real and perceived, that discredited him more than fighting in the war would have improved his credibility.

November 13, 2013

Feminist Radicalism

In his book reviews of Julie Roy Jeffrey and Louise Michele Newman, Jonathan H Earle notes interesting tactics used by female suffragists in the established patriarchal society to achieve their goals. A double standard has ben revealed, in which white female suffragists used traditional arguments of racial superiority to argue for their right to vote while at the same time, female suffrage was in direct opposition to the same set of traditional ideals. The demand for the female vote was radical, and as Ellen DuBois noted, it was radical in part due to the entrance of the female into the public sphere, an area previously only known to men. Their tampering with the social standard, however, while also attempting to use it in their favor is an interesting dynamic.

Although the idea is hypocritical, I feel that it was a necessary measure taken by women to show that they still believed in traditional values, they simply wanted women’s equality to men. In Earle’s review, the importance of the female “moral voice” was noted, as it was too much of a weapon for female abolitionists to give up. Granted, this was in he context of the abolitionist movement, but these women played on their traditional roles as moral and just, a conventional idea about women, to promote their unconventional arguments. The argument for women’s suffrage at the expense of racism follows the same path. This has the effect of making the movement less radical, as they were basing their arguments off of already accepted, traditional beliefs.

If female suffragists and abolitionists sought to overturn all traditional values, they would never achieve success. They had to pick their battles, thus the perceived hypocrisy exists. It is possible that a society’s customs contain some moral errors, but prosper in other areas. Simply because suffragists were trying to change one aspect of their society while arguing for a different aspect does not make them hypocritical. Their blend of support and opposition for the patriarchal society made the movement seem less radical, allowing for a greater involvement in the cause.

Michael brings up an interesting point in that women had to establish themselves as good wives in order to gain credibility. Although it may not be intentional, this reflects the idea above that these activist women were not opposed to everything in society, and if they adhered to the ideas of a good wife they were less radical. As presented in DuBois’ article, these women did not want to overturn the institution of family, as many anti-suffragists argued. They simply wanted to use their rights as citizens and ability to vote to improve familial and societal relations.

November 11, 2013

Feminism's Roots

Before the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, women discovered their ability to influence society through their experiences in organizational movements such as the Abolitionist and benevolent movements, as shown in the writings of Mary P. Ryan and Katherine Henry. Ryan argues “the origins of American feminism lay not in the abolitionist movement but in the women’s benevolent organizations that flourished in the nineteenth-century city.” Through her examples of benevolent organization and action in Utica, we can see how the avenues which women used to exert influence in society acted in accordance with Henry’s presentation of Grimke’s ideas of the public and private spheres of society. These women in Utica had power in the private spheres of their home, and through their shared experiences they came together publically. They carried out their actions against immoral sexual behavior successful in an extremely public fashion, forcing the public to garner a degree of respect for the female activists.

Henry portrays Grimke’s beliefs and actions in an extremely positive light, and provides evidence for Grimke’s ability aid the feminine cause while striving for abolition. Regardless of the type of activism, temperance, abolition, or benevolence, women in the early 18th centuries began to organize and realize their abilities to exert influence over society. Women were entering the public sphere for the first time in a political fashion; they were attempting to improve their society through historically political institutions such as the petition, public speech, and social networks.

Their entrance into the public sphere encountered expected resistance, even from other women. There was a delicate balance between entering the sphere of man while also being respected as a woman. Grimke noted in her relationship with Wald that in order to receive respect from her male peers, she felt she had to be a dutiful wife and care for her household chores. She would then be able to attract the attention of men, who would be impressed by her public speaking and reasoning. She was therefore able to enter the public sphere of man while keeping her female identity. Female activists, however, would come to find that they had to establish themselves even more into the public sphere of man, through education, work, and political activism, to eventually gain societal status in the later 19th century and eventually the right to vote in 1920.

The social organization emphasized by Ryan reminded me of the neighborhood loyalty in the Bowery. Organizations such as the firefighters became significant in-group efforts for a single cause, politically or otherwise. Both the firefighters and women’s organizations for benevolence were social groups influenced by public issues.

These female activists set the stage for eventual Feminist Movement that would take place. Ryan and Henry did well to demonstrate what it took to get females involved in the early movements that would lead to feminism, both ideologically and socially. The procedure would eventually become more drastic in modern terms, but in the early 19th century these actions by women were unprecedented.

November 6, 2013

The Irish were More than Just Violent

In “Race, Violence, and Anti-Irish Sentiment in the Nineteenth Century,” Kevin Kenny contends that racism towards the Irish in America stems from a concern for their tendency to violence, which originated from a complex background. He supports this notion well, however I feel that he hints at other factors of Irish racism that have the potential to be just as significant as their tendency towards violence. Based on Kenny’s evidence, there is no doubt that skin color and the simple fact that they were foreign was not the stem of the attitude towards them, as there were many other “white” immigrants from other countries who were not portrayed in such a negative fashion. He did hint at other factors that I feel should have been given more importance such as their sheer numbers in immigration and their lack of skill, among others.

Kenny noted that the Irish made up somewhere between one-third and one-half of the immigrant population, and that they became the face of any negative attitudes towards immigrants. This fact and claim are simply too significant to only mention in Kenny’s article. If this was the case, how were the Irish similar to other immigrants? After all, if the Germans deserved similar discrimination, as he alluded to on page 367, the German immigrant population should have had similar qualities as the Irish immigrant population. Kenny’s inclusion of the Irish being used as a scapegoat for the immigrant population as a whole left me wanting more support, with more questions than answers.

Kenny also noted that the Irish population, in large, arrived with a lack of skill. They therefore came to work in unskilled, low pay jobs. They could then have been used as strike breakers, as they were willing to work for low wages. This also allowed them to easily find work, discrediting the notion that they were discriminated against in the workplace. Although Kenny did not make claims that left me wanting more, I found myself wondering about other skill-related factors. For example, could the more well-to-do members of American society looked down upon the Irish because they felt they had no real ability? If so, this idea of the Irish as unable to do skilled work could have contributed to racism toward the Irish while having no factor towards workplace discrimination, as these unskilled jobs were still needed.

I feel that other factors could have been elaborated upon, such as CT’s mention of the direction of racially based stereotypes towards men rather than women. Perhaps this similarity with the African American population contributed to the negative attitude toward the Irish. I feel that this could be interesting if elaborated. One factor I believe he did provide enough evidence for was the anti-Catholic sentiment, as many nativists were concerned with Catholic loyalty to the Pope.

In general, Kelly should have extended his essay. He has good arguments and evidence, but he just needs more of it. This way, he could leave the reader more satisfied.

November 4, 2013

Temperance: The Impact of the Minority

Much of Sean Wilentz’s analyzation of New York in the 1830’s and 40’s concerns the Temperance movement; a movement that we see often repeated throughout the early history of the American Republic. The revitalization of the Temperance movement noted by Wilentz in the Washingtonian Temperance movement spurred thoughts of a group conversation in class early in the semester. Although I do not remember the specific source we were discussing, the topic concerned the idea of the outspoken minority. We noted that we often hear more about minority radical beliefs because a passionate populace usually brings them to fruition, even though they are a minority and find extreme difficulty for success. I feel that many times the Temperance Movement was such a cause; people became very passionate about it but ultimately failed to achieve their ultimate goals. This can be seen in the early entrepreneurs attempts at temperance in the 1830’s, as they achieved difficulty with their opposition to unions. With the Washingtonian Temperance movement in the 1840’s, however, I feel that enough of the population became involved in order to remove it from this outspoken minority category that we previously discussed. Wilentz notes “temperance reformers could claim with justice that theirs was now the largest popular movement in the city’s history.” (307).

Such a large movement was bound to have a significant impact on society, however it was unfortunate that the Washingtonian’s reason for their success caused opposition from the American Temperance Union. The Washingtonian’s were able to achieve such a significant following by including people from all backgrounds, notably by accepting all forms of religion while denying any relation of their movement to religion. The American Temperance Union, however, was an evangelical organization that saw religious motives behind their temperance movement, denouncing the Washingtonian movement as a result. Although the American Temperance Union did not single handedly destroy the Washingtonians, they were a factor in the decline.

Such organizational issues could also be seen in the eventual Women’s Rights movement later in the 19^th Century. Many of these women were also involved in the Temperance movement, and organization within the Temperance movement and other idealistic ventures caused the Women’s Rights activists to avoid organization in attempt to avoid division. Organization was inevitable, however, and division occurred shortly after.

Interestingly, both the Temperance movement and Women’s Rights movement saw success on a national scale at the beginning of the 20^th Century, with Prohibition enacted in 1919 and women’s suffrage enacted in 1920. This reflects the notion of the outspoken minority that we spoke of in class, as we also mentioned that this outspoken minority often spurs a movement that becomes popular, even if it takes some time. Both of these movements followed this pattern to achieve success, although prohibition was repealed in 1933. We can see, however, that it takes a minority movement to spur action on a greater scale. Success is difficult to come by for these activists, but the possibility of ultimate success if worth the efforts.

October 28, 2013

Haiti's Influence: Real or Perceived?

In “The Roots of Early Black Nationalism,” Sara Fanning aims to argue that Haiti “played a far greater role in the cultural and political activities of northern free blacks than historians previously credited.” (Fanning) Although she provides extensive support to the measures taken by Haitian officials to cater to the Free African American population in the United States, she does not give adequate evidence that these actions led to real influence in the United States. She spends most of her time describing reasons as to why her claims would be supported, but not enough concrete evidence to African American reactions to her specific reasons.

After the Haitian Revolution, Fanning portrays Haiti as an attractive place for African Americans to reside. The Constitution provided for equality, banned white ownership of plantations, and the country was characterized by a military presence, demonstrating their willingness to defend their newfound freedom. After the revolution and stints of civil war, however, Haiti needed more people if it was going to be able to survive economically; it was already difficult enough as many countries refused to recognize their independence. It was for this reason that officials were often sent to the states to recruit for Haitian immigration, official declarations made that would be published in black newspapers in the US, and even the constitution modeled after that of the United States (although this was probably not for publicity reasons, it came to be used as one.)

Fanning gives plenty of reasons for Haiti to be attractive to African Americans, and that these qualities were made apparent, but rarely gives specific examples of how the African American population felt about them. She often uses language such as “would not have gone unnoticed” or “must have been welcomed” in an attempt to give the nationalist movement relevance, but these are simply assumptions. She is able to show that emigration occurred after some publicity attempts, but a connection with her specific examples is not clearly shown. The most relevant exception would be the naming of the Boyer Masonic Lodge in New York, but even then she mentions he failed to bring the expected number of migrants.

This is not to discredit Fanning’s article, as there is valuable information. I simply feel that her Abstract does not match the content of her article, and a change in thesis could greater reflect the evidence given.

As seen in Eli’s post, much of our knowledge of slavery we see as conventional, something everyone learns about throughout their education. We often find, though, that much of what we learn is not the entire truth, and we can be misled. I feel like Fanning plays on our natural inclination to trust a historian, as without careful reading much of the assumptions she makes in her article could be accepted as fact. It is important as young historians ourselves to always be aware of what we are reading and how evidence can be skewed or misleading.

October 9, 2013

White Collar Awakening

In A Shopkeeper’s Millennium, Paul E. Johnson depicts the rapid growth of Rochester, using its development to represent major themes occurring around the United States. Notably, he depicts the significance of the Second Great Awakening in Rochester, largely led by Charles Finney. Here, the Second Great Awakening was a white-collar led movement, much like many popular movements in the past and today in which privileged members of society are able to influence the lower classes into following their desired course of action. Through such activism, however, communities such as Rochester could become more socially unified.

The example of Rochester during the Second Great Awakening provides a perfect example for the ability of religion to act as a uniting factor, as I discussed in my post last week. I also noted the potential for religion to be a diversifying issue on a larger scale, some of which was portrayed in the masonic movements in Rochester. In large, however, Charles Finney and the Great Awakening provided a means for the Rochester community to come together, as the revivals became widely attended, extremely public, and the subject of much conversation in the town. Although its existence could be credited to moral movements sparked by the white-collar members of society such as temperance, these religious revivals were able to unite people of all classes as they were placed in equal playing ground in the eyes of God.

Price notes in his post that Rochester was made up of a diverse group of inhabitants, all of which notably have a similar characteristic: to either start anew or “make it big.” Although Finney was invited to Rochester, one cannot help but question his true motives in his revivals. Orators in the Great Awakenings are often critiqued in order to determine whether they truly had a desire to speak God’s word, or if they were simply skilled speakers looking to become famous. It is apparent that Finney made a name for himself in Rochester, and significant how Johnson made sure to clearly note that his revivals were extremely public. He did, however, also note that Finney had a moral influence on the community that led to general improvement. It is an interesting argument, however, and one that would be difficult to prove outright.

Whether his intentions were for morality or “to make it big”, there is no doubt that Finney’s revivals in Rochester unified the community and lad a lasting moral effect. In this sense, Rochester was a microcosm, also mentioned by Price, as religious revivals throughout the United States during the Second Great Awakening had a similar effect. Rochester, however, is interesting due to the expedited nature of its development economically, socially, and mora

October 3, 2013

Religious Revolutionaries

In analyzing the 18^th Century Age of revolutions, interesting parallels between scholarly writings were drawn upon by Shrout and Westbury regarding the relationships of the various revolutions in the Atlantic World. While the argument that ties were felt between revolutionary actors in different areas was legitimate, I found the mention of religion shortly after particularly intriguing. While scholars indicated religion as an organizational factor central to the lives of people in the Age of Revolutions, particularly in the cases of Equiano and the Salzburgs, others such as Gillikin argued that religion was a fracturing identity. Although I have not extensively researched the topic, I would argue that religions effectiveness in revolutionary organization was entirely reliant on the demographic of the rebels.

For example, a country with a recognized state church would find its members much more able to use said church’s institutions as a means to congregate the populace to discuss and resolve issues or make a plan of action on a wide-spread basis that would experience less division because of a greater unanimity of beliefs. A country with no established church, such as the United States, would cater to small-scale organization through religious entities but would find difficulty in finding a consensus cross-religion. Granted, citizens of the United States would be able to find similarities in their desire to express religion freely, but when deciding on major beliefs of a revolutionary movement religious principles could easily find conflict with each other.

In Alex’s post regarding The Meany Headed Hydra, he brings up a good point: “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.” This idea could be used in the analyzation of the use of religion in revolutionary terms as well: do the ends justify the means? Could different denominations find common ground in order to achieve their goals, nullifying the negative effects of a diverse population? Although it is possible, religion has historically been such a divisive factor that I believe the grievances would have to be very severe for revolutionaries to overlook their religious beliefs in order to achieve a goal.

There are, of course, more factors affecting religion’s influence. The degree of religious devotion, history between different religions and denominations, and the degree of belief similarities would all have effects on the ability for two different religious parties to work together. This does not change the ability, however, for religious institutions to aid in the organization of revolutionary tactics.

September 11, 2013

The Noble Mob

Pre-Revolutionary America was characterized by English control of the colonies, which fared well until the crown began to impose itself upon the colonists without their consent. The initial response to the various acts opposed by the colonists were to mob, using the threat of violence to make their opinions known and often find success, although at varying degrees. In analyzing colonial society at the time, it is no wonder that mob resistance was common practice for demonstrating opposition of policy; state militias often lacked much strength and armed men threatening violence was often more of an issue for local officials than their assigned duties regulated by a government across the Atlantic Ocean. These “mobs” were also not the pitchfork-carrying farmers that popular media so often portrays. They were organized with strategic moves, specific to their grievances, and did not frequently act on impulse. The treat of violence was often a greater tool than the violence itself.

It is also interesting to note that the British pastime of mob resistance was often a break in the order of society in order to protest what the “mobsters” considered an unjust break in the order of society. As an example, the Stamp Act was an imposition on the colonists that they saw as an unjust break in the order of society. As a result, they felt the right to create their own disturbances in society, in the form of a mob, in order to express their desire to re-establish what they believed to be a just society. It is under this progression of action that the chaos of the mob often developed as well. As one side imposed more, the other felt a right to escalate further, and a back-and-forth ensued that gradually increased the severity of the dispute. Surprisingly, this is a logical poker-like game. Each side raises the stakes further until the other one folds or a victor eventually emerges. Here we also see a contradiction in the traditional sense of the “mob.” It does not simply gather and begin burning homes, but rather plays strategic moves based on the actions of the opposition, with calculated risks taken in an attempt to best achieve their goals.

Although I agree with Ian Solcz’s assessment of the mob as a function of organization rather than a desire to create mass chaos, I disagree that it was “a last ditch effort to show their rulers the effects of unruly and unfair laws placed upon them.” Rather than a last ditch effort, it was another method for the colonists to demonstrate their political feelings towards the regulations placed upon them. Granted, it was more severe than a petition, but some occasions called for more significant action to be taken. These men had no say in the laws that were being imposed on them, and they had no choice but to make their voice heard. If it took armed threats, that that was what had to be done. Eventually, their actions were not convincing enough for their voices to be acted upon in Parliament, and so began the American Revolution.

September 6, 2013

Week 1 Post : Lepore's Democracy

Jill LePore attacks the relationship of America’s Democracy with its people over its history through the writings of various political activists and historians, most notably Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Frederick Jackson Turner, and Sean Wilentz. She begins with an idealistic image presented to children regarding the positive impact of a Democracy in the United States. After all, it is important to establish an acceptance for the way the country operates into its citizens at a young age. Almost immediately after, however, LePore presents the arguments of Noah Webster and Thomas Jefferson ad they rivaled in their theories of who should hold control in the government.

Noah Webster was what one could call an elitist, while Thomas Jefferson argued for the masses of the people. LePore provides adequate evidence from both sides to shape their arguments, which both contain respectable logic. Webster was concerned that the “village idiot” had as much of a say in a Democratic government as a well-educated man, while Jefferson argued that that was exactly the moral way. These “monocrats” like Webster, however, lost influence and eventually became irrelevant as the Democratic government took hold in the early 19^thCentury. It is interesting, however, to think about how history would have shaped itself had the reverse occurred, and what we would consider man’s rights to be today. Would the masses come to accept an elitist regime or would they have rebelled themselves, resulting in a Democracy at a later date?

LePore also presents Frederck Jackson Turner’s theory of land as the root of American Democracy. The United States was different; for a vast majority of its history there was always land to expand, thus land was available to the common man with much more availability than in Europe. Americans have European roots, and in Europe land was power. Thus by following the same idea, there was much more power to be shared in America than their ancestors previously experienced. As can be seen all over the world, 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. With Turner’s theory, Democracy was inevitable. The resources in North America were too vast for the population to sit in content with a lesser role than some of their peers, allowing a small segment of the population to rule over them.

Lastly, LePore presents Sean Wilentz’s demonstrations of how individuals can indirectly affect politics through their actions. Even without political power, in his primary example, a slave is able to influence later legislation by attempting to revolt. This then became a political move, because if it had not happened, policies would not have been changed when they did. The people, therefore, don’t have to have “official” political power to influence politics.

Wilentz’s ideas, along with Democracy’s flaws of greed and corruption, tease at the idea of imperfections in a Democratic government.