milamoureux – Popular Politics in Early America

November 21, 2013

Call to Action

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

Richard D. Brown’s “Epilogue-Looking Backward: The Idea of an Informed Citizenry at the end of the Twentieth Century” raises some very interesting points as to how Americans view their political leaders. “The fact that politicians, likes used car salesmen are often ranked at the bottom of the public’s hierarchy of trust and respect suggests that the restoration of deference may be fanciful.” Where are the characters such as Washington, Hamilton, and Franklin who are the hallmarks of American prosperity in the society of today? Well, as Brown puts in his epilogue, they don’t exist because the American public has created a society that values the talking head figures of the world and does not seek the unbiased truth on a matter. Where are the citizens who went out of their way to promote the voice of the people whether that be in the streets or the pub? Well the American society has invested so much on an intellectual/political few that the common man has been so mislead by the said talking heads that they cannot inform their own opinion. Now while this little game of question and answer I have picked up in Brown’s epilogue seems to speak down to the state of America today he on page 205 draws his points on the lack of citizen role in politics to the original concept of America. The common man shouldn’t be allowed to make/dictate society because they simply are too inferior to grasp concepts necessary for success.

The framers of America following the American Revolution recognized how easy the common man could be manipulated and thus established political boundaries (like the Electoral College) to keep this common man from disturbing the flow of the U.S. “Citizens should be sufficiently informed and critically minded to be able to choose public officials wisely.” So I am going to now pose a question, are we Davidson students informed/critically minded enough to choose our public officials? Personally despite the high view I have for myself and my education I honestly believe that there are issues I have such a lack of knowledge of, that my voting seems like a detriment to American society. Sadly, this view is shared by many classmates as we talked about this a few weeks ago. I certainly could become versed to choose public officials wisely but that would mean that I would have to take time out of my busy day to look up details of a candidate. But where would my first trip to figure out these politicians? The same talking heads that Brown says are hurting political understanding due to their bias. Why? Well, because it is easier to find information that way. It is time for individuals to no longer take the bias when it comes to political action and search for the truth of issues that matter. We as a society have become so warped by an idea of media that originality is a difficult thing to come by. We must being promoting individuals who have “taken the time to become informed and encourages private citizens to be informed as well. The call to action has been made, are we the soon to be new leaders in a political society ready to make the call?

November 19, 2013

Douglass's Warped Views

Fredrick Douglas has always been a character that I have admired for his intellectual ability but after the reading for today I am not so sure if I feel the exact same way about him. Max points out in his work the general hypocrisy of Douglass through “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.” (MARIEHEMANN). Now Douglass is a man who certainly built his own success out of the terrible lot life had given him. Douglass taught himself to read and write while working as a slave and would use these tool to aid the black community. I can understand why he would feel Reconstruction of the South would be unnecessary as he is an example of what someone can make out of themselves with little to no help. This of course leads me to one of my favorite debates I have had in a Davidson class, “what was the war fought over?” Douglass like most Americans believe that the war primarily was about slavery, I believe that the Civil War is falls somewhere in between the greatest game of chicken (regarding a group of people threatening something, in this case the South seceding) and a general over appreciation for someone’s role in a society (I believe the South thought that the North would be crippled without the raw goods and crops they provided). Now Douglass is not wrong thinking the war is about slavery, remember most people would see that as the biggest issue, but is certainly wrong to state as Henry put it “those who shape historical interpretations of the Civil War should be the ones to shape the fate of African-Americans in the post-war period.”

I get that Douglass was upset that this idea of Reconstruction was put into play right away, but what did he expect would happen? Was the South to suffer forever because they had an ideological difference that many considered “bad?” It is this that makes me question Douglass for his hypocrisy. Douglass is proof that there is more to meet the eye as his life challenges every claim that blacks were second class citizens due to their inferior intellectual nature. It is now his turn to let members of the South prove that they can function in a society that does not treat blacks poorly.

A point that many of my classmates have made a comment on his an idea AJ brings up in his blog regarding Douglass being less credible because he did not participate in the war as a soldier. To that comment I look towards a character like Ben Franklin. To my knowledge he was not a soldier in the American Revolution, yet some of his views and rhetoric on the revolution are the most popular writings from that time period. Douglass could have been held in the same light as Franklin but due to his simply “wrong” views regarding reconstruction and who should dictate the way we view the war to an extent wallows a state of irrelevancy because his work simply doesn’t appeal to the right audience.

November 14, 2013

One Cause to Rule Them All

The notion of women having to pick their battles might be the most accurate statement when reviewing certain elements of history with minority groups (yes I am viewing women as a minority group in this instance due to their lack of “power”). My current History 480 thesis draws heavily upon feminist perspectives and ideals and it is worth noting even in the 1960s (maybe even today) women still struggle to be seen as equal. Because of that women do “radical” actions such as visit North Vietnam and visit NVA military camp sites while declaring U.S. troops are “baby killers,” or demand the right to vote. Now in 2013 these actions appear drastically different but during their timeframe these were the most obscene claims a woman could make. Now what does my thesis have to do with this idea of suffrage and abolition? Well the answer to that lies in the reaction of feminists across the country. If feminists did not support an issue whole heartedly (for the most part) that issue would not see any chance of success.

Wade’s notion of DuBois and Earle supporting each other’s work is an interesting claim to make because I do not see women as a collective unit achieving success with the two movements being associated. Using Wade’s notion of two movements strengthening each other I get the impression that women really knew what they wanted (suffrage) but had no idea how to get it. It is this narrative that leads into a multitude of different directions of thought. Do women really see themselves superior to African Americans or are they just appealing to the powers that be? I honestly do think at this time some women do in fact see themselves as superior (women being white women of course). Do some women think that slavery is wrong even if they are “above” blacks? Absolutely. Given the choice between the ability to vote or the end of slavery though, I think a feminist is going to want to see women achieve some form of social success before a black man every time that decision is presented. That is just the nature of feminism from the work I have done on the topic. Because of this notion a battle is picked by women in regards to what they would rather see come into fruition first.

Traditionally (up to the second or third feminist movement depending on what feminist scholar you study) women’s role in the household ensured them some level of security. Why would these women want to escape this security net the home gave them? It is this idea that I agree with DuBois in that the household is what held women back from the success they desired. While some women wanted a public voice where they could be heard many other women were content individuals proud to be simply Mrs. John Doe. How are the women who want the public life to get the content women at home to get behind their cause? Well if you tell these women that their home/private life will be adversely affected they will get behind someone’s movement immediately. I believe that is why women’s groups appealed to the “domestic nature” of women at this time. Perhaps it is hear that Wade makes his notion of two movements for one cause (which is a bit more understandable).

November 12, 2013

I'll Never Understand Women

This week’s work regarding gender studies and the feminist movement in Antebellum America brings to light a dynamic about the power women had regarding sex that I was completely unaware of. Looking at the situation that women found themselves in during this period, it puzzles me why women were not as successful in this period as they planned to be. As Dave points out in his final paragraph “women went from wanting to reform the whole of society to wanting to reform their own families.” So if that is the case then why is it that women still have a struggle grasping ahold of the household in the twentieth century?

I will not question the notion that Max points out in that the stage is set for some sort of movement from a women’s perspective will take place. Looking at the two major Feminist Movements that take place during the 1900s the idea of women having a firm control on their household before taking on other responsibilities seems to be the core of that movement. It is the success at home that makes women want more (at least that is what I believe). However the relationships between women that I see in the works of Ryan and Henry leave me wanting more understanding of how these gender dynamics functioned.

Ryan appears to sate that women’s groups gave other women confidence to influence society through what they deemed necessary. Henry too notes how women groups emerged for a multitude of reasons in order to change society to the structure they desired. Both Ryan and Henry note the wide array of social movements these women were apart of ranging from temperance to abolition. The issue I have though is with the concept that one had to be a good wife before a public figure and once it was established that she was a good wife she could then make her views known, essentially the concept that the “female identity” must exist. Where did this notion come back into being? Women had rights politically and in the household prior to this period so are they essentially giving up their political sphere?

I do have a bit of a problem though with the statements I have seen in a couple people’s work when they state that this is the first time in American history that women had a voice in the “American” political system. Looking at characters such as Martha Washington and Abigail Adams it becomes very apparent that they influenced the decisions that their husbands made. I would venture to say that these two women in particular simply imposed their ideological beliefs on their husbands due to the knowledge that they had on matters (remember it is Martha who had the wealth in that family).

I understand that men dominated society prior to the major feminist movements and see some framework for that movement, but not enough to say that this is the essential step in women getting political independence or a political identity.

November 7, 2013

Now Wait Just a Minute

Richard Jensen’s work “No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization” has me questioning my entire understanding of the struggle “my people” (three of four of my grandparents are immigrants from Ireland) went through in the U.S. Growing up all I heard about was the lack of the opportunities my grandparents had growing up and how WASP America had kept their relatives down for years (relatives in this case being aunts and uncles of my grandparents). Jensen’s work though brings to light thought about an issue I never once questioned. As Eli said in his work everything that I had been told growing up was “plausible” due to where the stories I was hearing came from as well as the number of people saying the same exact story. But now I simply have to change my understanding of the “struggle” my ancestors went through. To that I am going to have to steal the words of College Gameday Analyst Lee Corso “NOT SO FAST SWEETHEART!”

I get that some of the prejudices that the Irish claim they went through were fabricated but life was by no means a walk in the park for these individuals. Irish citizens in the United States I would argue were the slaves of the North due to the type of work that they performed. Their desire for work in whatever capacity possible made them open to anything (and I mean anything) and because of that the argument can be made that the Irish are to blame for their role in society (something that can be seen by many Irish society members to remain with their “kind”). However, just because one is willing to work at the lowest possible level does not mean that they have no dignity or sense of pride. The Irish were exploited for the willingness to work, plain and simple. I don’t think that Jensen gives the Irish enough credit in the fact that they may have recognized their role in society. I believe that the Irish community’s close bond stems from the recognition that many community members simply had no option but to do as told. There is an old expression that goes “one man is no man,” and the Irish embody this philosophy. While one or maybe even many community member may have had wealth because the majority of the community didn’t have that value there was an issue with society. I think the Irish think that if one many can’t attain the life they desired, outside forces must be working against that person because others got what they desired.

I can’t dispute the evidence that Jensen provides, it is all backed in the research that he performed (research that is very commendable as I feel that he went against popular opinion throughout his entire writing process). However, I believe that history is largely based upon the ways in which an individual wants to view history. History often plays out in a “to the victor go the spoils fashion,” and because of that everything can always be argued. Did the Irish win their and that’s why they can claim they were held down by oppressive white business owners? An Irish Catholic from Massachusetts did become President of the United States so I would say that they Irish did win their struggle and because of that they can present their history as they like. Irish community bonds where one wants to see everyone succeed before declaring a movement/cause a success and because that was never possible I truly believe that is where Irish ideology of the world against an individual emerges from.

November 5, 2013

Mean Streets of New York

This week’s readings from Sean Wilentz’s book Chants Democratic has me thinking along the same lines as Ben regarding the many mean streets of New York City, where life took place for the common person. More specifically Ben and Wilentz pay close attention to Bowery Street which served as one of the working class areas of New York City. It is in this account that we become familiar with the theater which served as the hub for activity on the street. Whether it be the throwing of peanut shells and fruit at the actors on stage when the audience was unhappy with the events taking place, or the prostitutes seated throughout the theater; something was always taking place at the theater that represented the makeup of the common person. It is here in the theater that American city life in Antebellum America can be fully understood. However the shift that takes place in America during this time, seen through Bowery Street’s change over time, speaks volumes to the growing state of the working class man’s status.

Wilentz’s account of Bowrey Street at first reminded me of the accounts my grandfather used to tell me when I was growing up. My grandfather served as a New York City police officer on Pitt Street which is known for the Gompers Houses, a housing project located in one of the “roughest areas of the city.” Here my grandfather experienced much of the same experiences seen in Antebellum NYC that Wilentz first talks about, only in the 1960s and 1970s. Streets riddled at night with drunkards and prostitutes created a sense of lawlessness and in many ways excitement due to the unexpected nature of the area. Education amongst the masses at Gompers was next to nonexistent and in many ways if you didn’t look like you “belonged” in the area life would become very difficult for one. Luckily, my grandfather was a Gomper’s kid and knew the language of the streets. It is this idea of looking of sense of belonging that reminds me of Wilentz’s work so much. Wilentz talks about this sense of “native” pride at the theater on Bowrey Street and that is a concept that exists today. People supported “guys from the neighborhood” and more often than not cared less about those living outside of their world. When British actors looked down upon the audience at their show, the crowd didn’t get emotionally worked up because they knew that the guy next to them in crowd would stand by their side in the attempt to stand up for themselves. It is this same concept that my grandfather was molded in, watching out for guys like him. Personally I feel like much of this sense of watching out for “guys like him” was to protect himself from being taken advantage of by the upper/smarter members of society.

However, Bowrey Street (as well as Gompers today) changed due to the actions of the upper class (those with power/wealth). Bowrey Street experienced the setbacks of the Panic of 1837 and the temperance movement caught on with some due to the thought that temperance would lead to more money in one’s pocket. Gompers changed in the 1970s when the government starting pumping resources into the area after widespread riots took place along “rough” city blocks. In both the Bowrey example and the Gompers example ideas to better life of the “common man” are brought to a community that simply can’t afford to suffer more hardship. These ideas impact the makeup of the area quickly but the question that emerges from this is “was the situation taken care of or simply swept under the rug?” Understanding the history of the temperance movement and more government spending in high risk areas it becomes obvious that the issues that the uppers class thought they fixed only made matters worse as they created new problems.

October 17, 2013

My Kind of Women

This week’s reading was centered on Cherokee Women and their role within Native American society. Theda Purdue’s “Cherokee Women” is the first piece regarding Native Americans (specifically the Cherokee Tribe) I have ever seen that serves as a gender study, truly making this piece one of a kind. Echoing the statements made by both AJ and Ian, this book presents an often ignored aspect of American history as it not only tells the story of a group of women but women who make up one of the “minority” groups of the United States at this time. Now when I say minority group I mean a group of people that to this day continues to be treated as second class citizens that throughout American history has constantly received the short end of the stick. Having a small bit of knowledge regarding Cherokee tribal life (not necessarily women in the Cherokee tribe) I found myself constantly intrigued by the accounts demonstrating the power of women and the respect that they garnered within the tribe. This account more specifically shows that women were the backbone of tribes as they controlled property and dictated how family life would take place, meaning they in many ways decided where the family lived.

“Women in the United States” (regardless of where or how they lived) is a category of history that I believe men in particular today pay little attention to due to false information being presented due to the state of women in Europe. AJ and Ian’s comments regarding their thoughts of women in early America doing what their husbands told them and raising the children prove this point (I think at least). So often we forget the significant roles women such as Abigail Adams and Martha Washington played in influencing their husband’s policy or putting their minds at ease regarding an issue. David McCullough’s book John Adams provides more insight to the role of Mrs. Adams in her husband’s life; but that is a blog for another day. Ultimately, what I am trying to show by this little tangent is that this view of women simply remaining quiet and doing as they were told is not true that many men have is simply untrue. This is not to say though that all women with European origin were outspoken voices.

Cherokee women simply are “persistent” according to Purdue and I cannot think of a better world to describe these women she focuses her work on. Despite the numerous changes the Cherokee tribe has experienced over the years due to white people expansion out west women have always remained a force in the community. Even when it appears that whites desire to lessen the role of the Cherokee Women, these women find a way to hold on to some sort of power/control. Ian comments on this specifically in his blog but the way in which women ran family life simply is fascinating I feel. Their ability to call the shots regarding if a sick child should be abandoned or if they wanted a divorce from a husband (a power men and women in the Cherokee tribe shared) was unheard of in many cultures across the world. Today, seeing the power women in the tribe had back in the 18^th, 19^th, and even early 20^th Century it becomes obvious to me why white men tried to lessen the role of the Cherokee Woman as soon as they possibly could; if white men removed Cherokee women from tribal roles, their own wives would not get ideas of amassing some degree of power. Also by removing women (the backbone of tribal life) from dealings with the white men it becomes simpler I feel to take advantage of the Cherokee due to the men not knowing how to trade like the woman could. Simply put these woman, who weren’t afraid to take charge, ran the show in Cherokee tribes.

October 10, 2013

Tell Us What to Do and We Will Do It: The Poor Community of Rochester

Like Ian and Ben I too think that Paul Johnson made a great decision using Rochester as the focus of his study. As Ben and Ian both point out Rochester is a city that has a significant amount of diversity due to its ties to major cities through waterways as well as ties to the agriculture community due to its location out “west” making it unlike any other city in the United States at this time. The diversity seen in Rochester grants those who live in or around the city a perspective on relations between those with wealth and those without wealth. It has become painfully obvious through class discussions that wealth, regardless of how one defines it, has turned into political power in the United States. Now this blog isn’t going to head in a direction that many of my other entries have taken in that I am not going to talk about the abuse of power by the wealthy simply because they can do it without any repercussions. However, I can’t deny that this concept appears once again due to the fact that many wealthy “Rochesterians” imposed a sense of religion on the poor of their community because they believed a void or morality existed.

Tension undoubtedly existed between the upper and lower classes of Rochester and by the decision to impose religion on the “poor” by the wealthy did not ease these tensions I would argue with no knowledge of the state of Rochester. I think these tensions would become amplified as the “wealthy” are openly declaring themselves intellectually, financially, and morally superior through their decision to push religion on those beneath them. If I were say a factory worker of Rochester I would take this idea of imposing religion on me as the ultimate insult. What would make matters even worse for me as a factory worker at this time is that those in the upper class honestly believed they were doing me and the “poor” community a favor. However, I could not be more wrong in my thoughts of how a “poor” resident of Rochester would respond. Rather than spark revolution where the “wealthy” would be forced out of power, the poor of Rochester become unified with the wealthy, to an extent, due to the lower class’s decision to embrace the changes imposed upon them. Revivals are highly attended by those from or near Rochester and temperance was widely accepted in the community. I am baffled by the acceptance of this religious movement by the “poor” of Rochester as it seemingly goes against every other movement that had taken place in the United States when “the poor” were told what to do.

So what made the poor embrace the morality changes that they were told to make? Perhaps seeing how rebellions and skirmishes out west resulted for the poor when they defied the wealthy influenced their decision. Maybe members of the poor community took the old adage of “if you can’t beat them, join them” to heart and saw success, a success that was clear enough to other poor community members that they too changed. Regardless of the answer to the question I pose, Rochester successfully finds a way to unite members of the community making them a unique city. Ian’s commentary of Rochester as it exists today continues this idea of a unified city due to the holistic family feel the community has. Whether it be a store like Wegmen’s or a family law practice unity exists. Now the question that I would like to be investigated further is what the wealthy get from a unified community? It would seem that the upper class community would lose power with a more prominent middle class but I don’t see that happening. My thought is backed up by the fact that the Wegman family still runs a highly profitable store without outsiders coming in and wrangling power from them.

October 2, 2013

It Was Bound to Happen

AJ’s claim that the Whiskey Rebellion could have been avoided if personal grudges had been put aside, is a nice thought (it also provides a great image of a 1980s television freeze frame where Washington and Hamilton jump in the air and high five a group of westerners to show their differences are settled as the credits roll) but in no way was going to happen. Rebellions were occurring across the globe at this point in history and the number of similarities between the Whiskey Rebellion and these foreign revolutions are numerous as pointed out by Linebaugh and Rediker’s work The Many-Headed Hydra. Using only a sampling of rebellions occurring across the globe one can see similarities when they compare them to the Whiskey Rebellion situation. Boiling these numerous revolts down to the simplest of terminology I feel that these revolts are “the poor against the wealthy in attempt to even the playing field.” Now poor and wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean money, as many of these poor were simply trying to gain influence, but often times the individuals revolting were in worse financial shape. Looking at the Whiskey Rebellion, anger over taxes that were to be imposed on those out west was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Prior to this tax those out west felt that the government truly did not care for their well being, was the government providing westerns guns to fight off the Native Americans? No. Was the government putting any effort into staring western settlements? No, the government was relying on those out west to settle the land, so that easterners later could step in and live similarly to how they did originally. Westerns were upset with their situation and finally hit a boiling point, much like others across the globe were.

Going back to AJ’s point could Hamilton and Washington have put aside their issues with the west and maybe given them what they desired, a voice? Yes. But why would they? These men just outlasted the largest empire in the world and prior to outlasting them were able to pick up some notable military victories. What were a few thousand farmers to an entire army? It is not the nicest view of Washington and Hamilton, who are undoubtedly among the legends of revolution time America, but it is a realistic view. Furthermore, who is to say that if Washington and Hamilton were to give into the desires of the west that the west wouldn’t want more. I think the idea of give them an inch they take a mile truly was at play here as those out west were trying to see where their voice stood amongst those out east. Sadly for them they found out they simply didn’t have a voice.

Ultimately this revolt was bound to happen due to simply a difference of views and opinions of how each participant of the Whiskey Rebellion saw themselves. Would the way that the rebellion have played out been any different if those out west made in an issue of being an American? Slaughter points out that many westerners were people of multiple races and didn’t fall under the traditional scope of “an American” at this time. Answering that question I’d say probably not. The only difference I can see in that scenario in the way that the rebellion would have played out were the possible repercussions of foreigners or free blacks living in the colonies.

September 18, 2013

Runaways: An Expendable Workforce?

This week’s readings (especially the runaway ads) were quite entertaining. Seeing the numerous ways people tried to reclaim their “property” and seeing to what lengths that individuals would go getting their slaves back came across as ridiculous in some instances. What made this especially entertaining to me was seeing the differences and varying descriptions found in some of these runaway ads. By stating the descriptions of slaves in detail or perhaps stating that if someone finds a runaway slave they could kill them if they deemed necessary makes the role of a runaway very complicated, are they valued or expendable? This idea of killing a runaway slave if deemed necessary really struck me as interesting compared to the other ads as the narrative the ad tells goes much deeper than the script of the advertisement. This runaway in particular could have been a poor worker (meaning he was not valued on the plantation he worked on), by stating the runaway is expendable a message is sent to the slave community that you are only as good to the owner as what you have done for them recently, and that runaways are the scapegoats for the problems slave-owners have (the owner of the slave really has no idea if the slave is responsible for the numerous crimes that have been committed since he ran away). Another aspect of the ads that struck me was some of the ambiguity some of the ads had. I believe this ambiguity was intentional as it allowed any black person that was brought to a slave owner to be claimed as “their runaway.” This creates I believe a huge problem regarding the concept of runaways which was the enslavement of free blacks who were essentially kidnapped, a situation I believe that happened more than is reported.

These ads for runaways play into a statement made by Ian a couple weeks back regarding the importance of newspapers in American society. These ads (according to what Professor Shrout told us in class) appeared on the front page of newspapers making them perhaps the first thing an individual read when they picked up a newspaper. Taking this fact and making a bit of a stretch with this information I feel like the question “does seeing numerous ads regarding runaways shape the way that many view African Americans/slaves?” I think that it absolutely plays a role in the perception of slaves (especially for the uneducated or those who lack critical thinking skills) as it paints them as almost “evil” individuals who simply will do whatever they can to escape their role despite the “hospitality” they have been offered while working on a plantation. Furthermore it reaffirms a thought of domination over their property that many slaveholders or those who sympathized with slaveholders had.

Waldstreicher in his work “Reading the Runaways” brings up a valid point in his work regarding the changing “possibilities for black resistance in late-colonial America” (Waldstreicher 245). Blacks were gaining roles in northern society that threatened the way of life many in the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies enjoyed. If blacks were to realize what they could accomplish in the north after escaping slavery, or even realize what they could attain if they revolted against their slave owners, many plantation owners would not see the degree of profits of which they enjoyed or might be put out of business. More importantly without slave labor the argument can be made that the backbone of southern economy would no longer be present, essentially crippling financially an entire region of the colonies.