Capitalism – Popular Politics in Early America

October 31, 2013

Religion: Yea or Nay

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 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 22, 2013

People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people.

For me, it was easy to assume that banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a moral act, fought for by the noble abolitionists as a first step toward ending slavery. My assumption, though perhaps part of the reason for such an act, was not comprehensive: in “Slave Revolts in Hemispheric Perspective” from “From Rebellion to Revolution” by Eugene Genovese, he suggests that the end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was, partially, a tactical move on the part of slaveholders to avoid more slave revolts. He points out that slave populations in the American south were already significant and were growing, so slaveholders felt no need for imported slaves. Significantly, however, he points out that imported slaves were more likely to incite rebellion than those that had been suppressed for a l0ng time.

The presence of imported African slaves, however, is not the only reason that slaves might revolt, as Genovese makes clear in his overview of slave revolts and the causes. Though likely not, it feels comprehensive; he mentions causes such as the presence of skilled laborers, slave’s knowledge of firearms, large and concentrated slave populations, real or expected political alliances with other groups or states, religion (especially Islam), and enlightenment ideologies as factors that might foment revolt. Furthermore, he discusses the ways in which white populations might affect the possibility of a slave revolt: the white populations familiarity with firearms, and their access to local and federal militias; the size of the white population compared with the black one; political rhetoric at the elite level, and the discussion of it around the slaves; black expectations about the duration of their enslavement.

CT mentions that he believes that slaves’ ability to use firearms was an insignificant element in determining whether or not slaves would revolt. I believe he is correct–many of these causes by themselves are insignificant. Furthermore, he is also correct in a practical sense: a few single-shot muskets would not turn the tide of battle. I believe, however, that there is a certain psychological element that accompanies the use of firearms, and–though insignificant in the course of battle itself–I believe this would potentially have a large impact on whether or not slaves revolted. Especially, I think, in the American south, since I believe there is a psychological value to meeting your enemy on the field of battle with a parity of technology, and southerners were often heavily armed and trained in the use of firearms.

I also appreciate Genovese’s placement of slave revolt within a broader context. As he writes, slave revolts “contributed toward the radical though still bourgeoisie movement for freedom, equality and democracy, while they foreshadowed the movement against capitalism itself” (2). It is logical that slavery would arise within a capitalistic mindset, as the owners of capital can avoid dealing with labor at all, and simply make labor part of their capital. Luckily, our consciences have pulled us beyond this abhorrent form of torture, and yet, make no mistake that every capitalists attempts to lower wages and shut out unions, reduce benefits and privatize education, are intended to push the working class back toward the dehumanization of slavery, in which the labor (barely) survives and the capitalists reap the benefits.

October 9, 2013

Contemplating Religious Revival Ruling Rochester

I found Johnson’s A Shopkeeper’s Millennium to be an extremely revealing work of social history about the religious revival in Rochester in the early 1830s. Johnson does an effective job of demonstrating the “Shopkeeper’s Millennium” as a period in which middle class merchants held enormous economic and social power in Rochester as a result of millenarian religious revival. Johnson’s argument that Charles Finney’s religious revival was the basis for a redefinition of politics, labor, and social life is convincing because of his ability to demonstrate that the conversions of the 1830s produced societal reforms that were unlike those of the 1820s that pitted working men against their employers. Rather, this movement underscored a “war on sin” that removed any explicit attacks between the bourgeoisie and the working class and instead focused on the “evils” that plague all men (115). I believe Johnson only augments this claim when he adds that the communal nature of revivals “shattered old divisions” of class and established new communities (101). This creates a clear distinction in Johnson’s writing between what appears to be a struggle identified by Marxist theories in the 1820s and one of religious sentiments in the succeeding decade.

In Johnson’s final chapter, however, I felt his argument began to unravel. While he previously focused on the tenets and religious effects of Finney’s revival, Johnson proceeds to discuss revival and conversion in Rochester as an economic agent to provoke change in the city. For example, he writes “the most powerful source of the working man’s revival was the simple, coercive fact that wage earners worked for men who insisted on seeing them in church” (121). Statements like these imply that conversion by laborers could have been a mere means to acquire a job or steady income, as opposed to a change in fundamental values and beliefs. This is in direct contrast with Johnson’s previous claims about the revival’s legitimacy because it calls into question the true effect religion had in reshaping nineteenth century Rochester. Rather, it emphasizes manipulations of religion to receive desirable economic results. In his afterword, Johnson tries to cover up this implication when he states “the revival was not a capitalist plot” (141). However, when writing this, Johnson is referring to only those men who dictated social change in Rochester, the middle class businessmen, and continues to ignore exploration of any significant depth behind motivations of those experiencing the change, the working class wage laborers. While those participating in revivals could have thoroughly believed what they publicly professed, the working class laborers very easily could have accepted those same beliefs as merely a small price to pay to insure stable living.

With respect to my colleagues, I agree with most of what has been argued. Specifically, I agree with Ben that many of the inferences made by Johnson were plausible and his ample evidence behind these claims – particularly in examples like those of the extended families that helped to precipitate early business in Rochester – only helped to push his thesis. With that being said I also understand Price’s remarks about Johnson’s sweeping generalizations. One example that struck me occurred at the end of the book where Johnson writes “workmen no longer listened when proprietors spoke” (140). However, we were already told that the dissonance between employer and employee emerged from the increased privatization of their lives, not from a lack of listening (57). While these statements are likely dramatized and used more to provoke an image than used as fact, they did make me wary to trust all the claims advanced by Johnson in A Shopkeeper’s Millennium.