Resistance – Popular Politics in Early America

October 24, 2013

Not Free Yet

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

Reid’s analysis provided a far more detailed analysis of a specific incident and area that of Genovese, and successfully navigates and explains the complex political framework that dealt with runaway and freed slaves in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Moreover, while Genovese posits revolution as the ultimate form of resistance in slave communities, Reid explores personal struggles and resistances to slavery in the form seeking freedom by fleeing to free territories. However, as Reid clearly articulates the struggle for freedom did not end upon reaching the north or even being freed by one’s master, the struggle was perpetual and later compounded by the decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. I think her engagement free African-Americans continued experience with slavery provided a different perspective on the issue of slavery and contributes to a more complete assessment of slavery’s far-reaching effects in United States society prior to the Civil War.

While I agree with Wade’s assessment that an additive element of laymen perspective would have made the piece more complete, I don’t think that the goal that Reid sought to accomplish. Rather, I believe her focus revolved around the legislative and judicial history of slavery in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Although there are certainly more aspects to explore in the story that Reid laid out, I did not find the introduction to history of litigation on slavery and its development superfluous and helped paint a more complete picture of what she sought to depict.

October 21, 2013

Resisting Slavery

I think this Tuesday’s readings certainly differed from the readings of the previous week on Cherokee women but each provided valuable information on different aspects of slaves’ experience in the Americas. I’m going to begin with Genovese’s chapter Slave Revolts in Hemispheric Perspective because it is easier to tie into last week’s reading. Genovese does a good job highlighting some of the major differences that allowed for large-scale slave revolutions in some areas of the Atlantic and explaining why such revolutions were not as prominent in other areas. While Genovese certainly approached the issue from a Marxist angle, she engaged other societal constructs in a meaningful manner: the shooting ability of white militias in the United States, the population ratios within a given community, and exploring how varying religious beliefs influenced behavior. Situating slave rebellions within the concept of class struggle sets the stage for rebellion, proceeding to use secondary factors as either additive or subtractive elements towards slaves’ tendency towards revolution made it a more complete piece than I expected when I read the phrase “worldwide capitalist production”(1). My only criticism is the thing that ties Genovese’s work to last week’s readings. My issue is that she focuses almost exclusively on the African influences in slave culture and lacks a discourse on contributions from enslaved Native Americans. Moreover, given the importance of women in Cherokee communities and the enslavement of some Cherokee women, her study also fails to engage gender as a contributing factor in rebellion.

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.