Revolution – Popular Politics in Early America

October 3, 2013

Religious Revolutionaries

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 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 24, 2013

A Reflection of the American Revolution

From our second section of reading on Thomas P. Slaughter’s The Whiskey Rebellion, a certain by the frontiersmen caught my attention. This quote is; “the government was competent to every end but that single one by which alone it can benefit us, the protection of our territorial rights” (163). This seemed like a very strong assertion by frontiersmen towards the United States government but, was not something new to the American people. Only a few decades earlier, a great number of colonists were making similar statements regarding the oppressive rule by the British government. I noticed one striking difference between the two revolutionary statements, that in support of the government.

Throughout most of the lead up to the American Revolution, the colonists remained loyal to the King of England. For Ben Franklin, it took his utter embarrassment at the hands of the British nobility in 1774 to sway his allegiance, but until that point he was a loyal subject. Quite differently, Slaughter points out how he believes that both George Washington and Alexander Hamilton probably believed about 80 percent of frontiersmen disloyal to the American Government (156). This is a shocking difference in support for the government but, it goes to show the type of spirit that was in the air. The frontiersmen had learned from past events that mere petitions and acts of civil disobedience were not enough to implement change. Instead, one must revolt against the country that had abused their allegiance, partaking in violence to secure their liberties. Except, the only problem with this mindset lay in the fact that the country these frontiersmen wished to split from was not an ocean away but, was right next store, ready to maintain an intact nation.

Though I do enjoy Slaughter’s book a lot, after reading the second section I have noticed a continual problem in the piece. As a side- effect of Slaughter’s exuberant amount of research, his work becomes too dense. I have found myself countless times trying to remember who was who in terms of people, or where this event fit into the overall picture. It became quite a taxing practice for the first two sections and I can only imagine it will continue. As a result of this issue, one gets lost in trying to identify the significant number of characters and events, rather than understanding the ideas that are being argued for in the piece. Though great detail is generally a good thing to have in a piece like this, the use of it in the way Slaughter has actually takes away from understanding his specific arguments.

Rather than responding to a fellow classmates post today, I would actually like to respond to our heated debate that took place in class. A specific point I would like to answer would be Mr. Christopher Talevi’s regarding his statement about frontiersmen invading Native American land. I do see his point regarding how it was wrong for frontiersmen to continue pushing westward but, the issue was not the morality of the issue at the time but, how to deal with it. These frontiersmen were a part of the United States regardless of their actions, which meant it was the country’s duty to protect them. Instead of adequately protecting them from hostile natives, as many were, the government proposed an excise tax that would only weaken the already struggling western folk. This action only goes to support the frontiersman’s quote above regarding the failures of the national government in their protection. It was no longer a matter of right and wrong in terms of invasion but, how was the newly constructed government going to defend its people from a threat.

September 19, 2013

"The Whiskey Rebellion:" Irrational Fears

In The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Slaughter outlines the events that circulated around perhaps one of the most deadly civilian rebellions in America’s history. The central issue revolved around taxation and the role of the central government in enforcing such taxes on its citizens. Alex Salvatierra, in his blog post, mentioned that the response of farmers to the new tax was in some ways, an irrational fear as they believed if they were to accept these new taxes without objection, it would lead to the demise of the union they fought so hard to attain. In my post, I wish to examine the fears that Slaughter mentions, which he notes were not all rational, as they were the fuel behind the anxieties and tensions of the farmers.

On page 23, Slaughter explains, “Americans still differed about the ideological significance of internal taxes and about the localist description of divided sovereignty.” He goes on to mention that these differences were put aside, as in 1774, “Americans united to confront more pressing threats to their liberties.” (23) In many ways, the Revolution acted as a gause, through which all the different frustrations and anxieties that muddled the lives of the colonialists would be solved. But as the Revolution ended, these differences were not reconciled, and the focus transferred over to the issue of taxation, rather than revolution. So the fears that Salvatierra is referring to, for example of”the disbandment of the Union” are rooted in the central conflict of internal taxation. When the threat to the British waned, these tensions intensified. With the increasing isolation of westerners by the governing body, in 1786, George Mason had predicted that these anxieties would “occasion another war in less than six years.”(30) Through the perspective of the westerners, the new tax asked by the government, stood in conjunction with the other anxieties in their life such as the “widespread economic distress” in 1786 so while their fear that internal taxation would lead to the disbandment of the union is not entirely rational, it is key to examine the environment in which these fears formulated, as early Americans were “not purely rational men and women, immune to fears and tensions of social life.” (7) Ultimately the Whiskey Rebellion was an event that defined a crucial time of America’s young republic, as disputes between westerners and the governing body threatened to tear the nation apart.