Author: yaremenkolena

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

The book Beyond the Founders emphasizes, “the gap between national, political history and social history” (p.2). These essays look beyond the political leaders to the larger landscape of the rest of the population as a whole. They are not looking only at the top level leaders to define the history of this era, they are looking at the range of the population in the shaping of American history as is also seen in the book, Slavery’s Capitalism. Despite the language of the Declaration of Independence and the words in the Constitution, defining the rights of people in general and citizens specifically, it is clear in this collection of essays that political equality and social recognition changed continuously as society changed over time.  The citizens’ public lives were continuously shaping the politics of this era. The politicians were formulating and writing one version of the history of this era, while the populace was influencing and writing another history, as these two groups were bound together politically, economically, and socially. Each essay is immediately followed by notes on sources used in the research that informed the author’s opinion, in bibliographic style.

Slaves freed in the North were being allowed to practice capitalism, which gave them some political relevancy; however, they still were not socially seen as peers in white society. Blacks in the North, while free, were not equal. They were not able to vote although they practiced capitalism, which increased their economic freedom, but not their social or political freedom. The ideology that made this kind of racism acceptable can be seen in Chapter 3, which explains how even at the level of clothing worn, blacks were not permitted to encroach on the social norms of the white population by even so much as dressing like whites.  Abolitionist Quaker, John Woolman characterized this as “a technology for naturalizing racism and slavery,” even before the nation was form (p.92). This argument over the political and social status of blacks and slaves was taking place at the general level of society. There were those in the population who were trying to influence the top level politicians, and when they could not influence, they fought back in different ways, through political speech and actions such as changing the political landscape by helping women and blacks become more independent economically through textile and clothing production. Some white citizens of the North were already making slavery and racism part of the political debate by their action at the socioeconomic level. Woolman’s view influenced the political debate despite that fact that he probably did not represent the norm in society at that time, but his influence can be seen in the Frederick Douglass dolls, which depict Douglass before slavery with no shoes and wearing cast-off clothing of his master, and as a free man dressed in a tuxedo, like the best of white European society. Chapter 3 further illustrates the dichotomy within the society at that time which can even be seen in Jefferson’s expressed thoughts and his actions, politically and socially. Men and women had highly defined positions in the society: men governed the world and women governed the home, while and slaves and freed blacks had no place in that society (p.95). Blacks were free in the North to be industrious, and Jefferson, in fact, encouraged self-sufficiency of the citizens, but black ex-slaves being self-sufficient was a different story. Jefferson did not support even the industry of his own slave, and in fact, demeaned their efforts. Despite the ideal that all the men were created equal, Jefferson doesn’t accept equality for women or blacks socially or politically and society as a whole at that time agreed with his social position. Social life as it related to the desire to gain political acknowledgment, power, and influence can also be seen in Chapter 4 and 5.

Every Chapter expresses how the social level spills over into the political realm, attempting to influence politics and gain power for individual groups. This book represents a demonstration of the influence of the politically less powerful citizens at the grassroots level to effect change that might not be written into the history at the top levels.

Because blacks fought for the Union during the Civil War they wore the U.S. insignia that all soldiers wore. This led to Frederick Douglass’ argument that blacks had the right to the citizenship as they fought for the same purpose as white soldiers. Clothes were the visual image of the equality and had an impact on politics shows that history was not written just by the elites in the society. This is reflected as well in Closer to Freedom where the author portrays freedom for slaves through their clothing during the parties, unaware that to their enslavers that this represented their freedom. Fascinating how the notion of clothing defining social status still exist today and is an expression of political power in many circles.

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

The author’s thesis expresses how the small section of borderland between Arizona and Mexico reflects the world as a whole, in that it can be viewed as constantly in a transitional state of flux despite the constraints placed on it at various times in history by governments. It is his contention that settlers throughout the history of the world are never completely controlled, despite political, economic and even good intentions as motivation. People will do what they want to do regardless of borders, or as he expresses it, NAFTA and 9/11 represent greater forces at work than our borders (p.184). This theme can be seen in Sim’s book, A Union Forever, with the British trying to impose rule over the Irish, and Americans aiding the Irish despite The Neutrality Act of 1794 in the U.S. that prohibited them from doing this. More recently, we see this in the dissolving of the borders of Yugoslavia through war due to religious and cultural differences, and more in the more amicable dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

While I agree with Morgan’s assessment of Truett’s overall view of the borderlands, that corporations and politics played a huge role in both the lax, at times, and contested at other times, border, it should be added, that it was the investment in innovation that was the source of the push for fixed borders so that the natural resources that fed the corporations and the governments would flow without contention or war between the U.S. and Mexico. The Apaches, who were neither part of the corporate enterprises, nor part of the European settlers’ cultures, were militarily decimated by the U.S. and Mexican governments, while the settlers and enterprises that benefited the U.S. and its push for electricification through the copper from the Phelps Dodge mines (68-9) were supported. Both U.S. and Mexican governments gave away huge tracts of the Apache’s land on their borders, ignoring treaties made with the Apaches (p.40). Mining for copper and raising cattle were tremendous resources for entrepreneurs and the governments on both sides of the border. While the state of flux at the border, and broken promises to the Apaches led to bloodshed for the settlers, the defined borders led to the virtual annihilation of the Apache people. Enterprise, innovation, and economics, therefore, can be seen as the primary elements that shattered all other motivations including moral codes.

Samuel Truett’s, Fugitive Landscape, is an historiographic contribution to the field of the transitional history of the south-western border of the U.S and Mexico.  Using archived material from the U.S. and Mexico’s Arizona-Sonoran borderlands from late 18-19th centuries, accounts for the book’s in-depth and detailed humanitarian look at the complex connections, events and actors concerned. This multiethnic, transnational history reveals the fugitive landscape of these borderlands. The history of these borderlands was originally conceived by Truett for his PhD dissertation at Yale. He was convinced to expand on his dissertation by William Cronon, a colleague, who “open[ed his] eyes to humanists’ potential of environmental history” (ix).

Truett’s narrative style and use of connotative language to portray events and settings tends to romanticize his vision of the west, setting a mood not typically found in formal historiographic writing. The writing is descriptive and passionate, involving readers in the energy and mood, (as Truett perceived it), of the time. Truett successfully engages the reader in the historical events of the past, and then incorporates his research to connect the past and the present, making the book an excellent historical work as well as an enjoyable one. He describes the actors at a dinner at the Democrat Club in New York, for instance, as “duck[ing] out of the cold” and “stripping off their coats and scarves…to dream of distant sun-baked lands blessed by nature” (p.1). It is possible that such sentiments were expressed by the actors involved, but as Truett directly quotes a toast made by a member at the dinner. Adding the romanticized language, rather than relying on the words of those present, seems to express less a desire to produce a strictly accurate and formal historiographic work, and more a choice to produce an in-depth book designed to inspire interest in the subject of these borderlands and their history among a wider population.

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

After the Civil War, black men were given the right to vote, but their past treatment as soulless creatures by the white society left a mark that it still visible in the black community to this day.  Women, although they were not given the right to vote in the U.S. until more than half a century later were not affected like the ex-slave of the black community were because they saw themselves as a valuable part of their society, and they weren’t ostracized and looked down on as less then human. Women felt they have a purpose and a degree of respect in society as soulmates of the white men. Blacks weren’t seen as having no individual purpose, their purpose at that time, being only what white society “gave” them.

The North and South were divided on the surface by religious morality differences. At some point in time, however, the justification for slavery which had had a low level of interest, vanished. A religious movement grew up and took hold in the North but not in the South despite the fact that the people in both the North and South came from essentially the same moral place.  Question becomes how did this acceptable behavior one day become unacceptable and next? When and why does the shift occur and was there much more behind the moral justification for slavery than religious beliefs; for example, economics. Was that strictly religious beliefs that changed or did geography and innovation play a part. The slavery in the South was predominantly of the black population, but in the North, at the time of the industrial revolution, there was a similar type of slavery of women and children in factories. The white people in the North were “free” and considered human beings with souls, while in the Southern black population, the slaves were considered ¾ of the person, which was justification for conserving them as soulless and with a tendency toward being evil.  Ostracizing people from the community leaves them with no hope, and no reason to care.

Morality may have been used to justify the economic conflict that led to the Civil War, but the underlying causes and the justifications for continuing slavery of both the black population and white women and children was bound more tightly to economics than to morality.

 

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

David Sim points out the peculiar and difficult relations that existed among the Americans, Irish nationalists and the British. It briefly discusses the US transatlantic trade and American interest in untapped natural resources in Ireland at the time when Irish citizens were coming to the United states due to the Irish famine in 1948. The problem for the Irish was that the Americans were interested in stability not involvement in another war, and especially not another war with the British with whom it was building diplomatic, economic, and business relations.

American citizens were against British rule in Ireland because they thought it went against the British constitution. This was ironic considering that the U.S condoned slavery within the republic, while the British were abolitionists also caused tension (p.5). However, there was also the religious difference of the Irish Catholics not supporting the annexation of Texas that may have been connected to the lackluster support for Irish independence by the United States politicians, compounded by O’Connell’s desire for a Catholicism to be recognized by the British, while Irish nationalists wanted a non-sectarian style government similar to that of the U.S. Irish Separatists were also being banished to the United States by British, which made it easy for Americans to relate to the Irish plight and sympathize with them based on English past treatment of American colonists. The Americans saw in the Irish the common desire for freedom, and a common enemy, the British. This was all taking place at the time when British American statesmen were building strong ties with Britain.

In the opening of the book the author does not mentioned that this was all taking place approximately 15 years before the Civil War and 25 years after the war. At that time in history the United States was enmeshed in its own internal battle between the northern and southern state, which were in conflict over the question of slavery. This conflict eventually erupted in to the Civil War. Ireland eventually became an independent state in the1920s after WW1, the Great War, with no help outside help from the United States.  

Sources for the book – archive manuscripts collections, consular records, governments files, official diplomatic documents, public records, national archives in the United States, and the national library of Ireland, foreign office archives in London, newspaper archives, personal writings.

Sim uses a synthesis transnational methodology, “bottom-up approach to Irish American nationalism with attention to the worlds, intentions, and actions of elite statement,” (p.3) with attention to the complexities of American statecraft, diplomatic history, and non-state actors.

 

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

1. The role of innovations between 1800 and 1865, such as the Gattling’s gattling gun, and Eli Whitney’s interchangeable gun parts, and his cotton gin, and their impact on the American Civil War.

2. The direct effect of the civil war on the life of botanist and chemist, George Washington Carver, – life before and after American Civil War.

3. How the underlying moral constituency of the first immigrants to northern and southern colonies set South and North up inevitably for a civil war.