This week we explore the early battles over the identity of the United States. During this period local and national elites--as well as individual families and households--negotiated the course of political-economic and cultural development. We will also spend much of the week connecting constitutional debates with these early battles.
Readings:
Clark, chaps. 2-4
Slavery's Constitution
Slavery's Constitution
Points of Entry:
Monroe Doctrine
Early U.S. material culture:
Early U.S. Maps:
Louisiana Purchase:
Thoughts/Questions for blog discussion:
List and analyze 2 quotes from the reading.
What are some of the arguments?
How are they related to the larger themes of the week discussed in class?
“Farmers and artisans forced their way into public life, negotiating terms with the ‘gentlemen’ to whom they had previously deferred, and shifting the balance of politics in a markedly democratic direction.” (Clark, 56)
ReplyDeleteThe new government formed by the people and for the people of the United States was just that; unlike their European predecessors, the United States was run in the interest of the common man. Clark summarizes that before the Revolutionary War 17% of the assemblies of New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire were men from the moderate income bracket and 23% were farmers. Post-Revolution up to 62% and 55% were from these same social groups. Not only in politics, but also in the Continental Army the common man maintained control. Demonstrating their skill and leadership abilities in the French and Indian War, men were promoted by merit rather than by name or wealth. This sense of equality among the common man was crucial for unification in the American Revolution.
"A creature of empire as much as of everyday life, slavery had already shown a striking tendency to haunt American politics, even as its leaders tried to free themselves from its grasp." (Wladstreicher, 56)
Within the Constitution remained one major flaw; its endorsement of slavery. A time bomb to be set off during the Civil War, slavery separated where the Constitution had unified. Delegates at the Constitution Convention realized the implications of slavery in light of the Declaration for Independence and the Revolutionary War. Escaping to freedom in the British army, slaves caused a panic among politicians who realized the hypocrisy of the matter but assuaged their consciences by regarding slaves as 3/5th of a person and referring to slavery as the “peculiar institution” or “species of property.” The elephant in the room would only be addressed with the bloody Civil War.
“Although the Revolution evolved from disputes over British policies in North America, those disputes were influenced by social division within the colonies themselves.” (39)
ReplyDeleteThis relates to the map we talked about in class showing support and objection to the revolution. Although the map did not show the many different disputes among the colonies, it did show a type of division that was typical to many disputes in the colonial North America, one of which including slavery. What is explained here is that predominant objections were usually localized to a single place such as port town’s protests against British policies, the only problem being that a revolution could not occur until these problems reached the rural and urban areas that the majority lived in.
“Splits within elite groups, and between them and the rest of the population, helped create patterns of loyalism and neutrality that made the Revolution in many localities a struggle among Americans as much as a struggle against the British.” (43)
Also mentioned here is the theme of division due to the diversity that was North America. Another theme this relates to is the theme of elitism. As discussed in class and in Clark, only about one fifth of the population had rights and a voice that could be heard. While these people were spread across the colonies, they had differing views, objecting those from different areas and beliefs. The gap between themselves and those without these rights also differed because the richer, Creoles differed in what they thought of the colonies from what the working man thought or wanted of it.
“There was nothing new about slaves rebelling, running away, petitioning for their liberty in individual cases, or suggesting that slavery was an abomination before God.” (39 Waldstreicher)
ReplyDeleteThe above quote lets us know the obvious that slavery has been dealt with for many years but what it does call into question is that if none of the above is new, then why has nothing been done about slavery sooner than the constitution? Yes, there were opponents to slavery but the constitution made this a national issue. The people could now have more of a say (the one in five people that were allowed to vote anyway). Slavery was a longstanding issue but it was a necessary evil for America to get on its feet. The argument that appears to myself is the people knew that slavery was necessary for labor in many states in order to produce items for trade within the states and abroad. Slavery allowed America to make its stand in world trade and let others know America was a new power and a strong one at that. Viewing slavery as an abomination in many areas did not deter much of the practice sadly adding to the fact that people realized how slavery was a foundation for the economy and in making America stand out from other new colonies in the world.
“The clauses that relate directly to slavery are not exceptions to the Constitution’s remarkable combination of precision and vagueness: they epitomize those qualities.” (101 Waldstreicher)
During class discussion, we noted that the clauses that related to slavery were vague but prominent in letting the people know slavery was within the constitution. The vagueness allows the people to use the clauses how they please in order to protect what is explicitly theirs such as the slaves which were considered “property”. Slavery as used precisely in the constitution is for the use of production in many cases. A strong argument as touched upon earlier is that slavery was a necessity to begin the nation and when it came together, the people were able to actually voice that they abhor the institution. It took all of the states coming together to do start to take an actual stand on slavery. Historians can use vagueness to their advantage especially in this case of clauses and arguments by the founding fathers. One can interpret the clauses as they like but that can show how the people during the late 18th century really felt about what was happening in the nation. There were many people who would not join the constitutional movement unless their needs were met like those in the south who wanted to keep their slaves. By keeping the clause vague it included slavery and let southerners use the clause. This joining of ideas in almost a people-pleasing manner shows a weakness in the constitution that is worse than including slavery. It shows the beginning of a political atmosphere that gave people what they want, even if it was something horrid like slavery, in order to sign on with the powerful players in the nation(Founding Fathers). Slavery was abolished but this trend has continued into today’s political order showing longevity in bad ideas.
Quote 1:
ReplyDeleteGeneral George Washington first discouraged the practice, then accepted it as inevitable given troop shortages.
Washington's initial rejection of slaves as members of the military reveals larger historial trends. This being, what Steve Estes points out, that socially outcasted groups, like gays, women and blacks, are shunned when in times of peace but accepted when in times of need. I have to offer a critique, a strong one to say the least of such practices. If one is hate during time of peace but grant peace in times of hate (war) then one is nothing but an intellectual barbaric. This being the stigma in which I place the military's history. Thus, like in WW2, propaganda sought to recruit a national identity (inclusive of blacks) but segregated them extensively once in units. How sad is it all? Almost detrimental to any optimism I could falsely provide.
Quote 2:
...the original emphasis neglects the more basic, original link of British property rights, the fact that slavers were property, and that both slavery and prosperty were intrinsic to what colonies were all about: agricultural production and trade. (P.31)
I get a headache reading about this, I honestly do. It troubles me deeply to know that consumers (myself included) willfully blindfold themselves for the finished goods, as with rubber for the British in the Congo for bikes, or sugar also. Although history exemplifies the changes in societies it also presents the premanent effects of such spacial and temporal moments vis-a-ve slavery. But this why it also so important and is as Dr. Robert Marks states brilliantly in his book Origins of the Modern World that "by coming to grips with the contingent nature of wealth, power and privilege of the West, those who have benefitted should be humbled by the actual sources of their good fortune, and those who have not should take heart that in the future new contingencies may well favor them.” I believe this is the truest statement out there. This exemplifies the issues, at large here, that we grew from the blood (not water) that soaked the American plant.
"The Declaration, then, had turned from antislavery in draft to anti-antislavery(if not pro-slavery) in publication." Pg 47 Waldstreicher
ReplyDeleteThis quote shows how that the states had made accommodations to help keep the southern states as part of the union. The Constitution had not specifically sided either way with the issue of slavery, but it was being interpreted in a way that is pro south because it was what was needed to preserve the newly formed nation.
"To compromise once again in 1861, either side would have to give up not just slavery, or antislavery, but also its constitution: its written political order." Pg 157 Waldstreicher
This shows that the issue of slavery was one so great and nation dividing that it forced a civil war because they couldn't come to an agreement that wouldn't result in conflict. This quote shows that both sides felt that in order to protect their way of life.
"One influential member of the Board of Trade, Malachy Postlethwayt, called the 'African trade the fundemental prop and support" in the British Empire." (27)
ReplyDeleteThis quote tells us that the trade with africa kept the British empire from collapsing. It gave so much money and gained a lot of revenue for the British as well. Africa supplied both goods and most importantly slaves. Slaves were the working horses of the British Empire because they grew the corps and mainly did all the hard work in order to make materials. Slaves basically made the lives of European people a much more relaxed and easy life.
"It certainly did eventually, but this emphasis neglects the more basic, original link of British rights to property, fact that slaves were property, and that both slavery and property were intrinsic to what colonies were all about: agricultural production and trade." (31)
This quote brings about slavery and how slaves were apart of American life. They helped not only in the agricultural production with all the crops, but this also enabled the colonist and the states to trade with other merchants.
"For MANY men and women who had lived through the Revolution and whose lives drew to a close in the 1820's, the first half-century of American independence was a period of considerable hardship," (Clark 82). The generation that witnessed the revolution and helped contribute to its success found economic difficulty for quite some time. There was leftover flak from the issues of the 1780's. Many people were faced with HEAVY debt and potential eviction. These problems did not get better in the early 19th century either. The people had to deal with the effects of Jefferson's embargo, the War of 1812, and various European skrimishes and wars. When the European market reopened in 1819, foreign merchants simply overwhelmed local tradesmen. The fallout from this sudden boom went to produce the first nationwide economic depression in 1820.
ReplyDelete"Slavery enabled Southern society to participate in the dynamic development shared by other household-based societies in the early United States," (Clark 123). Clark argues that although abolitionists believed that slavery's use WOULD dry out as time progressed, this was not quite the case. The South needed slaves to produce its unique crops such as cotton. The point to this statement is that if the South only produced one crop, tobacco, then the need for slave labor may have diminished and eventually disappeared. However, the South had a rich and diverse economy, and this may have contributed to the prolonging of slavery, since the plantation owners could not really afford to give up their golden goose. This is comparable to New England's need for shipbuilding and lumber; without its key resource, its economy would falter.
"Because the framers' Constitution sought to govern, in other words, it sought to govern slavery. Debates over representation and taxation - the basic constitutional issues that led to the American Revolution - also led directly back to the problem of slavery. Electing a president and creating mechanisms for security led to slavery. The relationships of the states and their laws to each other implied slavery."
ReplyDeleteWaldstreicher presents this new theory of the Constitution: that its purpose was to not just represent the people's wishes but to benefit slave-owners, to guarantee that the federal government would protect the institution of slavery.
"When Students of the past look at the founding through republican eyes, slaves do not belong on the agenda. Slavery can at most appear as a 'contradiction' or 'paradox' to be dealt with later."
This republican school of American seems to me the kind of history I learned in elementary school, with the Founding Fathers regarded as these supermen who wrote the Constitution perfectly. Simply said, slavery is indeed a contradiction to the ideas of individual liberties that the republican school of American history.
“Never again could British slaveholders reassure themselves that everybody (who mattered) believed in slavery as traditional form of property.” Pg 39
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Waldstreicher is talking about how society was changing because people were starting to turn against slavery. People, especially in the north, were changing their views on how a slave was owned, therefore the British could not be sure if the rest of the population agreed on their views.
“The Constitution’s shorter second article, devoted to the presidency, has one clause that builds upon the three-fifths clause and thus increases the powers of slaveholders and states with slaves.” Pg 7
This quote from Waldstreicher talks about how the three-fifths compromise ultimately helped those in the south with slaves. It gave more power to slaveholders because their slaves counted when voting. It also gave the state more power because the state got to have more state representatives and, also, the more slaves helped with the distribution of taxes.
"Even the three-fifths-of-the-slaves clause is open to question as a proslavery device. Sixty percent is not one hundred percent, after all.”(Waldstreicher 10).
ReplyDeleteWaldstreicher makes a good argument by proving the point that the colonists wanted to have slaves and make the slaves have no rights, but yet the colonists wanted to include the slaves in the population. This is why they counted three out of the five slaves, therefore creating the three-fifths clause.
"Some states even passes their own import and export taxes- in effect treating each other as foreign nations" (Waldstreicher 63).
The colonies were supposed to be supportive and cooperative with each other but as Waldstreicher demonstrates they treated one another as strangers.
“Yet freedom to legislate their domestic institutions toward or away from human bondage was the same freedom that permitted the new states to ignore or sidestep the wartime requisitions of the Continental Congress” (Waldstreicher 61)
ReplyDeleteThis quote explains to me that the same freedom that the congress set up for the new colonies was taken for granted in times of hardship and war. Slaves were still being used harshly in the south by many plantation owners or other colonist. Instead of using that freedom to make everything better off for all races, many white colonists would remain depend on their slaves and ignore the freedom of others. Also in wartime demand they would ignore congress and not fight for their actual freedom. The Revolutionary War was a long hard fought war that lacked man power.
“Its localism, in the end, was its great strength and its fatal weakness in a struggle against a nationalist silencing of the slavery issue” (Waldstreicher 108)
Its localism refers to the, Constitution’s rules. This quote is 100% true in the fact that the founding fathers or the delegates that wrote the Constitution wanted to create a strong local government or create strong colonies that worked together for a common good. That common good was often slavery. It was looked over by many delegates so the economy as a whole can prosper. In the end though, it created a political view for anti-slavery. Its publicity and credibility rose when states realized what they were doing went against the Bill of Rights.
"Conflicts between land-company interests, Native Americans, and British policy for the backcountry had done much to intensify colonial resentment to Britain, and the West became an important arena of conflict during the Revolutionary War."(88)
ReplyDeleteAs the United States was developing more and more, they continuously had issues with the crown. Although the west did not feel the direct heat from the British, there were aspects that they felt. For example the west was involved in the writing of The Constitution, it was debated that the west would have slavery abolished immediately after the document was published. Although it lost by one vote.
"Population density and pressure on land remained lower to the west, but high population densities in the Delaware Valley provided a surplus of rural labor available to be drawn by manufacturers into workshops and factory villages."(166)
The Population in the west was a lot smaller for a few reasons. The biggest reason that there were few people in the west as compared to that of the upper east coast, was that the journey to the west was a very rigorous process. Another reason was that there were not any jobs available. The only reason people moved west was all of the free land. On the other hand in Delaware valley there were plenty of jobs and ways to make money.
"The Revolution entailed a complex rebalancing of elite and popular influences in politics, introducing new elements of democracy and formally recognizing "the people" as the sovereign power in a republic." (Pg. 37)
ReplyDeleteThis quote describes how the Revolution played a big role in recognizing the public citizens. The political elites made common cause with public people such as famers, artisans, and citizens of labor to get rid of the political pressure. I think this was a good idea because they were able to voice their opinions to the politicians.
"Forcing public apologies from officials implicated in unpopular policies, adopting forms of disguise, burning or hanging targets in effigy, or even tarring-and-feathering officials or opponents-all reversed normal assumptions about authority, or subjected targets to ritual humiliation that indicated their abasement before the demands of the people." (Pg. 39)
This quote describes how the citizens of America were unhappy with the British authorities. The public conducted violent protests against the British because they did not want to be controlled by British rule. This became an important issue regarding who should rightly control and govern America.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries America went through several changes.
ReplyDelete“The rapid growth of rural societies based on family labor, slavery and wage labor; and an intensification of economic activity that fostered the growth of commerce, towns, and manufacturing, witnessed the application of new technologies to transport and communications, and initiated mass immigration from overseas” (Clark, 2006).
this growth began to make America into a great power. After winning its independence the newly formed United States of America showed dramatic progress technologically, politically, and agriculturally. the formation of a powerful nation began and mainly other watched as it became continually more prosperous. This change also affected the view of slavery which was still highly popular with many in America. The northern states were the first to see Africans as equals and slavery as in-just.
"They took the abolition of slavery or steps toward gradual emancipation in northeastern states as a sign of progress towards the end" (Clark,2006).
This idea soon spread and would soon develop into the 13 amendment stopping slavery in 1865.
“The founders’ Constitution avoided theorizing African slavery as right or wrong… as a pillar of the Republic or an anachronism headed for the dustbin of history” (Waldstreicher 113).
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Waldstreicher argues that the founding fathers could not come to an agreement on what slavery was. They were unable to decide if it was right or wrong, or whether to get rid of it. This left the gates open for slave owners, because if the Constitution did not outlaw slavery, they could continue buying and abusing their slaves.
“this is ultimately what makes the document proslavery – the Constitution enacted mechanisms that empowered slaveholders” (Waldstreicher 114).
In this passage, Waldstreicher shows us how, by not outlawing slavery, the Constitution gave more power to the slaveholders. He goes on to say that since landowners had most of the power, slaveholders had this power because they usually owned most of the land. This gave slaveholders a lot of political power that many believed they should not have had.
"The first pressure point resided in the slaves themselves, who found in the colonial controversy distinct opportunities to fight for their own liberties. There was nothing new about slaves rebelling, running away, petitioning for their liberty in individual cases, or suggesting that slavery was an abomination before God". (Waldstreicher 38)
ReplyDelete- This excerpt exemplifies how the slaves would go against society. The slaved felt that they needed to achieve some form of freedom. They were determined to reach this freedom even if it meant risking their lives. The slaves would rebel against their masters, even proclaiming that their enslavement when against their God.
"According to middle-American (that is, upper-southern and lower-northern) aspirations, stated most explicitly and eloquently by Jefferson and Franklin, free government would lead to free society. America would lead the way. Yet the freedom to legislate thier domestic institutions toward or away from human bondage was the same freedom that permitted the new states to ignore or sidestep the wartime requisitions of the Continental Congress".
- This quote portrays America's distinct view on leadership. America is a nation that values status and stepping up in times of need. American views on domestic institutions entailed a clear understanding of how this aspect would affect the American people as far as human bondage.
"British officials nevertheless contributed to the conflict by posting troops and enforcing trade regulations more rigorously, helping to turn the northeastern port towns into tinderboxes of discontent. "(41)
ReplyDelete-It is as if Clark calls the reader to pause here and give thought to how the early colonies might have turned out had the British crown not put so many limitations and added so many taxes to the lives of its people. This passage exemplifies the mindset of the British officials stationed in the colonies. At this point the British would have been in the "New World" long enough for British standard to have been diluted by the different way of life and enterprise. Suddenly, people found new freedoms not easily monitored by an oversees crown. For the occupying soldiers the new breed of colonizers deserved to be reminded who was in charge.
"Splits within elite groups, and between them and the rest of the population, helped create the patterns of loyalism and neutrality that made the Revolution in many localities a struggle among Americans as much as a struggle against the British." (43)
-I find the inner struggle between the colonists important to note. Contrary to common belief, not all of the colonists banded together right off the bat to defeat the British and I think their struggles makes more a more humanistic history. I'm glad Clark touched on this point and emphasized that the elite and common man really had to make an effort to move past their class divisions and concerns about the other's motives to do what was best for the majority as a whole. This is definitely one of the historical instances that people today can still learn from.