This week we'll explore the great immigrant and emigrant migrations that shaped Antebellum America and the West. We will also look at the impacts of the Gold Rush and Mexican-American War.
Points of Entry:
Gold Rush -
Mexican-American War -
Overland Migration Trails -
Irish Immigration -
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?
“Despite these growing inequalities, the South remained for the most part a cohesive political region.” (239)
ReplyDeleteClark is explaining how division affected the North more than the South because however divided the south got, slavery and the race division it held kept the whites together. By having a class lower than even the lowest class whites, in which they could never fall, kept them in unity and in favor of slavery. This is one of the main reasons why the south never divided and waned to uphold slavery.
“A further condition that shaped the distinct paths of Northern and Southern societies after 1840 was their differing relationship to the long-standing labor shortages that had shaped American development since early European settlement.” (214)
What seems obvious, that the South has a clear advantage when it comes to the labor shortage because of the use of slavery, as Clark explains, further deepened the divide between Northern and Southern regions. As many Northern agriculturists struggled to find labor, had to downsize, use the family-farm household, or cooperate with neighbors, Southern planters were able to flourish and many become what were known as elitists. Clark explains the twists of fate in those roles were reversed with the immigration of Europeans and that the supply of slaves did not meet the demand to match the North. This is created a new Identity and strengthened the Northern states.
“As immigrant numbers grew, the Northern labor shortage receded. Particularly in cities and most especially on the East coast, employers could often count on the ready availability of manual labor, and wages- particularly for general “unskilled” labor- fell in relation to prices.” (214)
ReplyDelete“Many Midwesterners argued that this growing pattern of wage work did not constitute the creation of a permanent hired underclass but that working for wages was a step on a ladder of progress toward independent proprietorship.” (243)
The battle against the idea of slavery continues in the north and the south. The addition of the variable of immigrants throws the balance off somewhat. The large increase in immigrants to the United States is changing the way that workers are going about their duties and the way many are thinking of slavery. Millions of immigrants were coming into the ports and they wanted everything America could offer which was jobs and greater security. The job market was slim especially with slavery still being used a method of labor in the south. Because many immigrants traveled West and worked within their own units, they were good for one thing, votes. We saw this in the Gangs of New York clip that many would offer food or small amounts in order to secure a vote for whichever political party they were affiliated with. The immigrants were used as leverage and in the North, they were given jobs that were becoming available where slavery was no longer used. This furthered the divide between the North and the South because of the different types of population. A new way of thinking with outward-oriented policies for national growth was becoming more prevalent among politicians. Yes, many disliked the immigrants coming in but they proved useful in at least one or two ways and added to the nations productivity in the long run.
"The South, by contrast , faced an opposite trend." Pg 214
ReplyDeleteThis quote is to show that while the North was experiencing this huge surge in immigration and a growing labor force the South was still reliant on slaves to make up the majority of its labor force. The south wasn't experiencing the same boom in population that its counterpart was feeling and this made them have to rely on slavery. In fact the growing number of citizens in the north made it more necessary for the South to have slaves.
"It was a polyglot society that, almost unprecedented in its social and ethnic variety." Pg 221
This quote is about California and how different it was from the rest of the United States. Due to the Gold Rush and its influx of people California was a unique situation in the expanding nation. The different groups that were there made it a socially vast place. The concept of gold and wealth was really the main reason the society was able to profit and survive. People were able to not only profit on the gold, but also the people and the products needed. It was almost itself its own little revolution in which supply and demand were forged and tested through the open market.
"The Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the outbreak of a civil war in Kansas two years later, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in 1857(in a case originally heard in St. Louis), all sharpened animosities between Northerners and Southerners."(216)
ReplyDeleteThe Kansas-Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise, upsetting the Northerners, the Act basically made the territories of Nebraska and Kansas to become slave states giving the south more representation in the house. The north was steadily trying to abolish slavery yet they could not catch a break because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Led to a build up of tension between the north and south. The union and the confederate began to form in the next couple of years. The war broke out because there were small events that kept building up.
"The news of the gold strike, when it eventually reached the East Coast, was characteristically greeted as evidence of the providential character of American annexation, and touched off an unprecedented rush for riches."(220)
Westward expansion, the people of the East Coast first came to the United States to have more rights and freedoms. They did this by taking away the freedom of others (the natives. This continued when the Gold Rush occurred because people went to find riches for their own good. They figured that the Indians were sitting on all of that gold for so long it was their loss for not mining it up. The mines were very dangerous for people who got the message late. If you came after 1855 there was a good chance that you would not have an opportunity to mine. People died in the mines just to get a piece of that gold.
“California’s Acquisition by the United States in 1848 coincided with the discovery of gold in the rivers of the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento” (Pg 220)
ReplyDeleteThis quote shows how California presented a similar situation to the promise that the original United States promoted. After the discovery of gold, a fleet of people headed west with the idea of striking it rich. This hope of economic advancement was the same principles that the American government was originally founded on. California became the new “land of milk and honey.” The truth of the matter is however that the voyage to California was grueling and for those that were able to complete the trek, few struck it rich. As California grew in popularity tales of “the wild west” emerged exposing the lack of rule in the American political system.
“There was no National Currency. Agriculture and manufacturing were organized in regional clusters.” (Pg 232)
As America expanded, the still weak American government could not keep up with the flow of people, ideas, and goods. As a result distinctive regional groupings formed. Ironically as these groups formed and separation amongst districts became clear, the groups also became increasingly dependant on one another. The Northern economy, which relied heavily on large-scale manufacturing actually depended on raw goods such as cotton, produced by the South’s slave based economy. While both groups were fighting heated political battles for support of the American government they never stopped to think what would happen if the two sides broke apart. Without the flow of goods from the south, and the demand for and ability to produce goods in the North neither side would have flourished leaving the vulnerable new America and easy target for conquering.
“A degree of self-sufficiency, coupled with the severely limited purchasing power of slaves –who were usually paid no wages and given cheap supplies –dramatically curbed the size of markets and hence of the commercial and transport functions needed to serve them.” (Clark, 213)
ReplyDeleteHere Clark describes how the social structure of the South’s economy set them behind the technologically more advanced north. Southern plantations were largely self-sufficient and slaves, which compromised a majority of the population, had no purchasing power, lowering the flow of money and undermining the South’s full economic potential. A more diverse economy up north allowed Northern Americans to build railroads, roads and canals, furthering the spread of goods and capital. Allow Southerners clung to the familiar slave lifestyle (Clark, 231), slavery was holding them back.
“Before this pattern had become established, some Easterners thought Oregon would become ‘the seat of Empire’ in the Far West. A writer in the magazine DeBow’s Review in 1846 suggested that Oregon’s more fertile districts were ‘the Eden spots of Western America.’” (Clark, 220).
I had to quote this. As an Oregonian I agree completely with the writer from DeBow’s Review; Oregon is America’s Eden. However, I find it funny that Oregon was considered to be the seat of America’s Western empire. The polygot society of California made it a strikingly similar, yet different culture compared to the large cities of the east. While Oregon became a family destination, California’s population was comprised of males of many different races and cultures. Those who came to California wanted to reap wealth and power, causing it to be the west’s center for economic activity.
Dani Quinones
ReplyDelete"Slaveholders were especially well placed to obtain profits from these increasing land values because they controlled and directed the labor necessary to clear land and bring it into production." (pg.212)
Clark is showing here why the South was very keen on keeping slaves. It kept their economy alive and they had complete control on production and what was coming in and out of their profits. These slaves were the backbone to their livelihood.
"Northern societies both urban and rural were attracting increasing numbers of immigrants. As immigrant numbers grew the Northern labor shortage receded" (Pg.214)
This is showing how Northern areas kept their economy up without the usage of slaves. Immigrants were a huge role in this, as they were also against slavery being used to being on the bottom. The immense number of these people allowed for Northern economies to boom.
“Within a decade an a half, the competing pro-slavery and free-soil versions of expansionism and extensive growth would force the major regions of the United States into antagonisms resolvable only by war.” (Clark 210)
ReplyDeleteIn this quotes Clark is describing how the battle of slavery and freedom is inevitably going to get ugly. All the factors that he points out, show that nothing is ever going to change unless something is physically done. Ultimately, he points that the upcoming factors are what led to the Civil war.
“To many the Gold Rush appeared as an opportunity for advancement in still poor society.” (Clark 221)
Clark discusses the westward expansion that was happening during this period of time, taken in part by many of the incoming immigrants. Everyone was moving westward because due to the big Gold Rush that had hit. Many people seen this gold rush as a quick way to get rich and people all over were now herding toward California for the Gold Rush to fulfill their dreams of “making it big.”
"Whereas Clay had urged consolidation as a means of adverting political conflict, Polk and his followers trumpeted expansion as a way of overcoming the economic constraints that would, they argued, inevitably overtake a growing population." (209)
ReplyDelete-Which man was right?? It could be argued that both, in reality, were correct. Without the vast spans of land to which the American people now live, political ideals would be less varied and perhaps more cohesive. Or rather, would this cause polar opposite groups to live so closely that conflict would be inevitable?; contrary to Clay's assumption that people are more likely to come together than divide. Polk believed expansion would ease economic constraints however, wouldn't a more spread out nation cause an economic disconnect? How could distant farmers and small towns create a national system?? If expansion and population growth are parallel then isn't the issue limiting the growing population instead of forcing ones way to more land?? Or is the majority of westward land for European families rather then the offspring of established families? In either case, both men posed a substantial argument however, both worries came into fruition at one point or another.
"Burned by their experience with banks, Missouri voters exercised extreme skepticism at further commercial developments and managed to restrain the number and size of financial institutions for the rest of the antebellum period." (215)
-Missouri was one of the states promoting westward expansion yet, so early, they realized a major disadvantage to the move. How did the appeal of increased power via more slave states lose to the fear over financial institutions? I wonder how history would have developed had other states felt similar fear? Or, perhaps what if all southern states found the need to push west an in turn gained a greater slave state majority over the north? So it was a little properly placed fear that may have contributed to the weakness of southern powers when the time of conflicts over slavery arose.
"To understand the power and significance of this invocation of "free labor"(and the related concept of "free soil" as slave- free territory for free labor to inhabit), it is useful to review the evolution of concepts of slavery and freedom over the preceding decades"(Clark 227).
ReplyDeleteClark is demonstrating the importance of slaves and the reasons as to why there was such a high demand for their labor. It also discusses how slavery has been changed and the reasons for the alterations. Slavery had always been a crucial factor in the well being of their economies, that without the "free labor", many people were lost.
"From the early expansion of slavery in the colonial period, owners of slaves had substantial legal power to enforce their authority, including discretion to punish slaves summarily for disobedience,resistance, or escape. Although slaveholders or overseers were occasionally prosecuted for excessive punishment leading to the death of a slave, such prosecutions were rare"(Clark 236).
There was a main focus on slavery as in this chapter because Clark focuses on different sub-points that contributed to the entire lasting effect slaves had on the colonial time period. Many people did not realize how much the slaves were truly important and how much their labor affected their economy. Through out the mistreatment, came many misfortunes on the sides of the slaves.
“California’s Acquisition by the United States in 1848 coincided with the discovery of gold in the rivers of the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento” (Pg 220)
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this quote, I instantly thought of the “the wild west”. When people heard about the gold in California they traveled long distances, for months, just to get a piece of gold and to become rich. I agree with Chance, when he said that California was a new “land of milk and honey”. I was taught this in middle school and the perception that California got was the same belief that America got when people stormed the east coast “a place where you can have freedom”. Yet California was not all fun and games and an easy life style. Minors would work long hours and get nothing. Males were predominately living near areas of gold and silver. This was not a family like environment. Stephanie's arguement is true as well, California was in my opnion was looked as "the seat of Empire" in the Far West. Oregon has a more family like environment because of the lush fields.
"Migrants, chiefly from the border regions of the Midwest, were primarily concerned to establish family farms...The process helped drive out local Indians" (219-220)
The whole Manifest Destiny conception provided a “right” to take control over Indian property. Just like how colonist arrived to America. Although a great amount of people knew it was wrong to take their land, they did it anyways to make a better living for themselves. The movement westward in the eyes of the common man was not for the “Nation” but was for personal gain. I believe it only became important to the “Nation” when there was an economic advantage. The government knew that as people moved west they would have better life styles and contribute to the economy. When the Indians sat on the land and did not use the resources that were given to them, they were pushed onto reservations. I also believe that moving the Indians to reservations also opened the eyes of the government to preserve land as well. To remind the people of what they originally came for “peace and freedom”.
"Polk... Trumpeted expansion as a way overcoming the economic constraints that would,...overtake a growing population"(209).
ReplyDeletePolk and his supporters recognized the population of the US was growing with the arrival of new Immigrants, the residents of the northern cities were forced to vote for Polk, fostering a hate for immigrants who were taking jobs in the northern cities.
"James K. Polk... who advocated Texas annexation and national expansion"(208).
Polk retained the advantage over clay for the reasons he supported manifest destiny and the expansion of the economy, when these ideals were combined with peoples' desire to own their own family farms and the growing population in the north, it was a recipe for election. However the conflict erupting from this would lead to the mexican war and consequently the American Civil War.
"Many aspects of Gold Rush California that would have violated most rural communities' sense of propriety and virtue," (p. 222).
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Clark analyzes the poor working condition of the mines during the Gold Rush. The camps were usually raucous. The populations were mostly male, which means the populations just consisted of laborers. The women associated with the men were mostly harlots and prostitutes. To make moral matters worse, the men often failed at finding gold, and they spent their winnings on drinks and entertainment. Overall, however, tales of success circulated well enough that the myth of gold was not discouraged.
"In its evangelical roots, its sentimentality and its appeal to Northern women, Stowe's book did more than any other single work to carry the anti-slavery message beyond the circles of abolitionist sympathizers," (p.232). This passage talks about Uncle Tom's Cabin, which showed the horrors slavery displayed. Before Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, abolitionist were actually heavily ridiculed even in the North. However, the novel changed everything. This also contradicted southern apologist belief that slavery cared for the slave's well being. Stowe shows how the slavery institution breaks up a family and is overall negative. Free labor apologists went on to use her novel to support the notion that classes are not fixed.
"The Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the outbreak of a civil war in Kansas two years later, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in 1857(in a case originally heard in St. Louis), all sharpened animosities between Northerners and Southerners."(216)
ReplyDeleteWhat this is referring to is the notion that is ported in the film Gangs of New York, the whole country is dividing into different political and social groups throughout the nation. These animosities start to become real common up until 1885 and the start of the civil war.
“To many the Gold Rush appeared as an opportunity for advancement in still poor society.” (Clark 221)
I believe this is saying that people started to move west to start over again. Remember that during this time, it wasn't only the rich that went, the poor went as well looking to start over again. They were trying to get away from their homes where their jobs had just been taken by The Irish and Slaves. I think the main cause for the Gold Rush being as big as it was had to do with people wanting to get rich and start over in a new place where they could be anyone they wanted to be.
"The Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the outbreak of a civil war in Kansas two years later, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision in 1857(in a case originally heard in St. Louis), all sharpened animosities between Northerners and Southerners."(216)
ReplyDeleteThe Kansas-Nebraska Act nullified the Missouri Compromise, displeasing the Northerners, the Kansas-Nebraska Act made Nebraska and Kansas to become slave states giving the south more representation. The north was progressively trying to abolish slavery yet the Kansas- Nebraska Act had made it extremely hard for the northerners. it Led to build up tension between the northern and southern states. The union and the confederates start to form over the next couple of years and finally the civil war had broken out between the North and South.
"To understand the power and significance of this invocation of "free labor"(and the related concept of "free soil" as slave- free territory for free labor to inhabit), it is useful to review the evolution of concepts of slavery and freedom over the preceding decades" 277
Clark described the importance of slaves because there was such a high demand for labor when moving west to expand the country. Clark discusses how slavery has changed and had always been a crucial factor for their economy because many southerners who owned crops and land while the north worked for themselves in factories and such.
"An agrarian frontier or a trading commonwealth."
ReplyDeleteAn agrarian frontier is advocating for small farming communities while trading commonwealth is sort of the opposite. Trading commonwealth would be concerned for the colonies at large while agrarian societies would only trade with each other. This kind of debate is what created divisions that would drive the Civil War.
"The south did not uniformly pursue 'extensive' agricultural expansion."
This just reaffirms the tension thats going on and the differences in hopes for the future of the States that will turn into the debate that started the Civil War.
"After Texas joined the United States, the process of building the plantation zone continued. Between 1850 and 1860 the slave population of Texas grew more rapidly than the free population, trebling in size".
ReplyDelete-This particular excerpt emphasizes how slaves occupied more land than actual citizens due to the demand of labor that was being forced on them. The plantation zones are a solid example of how the relationship between slaves and citizens differed.
"Nevertheless the settling of territorial disputes between Britain and the United States prompted a demand for Oregon land, and a substantial migration began".
- This quote exemplifies how there was still tension between the British and Americans. Land was the primary reason of strife between the two cultures and in a way it appeared that there was a somewhat competition to see which country could occupy the most land. Migrations of cultures usally occured when one party was attempting to conquer land.
“To many the Gold Rush appeared as an opportunity for advancement in a still poor society.” Pg 221
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Clark is explaining that the Gold Rush created a way for people to increase their incomes. Those who were poor could strike rich immediately if they found gold. It did not matter if people were rich or poor, only how good people were at finding gold. The Gold Rush gave people opportunities that they never had before, such as land and business
“Among the pioneers of the California goldfields, and instrumental in establishing early techniques of gold prospecting and extracting, were Mormons, supported by close familial and communal ties.” Page 221
In this quote by Clark, he is explaining that Mormons were united together by family and church gatherings. They were among those who were searching for gold but ultimately helped each other in the expedition to strike gold. They raised money together to support those who were in search of gold and helped them get to California.
"The South, by contrast , faced an opposite trend." Clark Pg 214
ReplyDelete1. This quote shows the major differences between the North and the South. The North' immigration was making a huge impact on the society, where the South, who had very little immigration, was relying heavily on slaves to keep up with the work. The contrast between the two was just the beginning to a huge divide.
"To many the Gold Rush appeared as an opportunity for advancement in still poor society.” Clark Pg 221
2. The Gold Rush can be looked at as the biggest driving force behind westward expansion. People headed towards California not only with the idea of new land, but the thought of money, or a get rich quick scheme. It changed American culture.
"Owning slaves and controlling the products of slave labor were important sources of wealth, so as these became less equally distributed, overall inequalities of wealth grew."
ReplyDeleteWhat Clark implies here is that due to an unequal distribution of slave commodities and the outcomes (like cotton), there was conflict that may have been another reason for the Civil War.
"The expansion and power of slavery, which its defenders claimed was an instrument of white democracy, had instead become an instrument of white inequality."
I found this quote interesting, in that the tool that whites males used on minorities was ultimately their own imprisonment as well.
“The passage of the Nebraska Act in 1854, the outbreak of the civil war in Kansas two years later, and the Supreme Court Decision in 1857(in a case originally heard in St. Louis), all sharpened animosities between Northerners and Southerners” (Clark, 216).
ReplyDelete-Clark is describing the fight in Kansas on whether Kansas should be a slave state or a free state. The quote also addresses the Dred Scott Decision, which states that slaves in America were not protected under the U.S. Constitution, that they could not be considered U.S. citizens and since they were property, there is no way they can be taken away from their owners without due process in the court system. These series of events heated the tension between the North and South and the issue of how slavery only existed in the South, for the most part, and Africans were considered free in the North, but not according to the Government. This quote ties in with the themes in class this week because we have been discussing all of the crucial events that lead up to the civil war and the events discussed in this quote were the peak of the actions that lead to the inevitability of the civil war.
“Opened in the early nineteenth century to fur trappers and traders, the Oregon territory was also by the 1830s being visited by missionaries keen to convert its indigenous populations to Christianity” (Clark, 219).
-Clark is explaining how Oregon was set apart from the other territories in America at this time period. As compared to the other territories, fur trapping was one of the main attractions that brought Americans to the territory, as compared to farming or gold. Also a common theme that is seen throughout several of the territories in America is that several missions would settle and try to convert all of the citizens, or at least as many possible, to Christianity. This theme is also prevalent in the themes we have discussed in class this week because in all of the territories of America the focus of land was always trying to be achieved. Land would also need to be achieved and cultivated to create missions, as well as farms and towns.