The first author I read was Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr., who argues that Antebellum reform had a key impact on the nation. Schlesinger discusses how throughout the history of the United States it had set the pace for various major acts of government reform that would ultimately be adopted by other nations. The exception to this, he points out, is in the realm of social justice. Nations such as Britain began to see such issues as problems long before the U.S. and effectively corrected many of them decades ahead of their American counterparts. The less agrarian and heavily industrialized British led the way in factory regulations, including restrictions on child labor and the legalization of certain unions. In 1807 the U.S. and Great Britain acted in unison to ban the international African slave trade, however the British would ultimately end slavery within their empire by 1833, whereas it would take the U.S. another thirty two years to end the practice. Schlesinger argues that this delay was not necessarily reflective of the desire of the American people, but rather a reflection of economic and historical factors that had become too deeply rooted to be altered with any degree of ease. He discusses how contentious of an issue slavery in particular became, dividing the country, states, churches, and even families. Schlesinger compares the American Revolution and the political freedoms in American government that followed, to the Civil War and the social movements such as abolition, voting rights, and temperance that came in tow. He notes how these changes revolutionized American society in another fashion, putting social issues to the forefront that would continue to be improved upon for decades to come.
The second author I studied was Professor Ronald G. Walters. In his writings, Walters argues that the great change in society truly began in 1814 after the end of the War of 1812. These changes are greatly reflected in the volatile political climate after the war. Walters discusses the death of the Federalist Party, the birth of Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party, the splitting of the Whigs and Democrats in the mid 19th century, the growth and minor successes of smaller parties like the Free Soil and Know-Nothings, and of course the birth of the Republican Party and its success under Abraham Lincoln. All these various parties, shifting and changing, were the birth of true reform and change argues Walters. These factions continued to splinter and push new changes in government. Abolitionists began to run their own candidates for political office in 1840, as temperance reformers began winning major victories in the 1850s. Walters explains how the majority of reformers weren’t of celebrity-like status such as figures like William Lloyd Garrison, but rather, everyday citizens wishing to make changes in their lives. Most of these changes he argues, were not all major or revolutionary. Walters argues that most reformers of this century, particularly antebellum, were in fact simply trying to adapt their way of life to a society that was becoming increasingly diverse, urban, capitalist, and politically volatile. The majority of these changes were done in a manner by which they were gradually implemented or were slow in their effectiveness, and for the average American not directly being affected by these reforms, went by with little impact. This was one of the more difficult assignments I’ve done thus far. Neither author was particularly direct about how key of an impact the individual reforms made during this period were, and neither presented and defeated any major counterarguments. Based solely off the two works I read I would like to qualify the perspectives of these two authors. In my opinion both authors present valid and simple arguments, but they seemed to focus more on periods prior to the most major antebellum reforms, or simply made very little mention of these changes’ effect on the populus. I would argue that the reforms made during this period are major historical events, many major achievements for social reform and equality. Schlesinger is certainly correct in the way these changes revolutionized the United States. It should be said however, that Walters’ point of the gradual adaptation of previous norms and the slow implementation of many of these reforms does mitigate some of the effect that these major changes had on the nation. Seeing how many of the same practices would be continued in lesser forms in regards to slavery and sharecropping, voting rights and poll tests, the limited success of feminist reforms, as well as other reforms, it is easy to understand Walters’ argument. I would say the the reforms made in Antebellum America were truly revolutionary historically, but impeded in their impact by a populus not ready for total change and acceptance.
3 Comments
The first author I studied is Professor Charles Beard, an author frequently used in many of these topics. Beard promotes the notion that the Federal Constitution of the United States is not a framework intended to benefit the American, but rather a document ratified to directly benefit the framers and founders involved. Beard suggests that many of the founders who helped to fund and support the War for Independence were sour over their lack of repayment under the relatively weak Articles of Confederation. In an effort to promote their own interests these men sought a meeting to discuss changes that would help them to be repaid: the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia. Many of these individuals were now government officials for their respective states and saw opportunity to be repaid or to make additional money by establishing a federal government that could collect taxes and monitor revenue. Beard also indicates that by allocating more power to a centralized government, these officials could better control and influence their own property interests, as many of these men were property-rich.
The second author, Professor Forrest McDonald, sharply disagrees with Beard. Arguing that through his research Beard was using this stance as an excuse to push progressive reform during his time in the early 20th century. McDonald strongly argues that the evidence strongly sides against Beard, giving examples of both Framers who had none of the interests Beard suggested, or had such interests, but voted against it. McDonald points to multiple false accusations by beard against various representatives, and blatant errors in his findings. I agree primarily with McDonald, although it is quite likely that certain Framers had their own interests in mind, the predominant attitude and actions taken by the Framers shows their dedication to the American people. These individuals worked meticulously on this document and in many cases clearly put the public interest above their own. Many of the examples McDonald provides backs this up and contradicts many of the arguments Beard provided. Beard simply had too many fallacies in his research for me to wholeheartedly support his argument. (My apology for the late post) |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |