Material:
Read- "Politics in an Age of Anxiety" by K. A. Cuordileone http://anglais.u-paris10.fr/IMG/pdf/Politics_in_an_Age.pdf Questions to Answer: 1) According to Cuordileone, what was the “crisis in masculinity” and how did women (and the feminine) fit into this crisis? Liam: The crisis in masculinity was a concern primarily of conservatives, and traditionalists. It was a perceived trend of growing weakness that would ultimately infect the U.S. with the evils of communism. This trend can be seen greatly with the growth of sexual modernism. Those of more traditional values were greatly concerned with the expansion of women's rights and social norms outside of the typical roles of American Motherhood and the Cult of Domesticity, with more women taking jobs and becoming contributing members of the home's income, and of society at large. These stronger women, were labeled as aggressive, both socially and sexually. Some on the right began to project a message that these aggressive women were the root cause of homosexuality in men, arguing that it made men sexually impotent and created a "flight from masculinity". Homosexuals, who were considered feminine in nature, while certainly not accepted, did not face quite as much persecution as they had in the past, an alarming trend for traditionalists, and so began greater scrutiny. Many began to baselessly believe that homosexuality was on the rise, and that it threatened the security of the nation by having men who were "weaker and more susceptible to communism". These groups put American masculinity in jeopardy in the eyes of these concerned groups, and resulted in crackdowns and abuses of power by leaders such as Joseph McCarthy. 2) How did big business – and the “organization men” that came with it – contribute to the crisis in masculinity? Liam: 3) How did homosexuality become a national security issue? Why did politicians link homosexuality to political subversion? Liam: Homosexuality was greatly brought into the politics of the Cold War by conservatives, who using Schlesinger's (who was not a conservative) "hard or soft" method of classifying people and ideologies, labeled gays as soft. Conservatives saw only two options, you were either a manly figure who deposed communism, or you were a weak, feminine communist. Joseph McCarthy himself said: "If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you've got to be either a communist or a cocksucker." The argument was that those who were soft desired to be disciplined and controlled by the state, which would have the strength they did not possess, meaning that they may turn to communism to fill this void. At a time where the United States was trying to strengthen its christian roots to distance itself from its secular enemy the USSR, homosexuality was more negatively viewed than would be expected. Ironically, the tenants of equality under communism may have also been something appealing to this persecuted group. Those who were homosexual were considered morally bankrupt, making them politically suspect. They were said to be subversive, and thus susceptible to the influences of communism. Republican Senator Kenneth Wherry went as far to say that Joseph Stalin had obtained Adolf Hitler's "world list" of homosexual persons that he could use to create new communists around the globe. A Senate investigation was launched with a report known as the Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government. The report concluded that gays lacked emotional stability because of their weak moral fiber, the report also found them unfit for government because they were prone to blackmail, and thus a security risk. 4) What does Cuordileone mean when she says that anticommunism “was more than a defense against Communism” (pg. 538)? Liam: Cuordileone claims that this theme of blame and persecution of those who were seemingly weak, and thus communist, was less of an attempt to weed out communists, but rather an attempt to stomp out a changing U.S. population. These assaults on freedom of expression were to limit the emerging traits and trends found to be wrong or immoral by conservatives, including greater tolerance for homosexuals, the growth of a more leftist political movement, atheism, and of course, sexual modernism (a perceived decline in masculinity, the advancement of women in the workplace, the increasing acceptance of reversed family gender roles, etc.). 5) Discuss Cuordileone’s analysis of Adlai Stevenson’s presidential campaign of 1952. Does this example adequately support her thesis of a crisis in American masculinity? Liam: The election of 1952 was the embodiment of Cuordileone's arguments supporting the crisis in American masculinity. Adlai Stevenson, the democratic presidential candidate ran against republican and ex general Dwight D. Eisenhower in a campaign that would ultimately be pulverized by insults and allegations from republican VP candidate Richard Nixon, and Senator Joseph McCarthy (Eisenhower stayed close to the issues, not becoming overly involved in personal attacks on Stevenson). Stevenson was labeled as soft, and his relatively weak demeanor only seemed to help the Republicans' smear campaign. Stevenson had quite the leftist history, and his defense of gay public officials in the past came back to haunt him as he was labeled as a communist and feminine individual. Soon, allegations surfaced linking the democratic candidate to homosexual activity in his past, all but destroying his chances at the presidency at a time where anti-communist sentiments were at their highest. This election completely supports Cuordileone's thesis. 6) What does Cuordileone say about McCarthy, and the liberal efforts to “fight fire with fire?” (pg. 541). Liam: Cuordileone is relatively unbiased in her own interpretations of Joe McCarthy, and instead presents the facts of his smear campaign without her own input. McCarthy is an important figure on this subject, as his campaigns against communism in the US were unrelenting, and a primary target of McCarthyism were ultimately homosexuals and the "soft". In an attempt to counter McCarthy's smear campaigns and anti-communist driven investigations, many in the media, particularly coming from the political left, attempted to (as said by Cuordileone) "fight fire with fire". Somewhat hypocritically, while trying to invalidate McCarthy, those on the left utilized their opponent's own method of demeaning homosexuals. Various media outlets covered stories tying McCarthy to homosexuals, often in ways seemingly as an insult. 7) What do you think is significant about Cuordileone’s article? In your answer, consider Cuordileone’s point that political discourse became polarized (pg. 515). Liam: I found this article to not only be interesting, but extremely eye opening. I clearly didn't fully understand the scope of McCarthyism and anti-communist persecution during the 20th century. The ways in which homosexuals were tied into communism was honestly baffling.
17 Comments
Question 1)
Based on this week’s readings, was the Progressive Era an overall collective movement towards reform, or a collection of causes with little that united them? Please provide specific examples to support your conclusion. Answer 1) Although the Progressive Era was certainly host to groups, parties, and individuals that comprised a full or nearly full collection of Progressive ideals, Peter G. Filene's An Obituary for "The Progressive Movement" demonstrated the relative autonomy of each progressive issue from another. All of these issues were alike in their push for some form of change, regulation, or reform in the face of a rapidly industrializing and changing nation. Each of these issues however, was primarily an issue of importance to only a selective group of citizens, with many other progressives either not concerned or simply not in support of the issues of their fellow reformists. In the case of Theodore Roosevelt, arguably one of the most recognizable faces of progressivism, he felt as though he and his fellow progressives were being "hampered" by their colleagues that were by his definition, not truly progressives. Roosevelt specifically called out rural citizens who supported breaking up large businesses rather than restricting them through constraints implemented by the government. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 also revealed major divides amongst progressives showing a clear fault between social and political progressives. The struggle for women's suffrage is a key crack in progressive unity, as many took issue with the expansion of female rights in conflict with their colleagues, hence the late implementation of these reforms. The temperance movement and the later resulting prohibition of alcohol were also extremely controversial amongst many progressives, primarily only receiving significant support from women and heavily religious sects. The examples of a lack of a coherent and united message from progressives are plenty, and although they ultimately were all similar in the underlying impetus of their reform, the multiple plans of adapting to change were fiercely different between such a heterogeneous group of citizens. Question 2) What were some specific successes of the reformers of the Progressive Movement? What were some specific failures? Answer 2) Progressives, after a long struggle finally achieved an expansion of women's rights under the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920, granting suffrage to females. Progressives also managed to expand restrictions on monopolies and lessen corrupt relationships between the government and businesses. The expansion of labor rights were also significant, including protection from neglectful child labor practices. Although the temperance movement was ultimately successful in the late prohibition of alcohol through the ratification of the 18th amendment in 1920, it would prove to be an utter failure, creating great controversy and bringing rise to major organized crime. The 18th amendment would ultimately be repealed through the ratification of the 21st amendment. The Progressive Era also did little to address the rights and issues of minority groups such as African Americans who continued to see mounting segregation. Question 3) In the US today, the debate continues about the modernity and humaneness of the death penalty. Most of the world, including almost all industrialized democracies, have fully abolished or do not practice it (click here to see map). Over time, a number of US states have also abolished or are working to abolish the death penalty (click here to see map). Oddly enough, many US states abolished the death penalty in the mid to late 1800s, but later reinstated it. What specific reasons do the authors of “Abolition and Reinstatement of Capital Punishment During the Progressive Era & Early 20th Century” give for the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states in the early 1900s, even though it had previously been abolished? Answer 3) Between the years 1897 and 1917 ten states abolished the death penalty until most reinstated it in the 1930s. The reinstatement of capital punishment came on the tail of the emergence of radical political sects, notably communists, as well as the growing influence and fear of foreigners and minorities following the end of the First World War. In 1907 Governor Hoch of Kansas wrote following the repeal of the death sentence in his state that he would have rather resigned than see the continuation of the practice, arguing that it was relic of "barbarism". This represents the clear moral argument of an era known for its forward thinking. Many supporters of abolition also pointed to the obvious risk of human error in the conviction of those on trial, leading to the killing of innocent men by the state. In many cases juries could have a seeded bias against certain defendants due to their ethnic, cultural, or political qualities. Many of the calls for abolition came at the hand of trials in which this was clear. Notably in 1920, Sacco and Venzetti were executed, despite little compelling evidence due in large part to their Italian heritage and roots in anarchism. Growing lynchings of minorities, through which murder was common became a major issue. Many states felt as though they had sacrificed their power over violent punishment, presenting the idea to some citizens that the only means of true punishment was by the hands of the populus, unfortunately culminating into these acts of public violence without trial. In an attempt to preserve the right to a trial and stop this violence many states resumed the practice of capital punishment. The growth of mass organized crime and its increased violence (due in large part to prohibition) also pushed many citizens to sponsor the reinstatement of the death penalty. Violence - Richard Maxwell Brown According to Richard Maxwell Brown, the West's violent element can be best analyzed through the mental attitude of westerners. Such mental qualities included The elimination of English common law, by which one must expend all possible options of escape before using violence as a means of defense in exchange for the principle of no duty to retreat, where by an individual may defend themselves using force in any situation that threatens loss of life of serious harm. This was encompassed within the Code of the West, along with a reckless and violent sense of vengeance. Brown also references the Homestead Ethic, the right to enjoy a homestead without fear of violence, in effect solidifying the right to defend the home. In contrast, the Ethic of Individual Enterprise enabled men of business to use violent measures to ensure the success and security of their business endeavors. Vigilantism was another key principle that promoted a sense of lawless promotion of justice across the West, often with a revolver acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Later Brown discusses the interactions with the Native American population in the West. In general, Brown notes that the Natives primarily attempted to positively interact with the invading whites, but mentions occasional violent raids on towns in which whites were slaughtered. More often than not though, it was whites slaughtering Amerindians. Brown overall supports the idea of a violent American West. How The West Got Wild - Stewart L. Udall Stewart L. Udall on the other hand views Western violence in a different light. In his work How the West Got Wild, Udall explains that the American West was not actually the unruly epicenter of violent bloodbaths that it has been portrayed to be. Although obvious historical exceptions exist, namely the Alamo and O.K. Corral, the picture of a region embattled by gun duels and violent bravados, according to Udall is a result of inflated media coverage and the result of extortion by more modern media such as television and hollywood films. One specific example used by the author is the infamous Dodge City, a supposed hell on earth of lawlessness and violence. Udall explains that there were few years of moderate violence that were simply blown out of proportion by media outlets, which quickly subsided following the implementation of sheriffs and other law entities, but still the violent image of Dodge City persisted as it was an easy story for newspapers. Udall links any major acts of violence as equivalents to modern day gun violence, not as something unique to the West. The Frontier Sheriff's Role in Law and Order - Larry D. Ball Larry D. Ball explains the exceptional importance of lawmen in the American West, particularly the sheriff. Ball explains that the sheriff was simply the most representative figure of government for citizens in the expansive Western territories. The position was one of great prestige in the eyes of the people as sheriffs provided the most direct government services to the people, and the most important: protection, and the enforcement of the law. Other government officials for these territories also often called on Sheriffs for assistance with representing citizens and the needs of the territories. Sheriffs often had to construct and maintain government buildings being the only available government workers in a certain locality. Sheriffs also often had to curb mass violence prominent in many areas of the West in the post Civil War period. Many ex confederates found pay through crime against the prevailing Union. Sheriffs were the local military official as far as alerting the army of major situations of instability, and calling for their assistance. Sheriffs also often had the job of collecting taxes from citizens, a painstaking role. Sheriff's also were responsible for conducting the U.S. census. Quantifying the Wild West - Robert R. Dykstra Robert Dykstra discusses the controversy over how violent the West truly was, explaining that may records and statistics prove above average violence, however he goes on to do an in detail, yet fair investigation into additional statistics that put the American West in a new light. Dykstra explains how authors such as Mark Twain drew an exaggerated violent picture of the west to appeal to urban Eastern citizens. The author then presents contrary accounts from an Army officer detailing a gunslinger travelling two hundred miles to challenge another of equal talent to a duel, strictly over pride and bravado. As also stated by Stewart Udall, Dykstra brings the accounts of the embellishment of violence in Dodge City forward as further evidence of exaggerated violence in the west. Some sources blatantly fabricated stories of murders and lawlessness in and around Dodge City. One investigation into violence in three major Colorado towns concluded a homicide rate of roughly 1.5 murders annually, far less than previous assumptions. The author counters a lack of law enforcement, noting how a murder spike in Texas resulted in a greater law enforcement presence and less tolerance for illegal activities. Dykstra also counters statistics attempted to inflate western murder rates by utilizing the FBI's system of calculating murders per population. This system used to back claims of mass violence, creates inflated numbers due to the great population differences between the late 19th century and modern times. Question 1) According to the authors this week, how violent was the West? What specific evidence do these authors use in their debates about the presence of violence on the American frontier? Richard Brown writes of the West as perceived by most Americans: a tough place, full of tough, violent men who used an understood not written justice system to enforce and maintain order, primarily through violence. Brown gives multiple examples of Western Justice carried out by the individual (see above). Stewart Udall perceives the West's violent nature as a falsehood perpetuated by various media outlets, both during the period and in more recent history. Udall focuses his argument on the relative safety of notoriously dangerous places in the American West. Question 2) According to the authors this week, how has the media incorrectly portrayed the West? Why has it been portrayed this way? Please provide specific examples from the articles in your response. Brown is the main author to analyze for this question. Brown argues that the media found benefit in portraying the West as a place of violence and anarchy, when in actuality it was no such place. Dodge City's misrepresentative title as a bloody city is his primary example. Question 3) What arguments do our authors make about law enforcement and its role in frontier law & order? Using examples from the readings, explore the various layers of frontier law enforcement. How does the role of sheriff differ from your prior thoughts about western lawmen? Larry D. Ball explains how sheriffs in the American West were far more than law enforcement officers, but rather were the embodiment of government on a local scale, fulfilling a grand list of duties and responsibilities. Sheriffs had to collect taxes, represent the needs of citizens to higher government officials, and much more. The role of sheriff was clearly far more tasking and important as a measure of local government than I had previously thought. Question 4) Were Native Americans treated fairly in the US judicial system? Using examples from this week’s readings Brown brings attention to the slaughter of Amerindians at the hands of the white man. Brown also notes while discussing the Ethic of Individual Enterprise, the involuntary seizure of native lands, even those set aside by the U.S. government. In many cases these natives were not given an opportunity by the judicial system and even if were typically shot down without serious review. The first author in this discussion is Leon Fink, author of Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics. Fink argues that the American labor movement seen in the late nineteenth century was a radical movement centered around the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, noted as the first widespread representative of American laborers. Fink claims that this organization was not simply a typical group seeking basic social or economic reform, but rather sought to revolutionize the United States economic system through Marxist-like abolition of the wage system. The author cited the Knight’s manifesto that stated: “We declare, an inevitable and irresistible conflict between the wage-system of labor and the republican system of government.” Fear of revolution, according to Fink, was rampant, as riots, protests, boycotts, and strikes were frequent. The Chicago Times even called for the use of hand grenades to put down strikers who could spur revolution. The Knights saw the industrial economy of the Gilded Age as a system in which laborers were only another price jeopardizing the profits of tycoons, and that wages had been whittled into nothingness to form a society of wage-slavery. This is where Fink believes the line is drawn, the Knights in his interpretation saw the solution in a fair share of business profits to laborers that is easily seen as comparable to socialist ideals.
Arguing that this labor movement was not radical, is Carl N. Degler, author of Out of the Past: The Forces That Shaped Modern America. Degler argued that this movement was a relatively conservative response to the effects the postwar industrial economy has on the working man. He argues that this was in no way an assault on capitalism, as suggested by Fink, but rather a natural reaction to counter the challenges of a labor force facing the challenges of big business. He references the existence of labor unions even prior to 1865 (granted they were weak and relatively ineffective in organizing effectively against such massive industries) as an example of the gradual inclusion of labor representation in early industry. By the late nineteenth century, major businesses were near unchecked, they could hire and fire employees as they pleased and manipulate wages to best serve their bottom line. This was all the case with almost no protection to workers, making the rise of groups such as the Knights of Labor a predictable outcome. The conservative, non radical nature of these early unions can be seen in their success and failure. No major socialist-like reforms were successful, because ultimately, most Americans were still strong believers in capitalism, still waiting to make it big and fall into untold fortune. Although the Knights of Labor had a strong presence initially, they were unwilling to compromise to a sensible reform that protected workers while also continuing to promote the ideals of the capitalistic American Dream. Groups like the American Federation of Labor, however, were able to survive into the twentieth century, as they were more moderate in nature. I would argue that although Fink provides evidence of radical viewpoints held by certain individuals and groups during the Gilded Age’s labor movement, the overall movement is clearly a non radical attempt at reforming an economic and social system that was too lenient on industries and not accommodating to workers. I could certainly argue that this movement was tinged with radicalism, with such a large group as the Knights of Labor exhibiting signs of a call for a major revolution, but I feel as though this group was more so a populist vessel for worker to raise their concerns to a government that had largely ignored them, that did not necessarily desire such extreme changes. I would also argue that it is challenging to find a major movement not infected with pockets of radical behavior, and as proven by Degler, only the groups that compromised and showed a moderate approach were gifted with longevity and true success. The first author I read was Avery Craven, author of “The 1840’s and the Democratic Process”. Craven argues that the American Civil War is keen example of situation in which the democratic process was ultimately ineffective. He claims that the war represented a complete breakdown of democratic discussion of issues, in which half of the American people pushed aside compromise for conflict. These Americans decided that the results of the election of 1860 were not representative of their voice, and took arms against the government by means of secession and ultimately war. Craven argues one of the key instigators of this kind of divide was the reduction of issues from two views that simply opposed one another, to the idea that one side was morally right while the other was in the wrong. This quickly lent itself to an us v.s. them mentality that caused great tension. According to Craven, although it is not necessarily the driving cause of the war, the most important issue to analyze is that of african slavery. Although Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, the author points to one statement made by Lincoln that causes a stir: “You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.” Statements such as this reduces issues to conflicts of principles and morals as opposed to ideology and common politics. This issue in particular went beyond the scope of the democratic process. Issues with tariffs and other points of economic contention pitted the South against the North over their own issues of well-being. This clash of right and rights lent itself to become a force of extreme emotion, emotion immune to compromise, the kind of issue that tugs at a man’s beliefs and pushes him to fight and die to protect his side. Craven also puts forth the argument that many southern democrats may not have even necessarily supported the institution of slavery, however ever since the closure of the Mexican War they viewed the extension of slavery westward as the extension of their political power in Congress, something that Lincoln’s restrictions would pose a direct threat to. Attempts at restriction however were seen prior to Lincoln, with tensions rising with the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso. The North became motivated by a sense of a socially focused Manifest Destiny that would stand for proper morals, a vision that excluded slavery, while the South saw a Northern rival attempting to unfairly take advantage of them and the spoils of war that both sides had contributed blood to. These issues were no longer both seeking the benefit of the entire Union by different means, but rather had almost completely become focused on the benefit of one’s respective side.
The second author I read was Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. who asserted that the democratic process did not fail during the Civil War and prior. This author also focuses greatly on the issue of slavery. Schlesinger insists that there were various policies that could have been utilized to resolve issues that Craven brought forth such as slavery, and averted a war. He argues that government projects could have been used to gradually emancipate slaves without hurting farmers. Schlesinger voices his opinion against the idea of natural internal reform, an argument by some suggesting that slavery was on the decline in the South and would have ultimately ended itself if it were not for the efforts of abolitionists bringing it to the forefront and making it an issue of contention. Instead he argues that true internal reform and compromise was needed. He argued that southerners failed to see the detrimental effects of slavery on their economy as their issue, however, and more than likely would have simply blamed their shortcomings on northern exploitation as they had historically. Schlesinger also brings forth the attempts by Lincoln of compensated emancipation. Lincoln repeatedly made attempted offers to the south, by which the federal government would pay plantation owners in government bonds in proportion to the number of slaves they freed with the goal of the U.S. being free of slavery by 1900, these offers were greatly rejected. This he argues are clear, reasonable attempts of compromise by the North that were blatantly rejected by the South. He also presents that fact that countries like Brazil (a state with far more slaves than the United States) were able to abolish slavery without internal conflict. The 19th century was an especially volatile time in U.S. history, particularly in regards to the issues discussed by these two authors. I would like to qualify the two views discussed above. Schlesinger was certainly correct in his assertion that compromises had been extended to avoid conflict and that other states had been successful in abolishing practices such as slavery successfully. So clearly, there are approaches, at least in hindsight, that could have prevented the war from unfolding. I will say however, that removing our bias and our moral bearings that push us from agreeing with a group that desired to enslave others, it is clear that some of the points raised by Craven in favor of the south are valid. The actions by the north after the Mexican War certainly appeared to be attempts to stack the decks in favor of their own political interests, and later actions certainly promoted their economic interests. Even slavery aside, the North was certainly pursuing its own interests first in regards to the West with little extension to the South. Southerners and Northerners soon became staunchly divided in a way that was surely blind and deaf to compromise, as pointed out by Craven it became an issue of morals and beliefs tied to personal emotions and principles. People rarely compromise their principles. I would ultimately say that yes, there were open avenues of democracy that could have been pursued, however in this situation I believe the American people were blinded by their own personal duties to protect what they individually thought was right to give into compromise. This first passage I studied was an excerpt from the work American Negro Slavery and its author Ulrich B. Phillips. Phillips, a native Georgian, argues that the system of slave labor used prior to the thirteenth amendment, was an economic necessity in the American south. Phillips almost romanticises his interpretation of slavery as he describes the south. In his first argument, he ponders the success Texas would have enjoyed, had the spread of slavery through its lands not been interrupted by the war. Phillips then moves on to claim that slavery across the entirety of the nation was ceased to early, and that by doing so it stripped the nation of untold profits. The author then shifts to the shortcomings of prior methods of labor, including indentured servitude and the attempted enslavement of Native Americans. He argues that the ineffectiveness of these methods made the forced labor of Africans the clear and logical choice. Phillips explains that upon European colonization it became clear that the abundance of resources and fertile soil were ideal for the birth of a booming economic machine, however it soon became clear that the number of Europeans willing to venture to the New World were few, and even fewer were those outside the gentry willing to work the land of another man for fair wages. As previously stated, there was limited success with other methods, perhaps only with the exception of brief Spanish exploitation of particular groups of southern natives. It is this lack of a sufficient labor source, coupled with immense opportunity for economic success that, in the eyes of Phillips, made slavery an economic necessity.
The second author I studied was Kenneth M. Stampp, the author of The Peculiar Institution, a well known work recognized for bringing American slavery to the forefront of historical debate. Stampp attempts directly counter many of the vastly uncontested arguments of the pro-slavery writers before him, including Phillips. One of Stampp’s most powerful arguments comes in the form of weighing the economic gains versus losses associated with a plantation owner’s investment in slavery. Many of the studies conducted in the southern U.S. during the 19th century by agricultural and economic experts put forth the notion that such investments rarely resulted in major profit yields. Many of the true classic liberals, being staunch advocates for free markets and competition in the workforce and business also argued that the overall economic effects of this system were detrimental to the southern economy. Slaves were a major investment and although they were often not placed under the most ideal conditions, masters would still have to put forth funds to providing food and other basic necessities year round to protect their investments. This was potentially more expensive than paid labor. By largely excluding paid labor, the South was also struggling amongst its lower class citizens who were often able to find suitable jobs such as those filled by slaves. In counter to Phillips, author two points out that agriculture, including that in plantation format was successful in places like Virginia prior to the introduction of African slaves. Stampp argues that the institution of slavery was not necessarily continued due to its economic results, but rather because of its traditional and cultural implications. This is clearly a very sensitive and contentious topic in American history, and it was fascinating reading the perspectives of two influential authors at the forefront of this argument in a historical context. Clearly slavery was boasted as the backbone of the agrarian southern economy prior to the ratification of the thirteenth amendment, however I largely agree with Kenneth Stampp in his assessment that undermines the validity of the notion that such a system was an economic necessity. Although initially African slaves may have been a viable alternative to a volatile state of aggravated indentured servants and a lack of lower class workers, it is clear through Stampp’s research that slavery later potentially took away from viable jobs for an expanded lower class population (post greater immigration from Europe and elsewhere), and was as pointed out by experts at the time, extremely costly and in many cases not very profitable in regards to substantial growth of wealth. I would also agree with Stampp in his argument that the role of a slave owning plantation farmer became a cultural and family tradition passed down for its continuity of familiarity and tradition, rather than its financial benefits. 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. 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) The author of the first passage I read is Clinton Rossiter. Rossiter's passage argues strongly that due to a multitude of factors, the American colonies had lost their English identity and in many respects, had formed a unique identity that contributed to their separation. British mercantilism contributed heavily to the later circumstances that would begin to uproot the colonists’ ties to their homeland. By adopting policies designed to promote the interests of the mother country, the British effectively excluded the colonist from the benefits associated with being a subject of the king. Over time such regulations and efforts would turn stale in the eyes of the colonists and promote a feeling of dissent. As argued by Rossiter, these growing feelings combined with extended periods of salutary neglect proved to be ideal circumstances for the growth of a new independent identity. Early forms of self government soon blossomed under these conditions to become relatively autonomous democracies which initially suffered few restrictions from The Crown. These democracies gradually promoted new ideas and went in different directions to promote personal liberties that soon became the norm. Potentially the stronger liberties though came not from the expansion of democracies, but from the wilderness and great natural freedoms that came with the great scope of the New World. The frontier lifestyle promoted rugged individualism, and the only attempted limitations would ultimately come from the mother country, spurring frustration. The 3000 some miles that separated the colonies already made restrictions challenging to enforce and over time caused great change in various aspects of typical British traits, but the frontier created a whole new challenge for the British. Infrastructure between colonies was relatively sparse, significantly extending the struggle. Economically the colonies found themselves in a unique position, with better pay than their brothers from across the pond. Another major contribution to the creation of this new identity noted by Rossiter was immigration from other reaches of Europe. With an influx of Germans, Scots, Irish, and others the British colonists were exposed to new ways of life and certainly mixed ideas and customs with their new neighbors. New colonies were formed and the English identity slowly evolved into a unique and independent picture.
In a different light, Lawrence Gipson argues that the British identity of the colonists remained very much intact during this period. Gipson discusses the pride associated with being British, and how the colonists were no exception to this notion. A major factor noted by Gipson was the attraction to British law which followed strict code and had been quite successful at home in maintaining order. This strict code Gipson argues, effectively meshed the colonists together and maintained their devotion to the mother country even with an ocean separating them. The economic security provided by the Crown was also certainly something not to be overlooked, with the British Empire stretching across the globe and virtually owning the seas. Great Britain secured colonial devotion in many respects in regard to its military being used in their defense. The British spent an incredible amount of money on the colonies, Gipson points to this as an example of how the colonies found their leadership back home as theirs. I find myself in agreement more so with Rossiter than Gipson. Although it ultimately varied from household to household and individual to individual, the general feelings of this new identity was strong during the 18th century. Undoubtedly most colonists were faithful at least for the majority of the century, to their homeland identifying themselves as British, however it appears quite evident to me that a new identity had been formed. Immigration was certainly a major factor, infusing new cultures into a society virtually cut off from the Crown at many points. With such great distance separating the two sides it is no wonder that during this time period a new identity would be formed. Specifically after the French and Indian war it seems as though this identity was becoming more and more unique. It was only a matter of time before this change was recognized and acted upon. The author of the first passage I studied is Gavin Menzies, author of the book 1421: The Year China Discovered America. Menzies showed his clear support for the theory that the Chinese landed in the New World prior to the more well known discovery by Christopher Columbus in 1492, the same scenario covered in his book. The author references the great voyages of famed Chinese explorer Zheng He. He’s ships travelled great treks around the Pacific, trading and exploring with different cultures, and exposing a previously isolated China to the globe. These ships were cutting edge, far more advanced than those of their European counterparts, even many years later they were undoubtedly superior to that Columbus’ ships. Specifically, author one refers to Zhou Man’s fleet which fits a potential timetable for a transpacific journey. According to this theory, Zhou Man’s fleet went on a 4 month journey somewhere far in the Pacific, if the ship let the currents take steer its course, a journey to North America, and along its coast would be entirely possible. Menzies also points to evidence of wrecked vessels on the Western coast of North America that match Chinese ships of He’s expansive fleets, potentially Man’s. Although not all have been dated exactly, many details point to them being of China’s age of exploration. One potential Junk referenced by author one has been found in the Sacramento River. The ship fits the description of one of He’s Junks and metal on the wreck shows evidence that it is not Amerindian. Inside the wreckage seeds and other small items have been identified as being of Chinese origin and are appropriate for the estimated time period. Aside from these ships, other evidence shows possible settlements by early explorers that had formed their own tribes. A particular case in 1874 brought attention to this theory, when a government employee taking a census found what he originally thought was an indigenous Native American tribe. Upon further investigation he realized that they were culturally and linguistically unique from their Amerindian counterparts. This tribe had a well developed understanding of botany and agriculture, their language also appeared to be very similar to Mandarin. Along with other similarities, this tribe, said to be located just miles away from a potential junk wreck, displayed many cultural similarities to typical Chinese traditions.
The second author I analyzed, Robert Finlay, strongly disagrees with Menzies’ claims. Finlay asserts that the evidence used by Menzies in his book is wildly construed and greatly implausible. Author two also accuses Menzies of greatly misrepresenting the basic tenets that are typically followed by a historian, by stating that Menzies stretched the truth for personal profit. According to Finlay, author one blatantly ignores Zheng He’s extensive records of travel, and assumes that this supposed venture was an exception. This trip would have also been extremely dangerous for He’s vessels that had already been at sea for years and may not have been prepared for such a journey. Menzies’ Chinese map that appears to show North and South America is also argued to be a later European map, as certain features such as California being displayed as a large island are said to be unique to European cartography. Many of the crops, animals, and technologies that Menzies claims were brought to the New World, or brought back would have not likely been brought and certainly not in the quantities that Menzies claims. As Finlay makes clear, this is only one of many examples of this author making his own assumptions and exaggerations without evidence. After analyzing the views of both these authors, it is difficult to establish a clear or obvious answer to this daunting question. Menzies’ abundance of potential evidence was quite convincing in many respects, but as Finlay made clear the lack of records by the Chinese personally left me dumbfounded and certainly creates a sizeable hole in Menzies’ theory. It also became clear to me that many of Menzies’ theories seemed to be relatively farfetched. Despite this, I could certainly see at least a smaller group of ships making this trip. If these individuals stayed in the New World or only sent part of their group back this could explain the lack of records. The potential Chinese colony found in 1874 was something not mentioned by Finlay that I found very convincing. Knowing that groups of Polynesians may have made such a venture in vessels the size of canoes, I see no reason why it could not be accomplished by the grand ships of China. This is certainly a very debatable issue, and with little solid evidence on either side it’s near impossible to prove. |
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 |