Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
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
Daniel Rohde
11/2/2016 03:25:25 pm
The first writing, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, made some key points that suggest the Antebellum Reform did have a impact on the nation. He said that other nations adopted the ideas brought up by the reform which shows that it worked well enough for our nation that other countries wanted to add it to their nation. Also he pointed out that the less agrarians wanted to change the manufacturing industry by creating regulations on factories and having labor laws. And this proves the idea that it had a major impact because our nation, along with other nations, has still enforced these new ideas and laws. This reform also brought up the issue of slavery which had divided the states. Since this reform led to the abolition of slavery, you can say that it kind of brought the states together. In the second writing, the writer brings up the point that there were other reasons for the cause of these new ideas. It certainly made me think about how the Antebellum Reform could have be more of an aid to the issues being dealt with. In my opinion, I believe that the Antebellum Reform truly did have an impact on the nation because it brought up problems with the nation that no one had ever tried to fix. Considering that the reform started the use of slavery to become less popular than it was before, I would say that was one of the most important things the Antebellum Reform did to the changing nation. Even though the reform was gradual it still was a key impact on the nation and made people realize that somethings they were doing was wrong. Even if the reform was not the main reason for a change in the nation, it certainly left a mark on nation and it shaped how we look at it today.
Reply
Jackson Rose
11/3/2016 03:13:20 pm
I agree with Liam that both Schlesinger and Walters present valid points, but in my opinion, Walters' point better illustrates how the nation, especially the populus, was affected by antebellum reform. He makes the point that the reforms were slow to impact the people of the United States, and the reforms did little to change their everyday life. The reforms, however, did have a major impact on the political system bringing about the death of the Federalist Party, the emergence of new political parties such as the Whigs, and eventually the emergence and success of smaller, minor political parties such as the Free Soil and Know-Nothings. Overall, the Antebellum Reform did not have a huge impact on the people, but they did change the political climate of the United States.
Reply
Anna Sexauer
11/3/2016 09:04:06 pm
I agree with Jackson in saying Walters' point better describes the changes from the Antebellum reform because I agree that the changes were inspired by common citizens looking to change their society. I also agree that these changes happened gradually and did not directly affect the public all at once. However, Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. contributes a valid argument that states reforms before the antebellum reform set a precedent for other nations for adopting many changes. However, these were in areas other than social reform. The Antebellum period began a time of greater social change in the United States but fell behind similar changes elsewhere. I also agree with his point stating slavery was not part of these reforms because economic and historic motives rather than the will of the people. After reading The Invention of Wings, my knowledge of this is expanded because it describes the fight abolitionists put up and the challenge of fighting closed-minded people, which goes along with Schlesinger’s point that it would not be altered with ease.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
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 |