Slave Trade

I found our discussion on Thurs about the slave trade very disturbing and while reading the articles it really opened my eyes as to the way things were. That basically follows along the same line of how we said we only get the watered down version of history. I mean I know that things were bad back then but it was very heart wrenching to read how these families were separated and torn apart by this horrible even in history. I honestly felt my heart go out to mother Eliza when she was getting upset about her son leaving, it is just so sad just to think about how many families were broken up and lost.

The same goes for the way that these slaves were brought in lined up and examined like horses. These were not animals but actual people being treated by nothing less than dirt. It's crazy to think about how far we have come today from where we were at. But have we really come that far I mean although it may not be African Americans, we still have a tendency to treat minorities the same while we don't have slave trades other things still exist.

Why do we have to learn about.....

Tai had mentioned that when she was a Teachers Assistant a student had asked, " Why do we have to learn about Native Americans?" Tai's response was that everything in history is interrelated. You can't talk about one thing and not the other. History would not make sense.
History is best described maybe as a domino effect, that goes off into many directions. Personally, I never thought of history like that, I've always thought of it as 'specific events'. I didn't care why or how it had gotton to that point. I just knew I had to know it for a test. Now, it's so much easier to relate or remember history becasue of its how's and why's.

immigration, Jackson v Bush

The primary document that we read this week about the cabinet maker shows the up hill battle that immigrants have to fight upon entering the country. We read about the author coming to America being pushed west by the people already living there, and then struggling to make a living. This is what happens when too large of amounts of people enter the country at one time, and is the exact reason why immigration should be controlled tightly. The US must regulate the amount of people entering the country so that there is a steady supply of jobs for the current population. If this does not occur then people become unemployed and the economy tanks.

Outside of history classes and informed citizens, very rarely does President Jackson's name come up in the debate for the worst president ever. For this reason I think that history will treat President Bush kindly despite current public opinion. History will remember that we had the worst attack on American soil ever and a war that even though is now not backed publicly was fought legally. Jackson has had to live down defying the Supreme Court, sqaushing capitolism, giving away federal funds, and displacing Native Americans. What Bush has done doesn't even compare, which is why I think given some time public opinion will change.

Who's Who in History?

On Monday we talked a lot about Andrew Jackson, and how some of his political decisions were not only bad but unconstitutional. We also talked about how nothing in history is segregated, but rather a series of interconnected happenings that all affect each other. I believe that it is easy to look at an event and look at all the different causal factors, and look at the good and bad that came out of the event, history tends to be more strict when looking back on specific people. Practically every famous person we know is labeled as hero, patriot, or villain and murdered. We have put people in segregated categories and labeled them good or bad, which I think goes against the nature of history. In class we likened Andrew Jackson to Herbert Hoover, because he was blammoed entirely for the depression, and that's what comes to mind when most people think of him. I think historically people are made either famous or infamous, and we like to view them under that label instead of looking at the whole person. No one remembers the great humanitarian efforts Hoover made during WWI, we only remember him for his faults, and most are never taught that the majority of our 'founding fathers' were slave owners. I just think that we need to view men, and women, in the same way we view events: as a whole and interconnected piece of history.

The Lingering Effects of Slavery

Taking a page from Nina, I'd like to talk about some of the later effects of mid-1800s culture, particularly slavery. Even when the slaves are emancipated, it's not like everything snaps to an equilibrium, a perfect balance of equality and liberty among all Americans. This change is sluggish; it is unclear whether we will ever conquer racism in this country.

As we talked about in class, a book in 1918 called "American Negro Slavery" by Ulrich B. Phillips gives a skewed perception of slavery, not exposing its true horror, but rather justifying the acts of the slaveholders. This is over 50 years after the Thirteenth Amendment which freed the slaves, and the Fourteenth Amendment which protected their rights. So this notion of class/race superiority did not just dissipate when legislation was passed. Heck, many of these divisions didn't go away until the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. Over one hundred years--and still an issue.

So how much did life change for the African Americans in the early part of the 20th century? Besides the fact that they were no longer slaves, not too much. Two great books that illustrate life for the African Americans in this era are W.E.B. DuBois' "Souls of Black Folk" and Ralph Ellison's "The Invisible Man." Maybe some of you have read DuBois' book for Western Civ. It describes the notion of the "veil," a figurative cloak over the black man who cannot at once be recognized as both black and American, when the African American community wants dearly to establish and take pride in both of these identities. DuBois, probably one of the most educated people in America at the time (trained at Harvard, pretty much everywhere else), still does not get professorship offers from any of the elite schools in the North, and is forced to take a job in the deep South. "Souls of Black Folk" was published in 1903, over 30 years since the 13th Amendment. Ellison's "Invisible Man" is perhaps my favorite book, if not that, among the top 3. Ellison, a uber-smart black man who has a sharp eye for observation and an dark but excellent sense of humor, describes his existence in that part of the century, where it is like he is invisible. The "Invisible Man" was published in 1952. Race relations were still not better, and looked to have no intention of tightening up in the immediate future. These books are excellent personal accounts of a bitter time in American history.

Slavery lingers perhaps greatest in one of our largest facets of culture; music, although it isn't apparent until you look at the roots of Rock 'n' roll. Now, I personally am of the belief that nothing really moves linearly (history, causality, etc), but in order to save everyone's time, I'm going to sort of create a loose cause/effect relationship. Traditional slave songs evolve into the blues, made popular by African American artists like Leadbelly and Robert Johnson. This form of music is raw, powerful, and evocative, but not extremely technical or only playable by the most talented musicians. Sound familiar? This became rock'n'roll, which is definately something American society holds dear. Though I realize the Beatles are British (all the Buddy Holly clips on Youtube were pretty weak), their meteoric rise would've never been possible without this evolution from slavery to blues to rock and roll.

My whole life, I have always been into music, as is much of my family, particularly rock and roll. It is something that really ties us all together, as we are all completely music-obsessed. That's why I find this period of time so interesting; it brought about something I have cherished, but at what cost to society? I prefer not to think about the implications of this statement, but there is no doubt it is an important one.

Gaining Women's Suffrage

In class we discussed some reasons why it took so long for women to gain the right to vote. The 19^th Amendment passed in 1920, 50 years after the 15^th Amendment (which granted all African American men the right the vote) and 70 years after the Declaration of Sentiments was signed. I believe one reason it took a long time was because of the Civil War. The Civil War played a large role in delaying women the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony decided to keep the Women’s Rights Movement alive during the war. However, during war time, political dissent is viewed as unpatriotic and as a result, many women’s rights advocates decided to redirect their efforts toward support of the war. Many of the advocates did this because they believed their loyalty would be rewarded with suffrage. However, after the war, women still were not compensated for their devotion to their country. As a result of this, Elizabeth Stanton was able to successfully rally an even greater number of supporters for women’s rights.

Another factor affecting the length of time it took for women to gain the vote is that the Seneca Falls Convention did not receive as much recognition in the 19^th century as it does today. The convention was not widely publicized at the time. There were no national representatives at the meeting. The people who attended the convention were all mostly from up-state New York. Most of the three hundred people who showed up to the Seneca Falls Convention were Quaker farmers with no real political influence. Even so, Lucretia Mott told Elizabeth Stanton at the time, “The convention will not be so large as it otherwise might be, owing to the busy time with the farmers, but it will be a beginning”

Transatlantic Abolition

There is an interesting writing explaining the developments of abolitionism on both sides of the Atlantic leading to the transatlantic antislavery movement. A great source of antislavery attitude derived from the Quaker region, with its strong convictions of human equality. Antislavery activism spread along established Quaker networks in England, Ireland, and the United states, driven by traveling ministers and religious pamphlet literature. Non- Quakers Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine founded the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Quaker counterparts in London and Plymouth formed antislavery societies that same year and began a drive to ban Britain’s transatlantic traffic in humans.
Women also played an important role in abolition movements. From 1787 to 1791, the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade collected thousands of signatures on petitions and organized a boycott of slave-produced sugar. This boycott is said to have involved 300,000 Britons; however women were key in this effort being the traditional cooks of English families. British antislavery opinion took a new direction in the 1820s, when women became more active and pushed beyond the band on trade. Quaker widow Elizabeth Heyrick wrote Immediate not Gradual Abolition in 1824, which prompt the formation of scores of all women societies. A massive petition campaign bombarded Parliament, and out of 1.3 million signatures submitted in 1833, 30 percent were women. This help pass the Abolition of Slavery Act, which freed all slave children under age six.

Un-Intended Consequences

As a political science major and self-proclaimed political science geek, I find it interesting to study the un-intended consequences of past elected officials. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson have supplied more than enough examples of how their inital policies have been abused, mutated, or maligned into something that they never intended to happen. We live with these policies in our current political system because they have become engrained within the system and there would never be enough bi-partisan support to change them.

Andrew Jackson followed in Thomas Jefferson's image and sought to prevent elites who were in federal agency positions from gaining too much power. He replaced many of these positions with people that had supported his campaign or were close friends and allies. His goal was to prevent an entrenched bureacracy from becoming corrupt and to reward party loyalty by elevating long-time party members into the federal government. Sounds good, right? Wrong! Jackson replaced many civil servants who knew their job with political allies that did not have a clue as to do their job. He also failed to appoint anyone that opposed his viewpoints.

Whilte the "spoils system" did not originate with Jackson, he eximplified it and made it a more common practice indirectly by strengthening party committment of those who hoped to gain a federal job if their candidate were to win. The spoils system is wrong because the best person for the job should be chosen to run it regardless of party, not the person who is most loyal to the winning party. The spoils system has continued up into the modern era and has allowed President's from both parties to appoint unqualified people to federal office.

Another indirect consequence of Jackson's presidency was the 2nd party system. I am not going to say that the modern party system would not have evolved eventually, but Jackson (D) forced the system to change with his opposition to the National Bank which was a galvanizing issue of the time and caused the formation of the Whig and Democratic Party. Martin Van Buren (D) followed in Jackson's staunch opposition to Whig ideals.

The incident in which Martin Van Buren (D) survived as Jackson's only trusted cabinent member shows how devisive Jackson could be. Van Buren would get nominated and become the 8th President of the United States and then would get the blame for the Panic of 1837 which was one of the United States worst financial crises. Van Buren got a reputation as a touch politician from his days in New York and this reputation was emboldened by his refusal to use the federal government to intervene financially in the depression.