Lincoln’s point in the Gettysburg Address was to provide a stirring soliloquy in dedicating a new military cemetery, one which would adequately recognize and honor the sacrifices given by Union soldiers during the decisive battle there. He strove to show that when the war has ended and the nation is reunited, that it will be “a new birth of freedom” (Freedom 300), and a fresh start for a young country willing to abandon its cruel practice of slavery and begin anew. In perhaps the most often-quoted part of the speech, he assures listeners that the nation considers “all men [to] be created equal” (Freedom 299), a direct reference to wording in the Constitution. He urges his audience to commit themselves to completing the task undertaken by the departed Union soldiers before them, “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced” (Freedom 300) – in other words, to carry on the fight for reunification and freedom to all Americans.
His main point in the Sanitary Fair address was to illustrate the conflicting views of liberty held by the North and South. The North considered an expansive definition that applies to all people, while the South excluded slaves from their definition and considered them property rather than human. “With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor” (Freedom 307). Lincoln draws a cutting analogy by comparing the North to a shepherd who protects his sheep (blacks) from the wolf (Southern slavery), and the South as the wolf calling the shepherd his oppressor for not letting him be free to exploit the sheep for his own purposes. His secondary point was the promise an investigation of and “retribution” for the massacre of 300 black Union soldiers and their white commanding officers after they were defeated at the battle of Fort Pillow (while readily admitting that he had no idea what form that retribution should take).
Lincoln’s view is that the South’s definition of freedom is a more narrowly-defined one that only applies to who they deem worthy – namely whites. The North’s definition is more in line with that written into the Constitution, that all men are created equal. The Southerner insists on his own freedom to do what he wants with his slaves, as well as to profit off of their work while sharing virtually none of it with them. The Northerner considers freedom more of a blanket right that should be afforded everyone, including those currently in bondage.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
John O'Sullivan and Manifest Destiny
John O’Sullivan coined the term “manifest destiny” as a term meaning that the United States had divine and indisputable duty from God to spread its borders to encompass all of North America (i.e. to make itself into an ever-expanding empire). America’s success as a nation was the primary reason for his belief that we had the responsibility to show other regions and their inhabitants how to be more like us. “…The United States was selected by God for the greatest experiment in human history, the achievement of liberty, and that westward expansion was part and parcel of this destiny (Liberty 334). He apparently saw no contradiction in touting his home country’s freedom and attempting to overrule or replace others’ freedom to live how they saw fit at the same time.
Conflict arose between the North and South because Texas was going to be annexed. The North feared that this would increase the power and influence of the Southern slave states. The South, in turn, worried that the North would gain more influence by acquiring additional states or territories that shared their beliefs. California and Oregon were areas controlled by Mexico, and the concept of manifest destiny led America into the Mexican-American War. The tensions between the North and South would continue to percolate and would eventually bring about the Civil War.
Conflict arose between the North and South because Texas was going to be annexed. The North feared that this would increase the power and influence of the Southern slave states. The South, in turn, worried that the North would gain more influence by acquiring additional states or territories that shared their beliefs. California and Oregon were areas controlled by Mexico, and the concept of manifest destiny led America into the Mexican-American War. The tensions between the North and South would continue to percolate and would eventually bring about the Civil War.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Women's Movement and Reform
Temperance, care for the poor, and education, were the issues that became the basis for many “reform” movements in which women took the lead. In response to Angelina Grimke’s piece about women’s need to oppose slavery, Catherine Beecher accused Grimke of encouraging women to break out of their societal roles dictated for them by God, which included care of the household and subservience to their men. She was against other women’s ideas of fierce independence and strict equality in favor of respecting standard gender roles. “The moment that woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power … her aegis of defense is gone …” (Freedom 254). Women should be content and should seek counsel only within “the domestic and social circle” and not “out of her appropriate sphere” (Freedom 254). They should not participate in social debates and should “relinquish [their] opinion as to the evils or the benefits, the right or the wrong, of any principle or practice” (Freedom 256).
Grimke, in turn, responded that women were moral beings, and entitled to the same responsibilities and rights as men. “My doctrine then is, that whatever it is morally right for man to do, it is morally right for woman to do." (Freedom 258). She, too, used Christian beliefs to support her stance, though in a different approach than Beecher. In Christ, all beings were equal, she maintained, and it would be a “violation of human rights” (Freedom 260) for women to accept anything less.
Grimke, in turn, responded that women were moral beings, and entitled to the same responsibilities and rights as men. “My doctrine then is, that whatever it is morally right for man to do, it is morally right for woman to do." (Freedom 258). She, too, used Christian beliefs to support her stance, though in a different approach than Beecher. In Christ, all beings were equal, she maintained, and it would be a “violation of human rights” (Freedom 260) for women to accept anything less.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Slave Society
Paternalism was a propaganda-like piece of pro-slavery thinking wherein owners claimed that slaves were not just their property but beloved family members that the owners were sworn to cherish and protect. Blacks were viewed as being unable to take care of themselves and support their own families and therefore had to depend on their white masters for support and discipline, much like a father does for his sons.
This led to George Fitzhugh’s argument that slavery was not a necessary evil – nor even an evil at all – but a self-supporting and symbiotic system that was in the best interest for all parties involved. Slaves were given room and board, protection, and stability from free market hazards such as fluctuating prices and economic conditions, unemployment, and other things that faced poor white laborers. In turn, the owners received increased profits and free labor. “Slavery,” he wrote, leads to “peace, quiet, plenty and contentment” (Freedom 224). His often contradictory assertions included that all free laborers are better off being slaves, while slavery was what blacks (perpetual children, in his view) deserved, as universal liberty for their race would be “a curse” (Liberty 403).
This led to George Fitzhugh’s argument that slavery was not a necessary evil – nor even an evil at all – but a self-supporting and symbiotic system that was in the best interest for all parties involved. Slaves were given room and board, protection, and stability from free market hazards such as fluctuating prices and economic conditions, unemployment, and other things that faced poor white laborers. In turn, the owners received increased profits and free labor. “Slavery,” he wrote, leads to “peace, quiet, plenty and contentment” (Freedom 224). His often contradictory assertions included that all free laborers are better off being slaves, while slavery was what blacks (perpetual children, in his view) deserved, as universal liberty for their race would be “a curse” (Liberty 403).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Market Revolution
The Market Revolution brought about the emergence of “individualism,” or the belief that every successful man was not born that way or hereditarily predisposed to thrive, but rather achieved it through his own actions and hard work. If one was poor, it was believed that it was due to your own lack of effort – a sort of “social Darwinistic” thinking. New technologies in media (such as the telegraph) enabled immediate international communication, and vast canals brought river-bound trade to the forefront of the economy. Steamboats and other advances in transportation shortened travel times drastically, and factories exploded across the country. Textiles were produced fully by machine with young unmarried women working long days and living in separate communities with their fellow laborers. Men skilled in a trade found that many of their skills could oftentimes be reproduced in the factory, thus diminishing the demand for their services and driving many to work in factories for wages. Millions of Irish immigrants relocated to America during this period to escape starvation from the great potato famine in their home country, and “nativists” sought to restrict entry during this massive influx. The new entity of “corporation,” which by and large left large employers exempt from being punished for the financial, environmental, and personal offenses they committed in the name of their business, also came into existence.
Transcendentalists like Thoreau and Emerson believed that their own personal beliefs and intuitions were superior and transcended the organized beliefs dictated to be “right” by organized religion and societal norms. Rather than to conform to what the majority thought and believed, one should make their own judgments based on one’s own experiences and ideas. They believed that the tireless pursuit of materialistic gain would leave one hollow and dissatisfied and that people should begin to re-experience the peace of nature. Thoreau did just this when he took a leave of his fellow American to live near Walden Pond for a time. He sought to separate himself from the fast-paced world during the market revolution and the changes that marked it. The opinions of the individual were muted by the din of society pursuit of personal riches, and that people were becoming “tools of their tools,” gathering money in the place of striving for any other form of personal satisfaction and happiness. Thoreau came to Walden “to live deliberately … and see if I could not learn what [life] had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Freedom 182).
Transcendentalists like Thoreau and Emerson believed that their own personal beliefs and intuitions were superior and transcended the organized beliefs dictated to be “right” by organized religion and societal norms. Rather than to conform to what the majority thought and believed, one should make their own judgments based on one’s own experiences and ideas. They believed that the tireless pursuit of materialistic gain would leave one hollow and dissatisfied and that people should begin to re-experience the peace of nature. Thoreau did just this when he took a leave of his fellow American to live near Walden Pond for a time. He sought to separate himself from the fast-paced world during the market revolution and the changes that marked it. The opinions of the individual were muted by the din of society pursuit of personal riches, and that people were becoming “tools of their tools,” gathering money in the place of striving for any other form of personal satisfaction and happiness. Thoreau came to Walden “to live deliberately … and see if I could not learn what [life] had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Freedom 182).
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tecumseh and the War of 1812
William Henry Harrison was a renowned military leader who contributed to American victory during the War of 1812 against the Indian population. His crowning achievement, which he used to sail into the world of politics later in his life (including the shortest term ever served as U.S. President – one month or so, after which he perished from pneumonia). His largest victory during the war was the battle of Tippecanoe, wherein he wiped out the city of Prophetstown while its leaders were absent, and the Battle of Thames, at which Shawnee leader Tecumseh (discussed in the next paragraph) was killed by forces that Harrison led as a general. He later became a Congressman, then the governor of the Indiana territory. Harrison’s role in provoking further conflict with native Indians was his desire for them to jettison their thousands of years of tribal ways, customs, religions, and practices and “convert” to a more overtly Americanized lifestyle. Their only alternative to adopting white ways was to displace themselves further west so that white settlers could take over their land. This is important because this policy led up to the Indian-American conflicts of the War of 1812, as well as the last and largest battles of resistance that the native peoples engaged in before being largely subdued.
Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa were two Shawnee brothers who bore messages of resistance to the white men to their native brethren. Tecumseh was long averse to treaties and acceptance of white since his refusal to 1795’s Treaty of Greenville, and his prophet brother Tenskwatawa supported the same views. Tenskwatawa preached that “white people … were the source of all evil in the world, and Indians should abandon American alcohol, clothing, food, and manufactured goods” (Liberty 303). Both endorsed no further contact and complete separation from white culture, the rebirth of Indian ways, and refusal to cooperate with government policies. Tecumseh traveled across the Mississippi Valley and entreated fellow Indian tribes to join together to rise against whites, which led to large Indian and white conflicts during the War of 1812, during which Americans fought both the British and the native Indians.
Tecumseh’s views on land ownership were those of most indigenous Indians: that the land came from the Great Spirit and as such could be claimed by no human group. This was, of course, in direct conflict with white Americans’ views, which were that land equated to financial gain, status, and freedom. “[The continent] … all belonged to red men … placed on it by the Great Spirit that made them, to keep it, to traverse it, to enjoy its productions, and to fill it with the same race … That no part,” he goes on, “has a right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers; those who want all, and will not do with less” (Freedom 168). His argument was that treaties and agreements with whites are useless because they are never satisfied with the results and will always seek to gain more of the Indians’ territory, be it through violence, deception, or misleading “peace” offers and trades. His, and nearly all Indians’ view, is that whoever throws his blanket on the ground is the rightful occupant until he moves on, and none may displace him. Hunting and fishing areas may be shared for the mutual benefit of all tribes, but residency trumps all, which is a concept the whites would never accept.
Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa were two Shawnee brothers who bore messages of resistance to the white men to their native brethren. Tecumseh was long averse to treaties and acceptance of white since his refusal to 1795’s Treaty of Greenville, and his prophet brother Tenskwatawa supported the same views. Tenskwatawa preached that “white people … were the source of all evil in the world, and Indians should abandon American alcohol, clothing, food, and manufactured goods” (Liberty 303). Both endorsed no further contact and complete separation from white culture, the rebirth of Indian ways, and refusal to cooperate with government policies. Tecumseh traveled across the Mississippi Valley and entreated fellow Indian tribes to join together to rise against whites, which led to large Indian and white conflicts during the War of 1812, during which Americans fought both the British and the native Indians.
Tecumseh’s views on land ownership were those of most indigenous Indians: that the land came from the Great Spirit and as such could be claimed by no human group. This was, of course, in direct conflict with white Americans’ views, which were that land equated to financial gain, status, and freedom. “[The continent] … all belonged to red men … placed on it by the Great Spirit that made them, to keep it, to traverse it, to enjoy its productions, and to fill it with the same race … That no part,” he goes on, “has a right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers; those who want all, and will not do with less” (Freedom 168). His argument was that treaties and agreements with whites are useless because they are never satisfied with the results and will always seek to gain more of the Indians’ territory, be it through violence, deception, or misleading “peace” offers and trades. His, and nearly all Indians’ view, is that whoever throws his blanket on the ground is the rightful occupant until he moves on, and none may displace him. Hunting and fishing areas may be shared for the mutual benefit of all tribes, but residency trumps all, which is a concept the whites would never accept.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Adams Family
Disenfranchised people of all kinds, including “slaves, servants, women, Indians, apprentices, [and] propertyless men” did not have the full measure of freedom that landowning white males had. They were bolstered by the independent and rebellious activities and war levied against their ruling monarchy of England and inspired to challenge their lot in life. If American colonists can ask for, fight for, die for, and receive freedom and independence, why not the slave, the poor man, the woman, and the native?
Abigail Adams was married to the nation’s second president, John Adams, for more than 35 years, and served as his most trusted advisor. She, like members of other groups, capitalized on the spirit of freedom and liberation from tyranny engulfing the new country and implored her husband and his peers in Congress to “remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors [were]” (Freedom 112). Her rather harsh assessment of men (perhaps more true in her time period than our own, perhaps not) was that each would be a tyrant if given a chance, and indeed acted so in the home, particularly toward their wives. She implied that women would not stand for a system where their voices were not equally heard to men, and that wives should not be treated like object for men’s use. “Regard us then,” she wrote to her husband, “as beings placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.”
John Adams felt the bands of government had been loosened everywhere because all other groups were acting rebellious and more independent during this time period of the dawning of America. “The children and apprentices were disobedient, that schools and colleges were grown turbulent, that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters”. He considered her request for women’s equality to be an indicator that an even bigger “tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest” were also feeling disenchanted and yearning for additional freedom. He “laughs” at her and assures her that he and his fellow men will not relinquish their role as “masters” in their “masculine systems,” and he hopes that George Washington and his peers will stand with him to fight “the despotism of the petticoat” (all quotes this paragraph from Freedom p. 113). He considers female equality and his resistance to it natural, and believes it should be suppressed in the same way other non-democratic forms of government should be, including monarchy, empire, oligarchy, and mob rule.
Abigail Adams was married to the nation’s second president, John Adams, for more than 35 years, and served as his most trusted advisor. She, like members of other groups, capitalized on the spirit of freedom and liberation from tyranny engulfing the new country and implored her husband and his peers in Congress to “remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors [were]” (Freedom 112). Her rather harsh assessment of men (perhaps more true in her time period than our own, perhaps not) was that each would be a tyrant if given a chance, and indeed acted so in the home, particularly toward their wives. She implied that women would not stand for a system where their voices were not equally heard to men, and that wives should not be treated like object for men’s use. “Regard us then,” she wrote to her husband, “as beings placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.”
John Adams felt the bands of government had been loosened everywhere because all other groups were acting rebellious and more independent during this time period of the dawning of America. “The children and apprentices were disobedient, that schools and colleges were grown turbulent, that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters”. He considered her request for women’s equality to be an indicator that an even bigger “tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest” were also feeling disenchanted and yearning for additional freedom. He “laughs” at her and assures her that he and his fellow men will not relinquish their role as “masters” in their “masculine systems,” and he hopes that George Washington and his peers will stand with him to fight “the despotism of the petticoat” (all quotes this paragraph from Freedom p. 113). He considers female equality and his resistance to it natural, and believes it should be suppressed in the same way other non-democratic forms of government should be, including monarchy, empire, oligarchy, and mob rule.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Ramping up to Revolution
The English monarchy had incurred an enormous debt through financing the Seven Years War, one of approximately 150 million pounds (the equivalent of trillions of today’s dollars). “Interest on the debt absorbed half the government’s annual revenue” (Liberty 180) so clearly a new way to generate federal income was needed. Taxes like the Sugar and Stamp acts would address the problem, but colonists were against it. Not because they didn’t feel they had to pay taxes to support their home empire, but because they felt inadequately represented in the House of Commons back in England. “No taxation without representation” became one of their rallying cries.
British residents of America and her other colonies of India and Canada felt they deserved and demanded the same rights as Britons living back home. The empire and its leaders assigned to the American colonies, however, disagreed and saw the monarchy as “a system of unequal parts in which different principles governed different areas, and all were subject to the authority of Parliament” (Liberty 182). As a result, giving up the ability to tax the American colonies most likely would have brought about similar demands for exemption from all of England’s other colonies, and as such could not be allowed.
Colonists were outraged over the Stamp Act because it, unlike the Sugar Act, affected every colonist, from the richest down to the poorest. This united all in crying foul and led to their organization and rallying together. In their view, the Stamp Act represented the empire’s attempt to dictate and control the spending and collecting of colony money, and they had done it without consulting colonial leaders or seeking the input of colonists at all. Colonists felt, like most Britons, that they had the right to not be taxed by people other their own elected representatives.
As a result, though the monarchy eventually deferred on several key policies – including the Stamp Act – they were soon unwilling to concede any further, particularly in the aftermath of the “Boston Tea Party.” They attempted to instate something very near to martial law by sending troops, sealing the harbors, allowing soldiers into private homes, and enacting what the colonists dubbed the “Intolerable Acts.” War was on the way.
The House of Burgesses rejected the final three resolutions because they called for people to directly resist any taxation not coming from King James or his “substitutes,” which was too radical an idea for them to support. The final resolution also boldly states that “any person who … shall assert or maintain that any person or persons other than the General Assembly of this colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to his Majesty’s colony” (Liberty 92), which was probably going a little too far at the time. While conceding at the end that it was indeed “his Majesty’s colony,” it was basically calling the King himself an enemy if he attempted to tax colonists without the approval of local colonial leadership.
British residents of America and her other colonies of India and Canada felt they deserved and demanded the same rights as Britons living back home. The empire and its leaders assigned to the American colonies, however, disagreed and saw the monarchy as “a system of unequal parts in which different principles governed different areas, and all were subject to the authority of Parliament” (Liberty 182). As a result, giving up the ability to tax the American colonies most likely would have brought about similar demands for exemption from all of England’s other colonies, and as such could not be allowed.
Colonists were outraged over the Stamp Act because it, unlike the Sugar Act, affected every colonist, from the richest down to the poorest. This united all in crying foul and led to their organization and rallying together. In their view, the Stamp Act represented the empire’s attempt to dictate and control the spending and collecting of colony money, and they had done it without consulting colonial leaders or seeking the input of colonists at all. Colonists felt, like most Britons, that they had the right to not be taxed by people other their own elected representatives.
As a result, though the monarchy eventually deferred on several key policies – including the Stamp Act – they were soon unwilling to concede any further, particularly in the aftermath of the “Boston Tea Party.” They attempted to instate something very near to martial law by sending troops, sealing the harbors, allowing soldiers into private homes, and enacting what the colonists dubbed the “Intolerable Acts.” War was on the way.
The House of Burgesses rejected the final three resolutions because they called for people to directly resist any taxation not coming from King James or his “substitutes,” which was too radical an idea for them to support. The final resolution also boldly states that “any person who … shall assert or maintain that any person or persons other than the General Assembly of this colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to his Majesty’s colony” (Liberty 92), which was probably going a little too far at the time. While conceding at the end that it was indeed “his Majesty’s colony,” it was basically calling the King himself an enemy if he attempted to tax colonists without the approval of local colonial leadership.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The "Great Awakening"
Aspects that led to the “Great Awakening” in the colonies were several. Religious writing and Bibles were still the most popular and best-selling publications at the time, and theological issues definitely overshadowed political ones. Ministers and church officials worried that people were becoming too focused on gaining profit and worldly goods than pursuing their eternal salvation. The “Enlightenment” school of thought, brought over from Europe to America, questioned for the first time many faith-based aspects of religion and called for a more fact-based approach, one that focused on observing nature and employing the scientific method to try to prove or disprove religious ideas. The large revivals that began to spring up during the Great Awakening directly engaged individual members of society to question, discuss, and analyze religion directly, rather than being forced to defer and accept the personal Biblical interpretations of their church’s preacher or minister.
Criticism came, for the most part, from the very church leaders who felt threatened that their congregation would depart or be influenced by these “renegade” and wayward revivalists. They accused them of disrespecting established leaders and the church as a whole, as well as causing general disorder. One Anglican minister pointed out that revivals drew mostly poor people, those who were “rude, ignorant, void of manners, education or good breeding” (Liberty 158). The traditional church frontmen were convinced that a church service should be solemn and structured, whereas the evangelists of the Great Awakening opted for emotional preaching, individual participation, and an overall “church of the heart.”
Reverend George Whitefield was accused by Arnold of deceiving and representing God as a being that would accept absolution of sin and repentance (as opposed to the Church’s standard teaching that God has already decided who will or won’t be saved, and personal worship and activity has no influence on His decision). Arnold also accused Whitefield of stepping over his bounds by appearing to speak for God Himself. He “exclaim[s] against all the clergy of the Church and pass[es] unwarrantable sentences upon men as if he were the Supreme Judge” (Freedom 86). His attack on Whitefield, by far the most successful of these new evangelists with tens of thousands of spectators attending his revivals, was an attack on the revivalists as a whole.
One long-term effect of the Great Awakening was society’s subsequent increase in questioning authority and colonial issues. It also greatly increased freedom in the methods of worship allowed to the colonial population. “In listening to the sermons of self-educated preachers, forming Bible study groups, and engaging in intense religious discussions, ordinary colonists asserted the right to independent judgment” (Liberty 158). At the same time, this increased freedom caused much more division in the Church and led to the formation of many new and still-existing breakaway churches, among them Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. Women began to preach during this time period, as well, which had not occurred before. Overall, it could be said that the increase of religious choice and freedom led to more courageous and independent thinking from colonists in every other aspect of their lives.
Criticism came, for the most part, from the very church leaders who felt threatened that their congregation would depart or be influenced by these “renegade” and wayward revivalists. They accused them of disrespecting established leaders and the church as a whole, as well as causing general disorder. One Anglican minister pointed out that revivals drew mostly poor people, those who were “rude, ignorant, void of manners, education or good breeding” (Liberty 158). The traditional church frontmen were convinced that a church service should be solemn and structured, whereas the evangelists of the Great Awakening opted for emotional preaching, individual participation, and an overall “church of the heart.”
Reverend George Whitefield was accused by Arnold of deceiving and representing God as a being that would accept absolution of sin and repentance (as opposed to the Church’s standard teaching that God has already decided who will or won’t be saved, and personal worship and activity has no influence on His decision). Arnold also accused Whitefield of stepping over his bounds by appearing to speak for God Himself. He “exclaim[s] against all the clergy of the Church and pass[es] unwarrantable sentences upon men as if he were the Supreme Judge” (Freedom 86). His attack on Whitefield, by far the most successful of these new evangelists with tens of thousands of spectators attending his revivals, was an attack on the revivalists as a whole.
One long-term effect of the Great Awakening was society’s subsequent increase in questioning authority and colonial issues. It also greatly increased freedom in the methods of worship allowed to the colonial population. “In listening to the sermons of self-educated preachers, forming Bible study groups, and engaging in intense religious discussions, ordinary colonists asserted the right to independent judgment” (Liberty 158). At the same time, this increased freedom caused much more division in the Church and led to the formation of many new and still-existing breakaway churches, among them Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. Women began to preach during this time period, as well, which had not occurred before. Overall, it could be said that the increase of religious choice and freedom led to more courageous and independent thinking from colonists in every other aspect of their lives.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
English and Indian views on "owning" land
To be English and not own your own land in the New World meant one thing and one thing only: indentured servitude. In order to pay for your passage over, you had to forfeit yourself to serve as a cheap laborer, barely above the status of a slave, for a bulk of your most healthy years (since the average lifespan was so short then). Also, the more land that one owned, the “freer” – not only economically but legally, politically, and in thought, action, and beliefs – one became. Prerequisites for being able to vote almost always came with the requirement of land ownership, with one example being Virginia Governor William Berkeley. Berkeley’s Viriginia had vast imbalances in the distribution of wealth. When it was first founded, the economic wealth gained from tobacco farming had enriched the colony’s founders and its middle-class landholders in near equal measure. But the governor soon began to favor the richest landowners with the choicest properties and left those who had fulfilled their indentured servitude to either work on a plantation or hit the road to claim unsettled land on the dangerous frontier. When he also made land ownership a prerequisite to the right to vote, it contributed to an uprising of poor whites and indentured servants who eventually carried out what would become known as Bacon’s Rebellion (granted, this rebellion was led by rich whites). A further complaint of the members of this Rebellion was that governor Berkeley was too friendly to Indians, and he refused demands by Bacon that he take the Indians’ land by force to accommodate white citizens. “Our design,” Bacon wrote, “[is] not only to ruin and extirpate all Indians in general, but all manner of trade and commerce with them” (Freedom 50). In the English view, owning land equated to wealth, stability, and power (as well as the ability to send a portion of it back home in support of the realm), and anything preventing its acquisition – including indigenous people – were merely obstacles to be overcome by any means necessary.
An excellent example of a contrasting style of leadership and land ownership occurred in New England, in William Penn’s new Quaker colony and “holy experiment” of Pennsylvania. In his view, all people – including women, blacks, and Indians – truly were equal, and he purchased land from the Indians before reselling it to colonists. “Sometimes, he even purchased the same land twice, when more than one Indian tribe claimed it” (Liberty 98). He also distributed the colony’s landmass at low prices. His “Chain of Friendship” promised to help protect Indians who were under other tribes’ rule, as well as provided sanctuary for ousted tribes, both practices being virtually unheard of at the time. Alas, even in this society of equality, political power was once again only granted to those who owned land. Penn established an “assembly elected by male taxpayers and ‘freemen’ (owners of 100 acres of land for free immigrants and 50 acres for former indentured servants)” (Liberty 99). This did, however, still essentially give the right to vote to the majority of the male population.
In direct conflict with the English view of land ownership, Indians believed that land could never be privately owned. As they accepted and believed that the Earth and everything upon it had its own spirit, how could one creature claim superiority enough to lay claim on a part of it? In their eyes, it would be the same as trying to say you owned the wind or the sky. The English brought and employed their own definition of land ownership, charging that the natives had no real claim on their lands because they did not work to cultivate or improve it. In the early seventeenth century, during the first colonies’ beginning years and initial contact with Indians, the English “recognized Indians’ title based on occupancy” (Liberty 60), and as such compensated them after seizing their land. But as the generations went on and populations grew, this façade crumbled and led to putting down, keeping down, and running off (or murdering) vast populations of Indians in fierce pursuit of their lands.
An excellent example of a contrasting style of leadership and land ownership occurred in New England, in William Penn’s new Quaker colony and “holy experiment” of Pennsylvania. In his view, all people – including women, blacks, and Indians – truly were equal, and he purchased land from the Indians before reselling it to colonists. “Sometimes, he even purchased the same land twice, when more than one Indian tribe claimed it” (Liberty 98). He also distributed the colony’s landmass at low prices. His “Chain of Friendship” promised to help protect Indians who were under other tribes’ rule, as well as provided sanctuary for ousted tribes, both practices being virtually unheard of at the time. Alas, even in this society of equality, political power was once again only granted to those who owned land. Penn established an “assembly elected by male taxpayers and ‘freemen’ (owners of 100 acres of land for free immigrants and 50 acres for former indentured servants)” (Liberty 99). This did, however, still essentially give the right to vote to the majority of the male population.
In direct conflict with the English view of land ownership, Indians believed that land could never be privately owned. As they accepted and believed that the Earth and everything upon it had its own spirit, how could one creature claim superiority enough to lay claim on a part of it? In their eyes, it would be the same as trying to say you owned the wind or the sky. The English brought and employed their own definition of land ownership, charging that the natives had no real claim on their lands because they did not work to cultivate or improve it. In the early seventeenth century, during the first colonies’ beginning years and initial contact with Indians, the English “recognized Indians’ title based on occupancy” (Liberty 60), and as such compensated them after seizing their land. But as the generations went on and populations grew, this façade crumbled and led to putting down, keeping down, and running off (or murdering) vast populations of Indians in fierce pursuit of their lands.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Richard Hakluyt and English Expansion
England was not a massive empire like Spain was during the seventeenth century, and one of the first ways colonization efforts in North America took place was by charters given by the government to well-to-do individuals, such as Gilbert and Raleigh. If these private explorers were to successfully colonize areas of the New World at their own expense, they would retain rights to the land and its associated profits. Neither was successful in their efforts.
Active competition and animosity toward Spain was another factor that fueled England’s desire to extend onto the American continent. Not only did the two countries clash directly and militarily at times, but England was in the position to use Bartholome de las Casas’s rebuke of Spanish treatment of native Indian slaves as propaganda. The English would free these unfortunates from Spain’s “Black Legend” of cruelty, and would provide them with the opportunity to convert them to the “correct” faith.
England’s motives were nearly the same as Spain’s in many respects. Bringing additional glory, land, and profits for their home countries were respective desires, as well as “liberating” the poor indigenous tribes already inhabiting the New World with their own “superior” religions. Also like Spain, England was eager to lighten trade costs by establishing their own separate routes, as “the passage thither and home is neither too long nor too short, and to be made twice in the year” (Freedom 8). Additionally, they could reap the resources of the new land for themselves for transport back home or sale to other countries, thus monopolizing the native goods of the area and enhancing the riches of the realm.
One motive that was exclusively a concern of England was a desire to improve their period of significant economic trouble. Once the rich had “fenced off” many of the lands that poor workers had owned and claimed them as their own, the urban areas of London were flooded with displaced people “outside the fences” and seeking work. These wandering unemployed citizens were considered a bane on society, and emigration to America would provide a perfect way to both unload them from being burdens on the state, as well as – in theory, anyway – provide them with the opportunity to own and work their own land in the abundance of the New World (I’m sure that’s what all the advertising at the time said, anyway). Unfortunately, many of the poor who could not afford passage had to sign contracts that made them indentured servants to a rich purchaser, free to own their own land only after predetermined periods of near-slavery (usually four years or more), and even then at their own expense.
One of the things that struck me about Richard Hakluyt’s discourse and “laundry lists” of why England could do what the much-stronger empire of Spain was having difficulty with, is the recurring theme of “salvation” for beings that not only don’t need saving, but just want to be left alone. “The Spaniards govern in the Indies with all pride and tyranny,” Hakluyt says. “…so no doubt whensoever the Queen of England … shall seat upon that firmament of America, and shall be reported thoughout all that tract to use the natural people there with all humanity, courtesy, and freedom, they will yield themselves to her government, and revolt clean from the Spaniard.” It sounds remarkably to me like their plan of treating the Indians with “all humanity, courtesy, and freedom” is another way of saying “We’ll make them ours, not theirs, because we’re better than the Catholics.” As far as believing that the slaves will “revolt clean from the Spaniard,” I doubt Mr. Hakluyt really believed that much, but I think he was stretching things a bit to “close the sale,” or appear more convincing in his ideas. The Indians may well, given the opportunity, revolt against Spain, but only with the idea that things can’t possibly get any worse with these new Europeans than they are with the conquistadors! Little did they know that English rifles can be worse than Spanish whips, their diseases lay the same forms of waste, and they'll "liberate" Indians' lands from them just as aggressively.
Active competition and animosity toward Spain was another factor that fueled England’s desire to extend onto the American continent. Not only did the two countries clash directly and militarily at times, but England was in the position to use Bartholome de las Casas’s rebuke of Spanish treatment of native Indian slaves as propaganda. The English would free these unfortunates from Spain’s “Black Legend” of cruelty, and would provide them with the opportunity to convert them to the “correct” faith.
England’s motives were nearly the same as Spain’s in many respects. Bringing additional glory, land, and profits for their home countries were respective desires, as well as “liberating” the poor indigenous tribes already inhabiting the New World with their own “superior” religions. Also like Spain, England was eager to lighten trade costs by establishing their own separate routes, as “the passage thither and home is neither too long nor too short, and to be made twice in the year” (Freedom 8). Additionally, they could reap the resources of the new land for themselves for transport back home or sale to other countries, thus monopolizing the native goods of the area and enhancing the riches of the realm.
One motive that was exclusively a concern of England was a desire to improve their period of significant economic trouble. Once the rich had “fenced off” many of the lands that poor workers had owned and claimed them as their own, the urban areas of London were flooded with displaced people “outside the fences” and seeking work. These wandering unemployed citizens were considered a bane on society, and emigration to America would provide a perfect way to both unload them from being burdens on the state, as well as – in theory, anyway – provide them with the opportunity to own and work their own land in the abundance of the New World (I’m sure that’s what all the advertising at the time said, anyway). Unfortunately, many of the poor who could not afford passage had to sign contracts that made them indentured servants to a rich purchaser, free to own their own land only after predetermined periods of near-slavery (usually four years or more), and even then at their own expense.
One of the things that struck me about Richard Hakluyt’s discourse and “laundry lists” of why England could do what the much-stronger empire of Spain was having difficulty with, is the recurring theme of “salvation” for beings that not only don’t need saving, but just want to be left alone. “The Spaniards govern in the Indies with all pride and tyranny,” Hakluyt says. “…so no doubt whensoever the Queen of England … shall seat upon that firmament of America, and shall be reported thoughout all that tract to use the natural people there with all humanity, courtesy, and freedom, they will yield themselves to her government, and revolt clean from the Spaniard.” It sounds remarkably to me like their plan of treating the Indians with “all humanity, courtesy, and freedom” is another way of saying “We’ll make them ours, not theirs, because we’re better than the Catholics.” As far as believing that the slaves will “revolt clean from the Spaniard,” I doubt Mr. Hakluyt really believed that much, but I think he was stretching things a bit to “close the sale,” or appear more convincing in his ideas. The Indians may well, given the opportunity, revolt against Spain, but only with the idea that things can’t possibly get any worse with these new Europeans than they are with the conquistadors! Little did they know that English rifles can be worse than Spanish whips, their diseases lay the same forms of waste, and they'll "liberate" Indians' lands from them just as aggressively.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
European Expansion into the Americas
European countries sought to expand for various reasons. While most likely not their first priority, they wanted to expand their territory and reap the resources of the new areas of the Americas (many of which they had never even encountered up to that point). Second, countries such as Spain, France, and the Netherlands (and their merchants) were desperate to establish a new trade route and bypass the overland trade stranglehold the Ottoman empire had established in the Middle East, thereby “eliminat[ing] Islamic middlemen and win[ning] control of the lucrative trade for Christian western Europe” (Liberty, 20). Perhaps the primary reason, though, was the European notion that Christianity and Catholicism were inherently superior to the naturalistic religions and belief systems of the indigenous people in the Americas and should be spread by all means and methods necessary. The Spanish conquistadors and others overthrew, murdered, and infected as they invaded, all in the name of “saving” the savages from their “heathen” ways and converting them to European religion.
This provided a method of rationalizing what may have otherwise been considered genocide and intolerable cruelty. In other words: Sure, we might’ve enslaved them and accidentally diseased them and decimated them as a whole population, but that pales in comparison with the gift we’re giving them: saving their eternal souls and spreading the Word of God!
In Columbus’s case, he decimated the population of Hispaniola this way. The masses he enslaved to perform forced labor for the Spanish Empire were unaccustomed to the work and treated badly, including being starved and brutalized. In 1528, Spanish priest Bartholome de las Casas characterized the treatment of Indians as “…most horrible servitude and captivity which no one who has not seen it can understand. Even beasts enjoy more freedom when they graze in the fields” (Freedom 5). In addition to the Indian population decreasing from these conditions, new European diseases brought from Spanish urban areas were inadvertently introduced to these indigenous people that didn’t possess any natural immunity. Their numbers were reduced from an estimated 300,000 to one million in 1492 to having “nearly disappeared” within the next fifty years (Liberty 27).
This discourse was likely a surprising revelation for citizens of both Spain and its European rival countries. Commonly-held views of the New World’s exploration and the spread of Christianity were most likely imagined as civil and humane to all involved. This document gave European countries also seeking a piece of the Americas justification for their own subsequent invasions, alluding to coming “to rescue” the Indians from cruel Spanish treatment. Eventually Spain to try to reverse (or at least diminish) its reputation and “Black Legend” of sustained cruelty by implementing the “New Laws.” These were not universally welcome among the Spanish settlers, however, and – although the Indians were no longer slaves and had some access to land and wages – “[the new system] still allowed for many abuses from Spanish landlords and by priests who required Indians to toil on mission lands as part of the conversion process (Liberty 33).”
This provided a method of rationalizing what may have otherwise been considered genocide and intolerable cruelty. In other words: Sure, we might’ve enslaved them and accidentally diseased them and decimated them as a whole population, but that pales in comparison with the gift we’re giving them: saving their eternal souls and spreading the Word of God!
In Columbus’s case, he decimated the population of Hispaniola this way. The masses he enslaved to perform forced labor for the Spanish Empire were unaccustomed to the work and treated badly, including being starved and brutalized. In 1528, Spanish priest Bartholome de las Casas characterized the treatment of Indians as “…most horrible servitude and captivity which no one who has not seen it can understand. Even beasts enjoy more freedom when they graze in the fields” (Freedom 5). In addition to the Indian population decreasing from these conditions, new European diseases brought from Spanish urban areas were inadvertently introduced to these indigenous people that didn’t possess any natural immunity. Their numbers were reduced from an estimated 300,000 to one million in 1492 to having “nearly disappeared” within the next fifty years (Liberty 27).
This discourse was likely a surprising revelation for citizens of both Spain and its European rival countries. Commonly-held views of the New World’s exploration and the spread of Christianity were most likely imagined as civil and humane to all involved. This document gave European countries also seeking a piece of the Americas justification for their own subsequent invasions, alluding to coming “to rescue” the Indians from cruel Spanish treatment. Eventually Spain to try to reverse (or at least diminish) its reputation and “Black Legend” of sustained cruelty by implementing the “New Laws.” These were not universally welcome among the Spanish settlers, however, and – although the Indians were no longer slaves and had some access to land and wages – “[the new system] still allowed for many abuses from Spanish landlords and by priests who required Indians to toil on mission lands as part of the conversion process (Liberty 33).”
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Hi, I'm Nate
Hello, fellow Hist 17A'ers -
My name is Nathan Gomer. I'm 36, an Air Force veteran, father of two sons (Alex is 6, Daniel's 4), and husband to one super-hot babe. :) I have a full slate of four online classes this semester (Hist 17A and 17B, ENGL 30A and 46B) and keeping up with them is already a bear. I also do work-study part-time at the Sacramento Vet Center on Howe Avenue from time to time, which is a counseling center for combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. During my 13 years of service in the Air Force I fixed computers, including soldering and component-level repair, and then spent 10 years as a Spanish linguist. I can't speak the langage in person very fluently, but if you want to chat me up here in espanol, I can probably hang with ya. :)
In my spare time, I write fiction. I've had one short story published, and have spent the past 30 months working on my first novel. It's finished, although I'm in my fifth draft now and hope to finish up for good around Christmas. I'll be trying to solicit a literary representative to sell it around that time, as well.
My major is currently the ultra-generic and all-encompassing Liberal Arts for convenience reasons (in other words, the G.I. Bill will pay for just about any class under this major). I'm hoping to change it soon to what I want, though, which is English. However, my ultimate goal remains to be able to make a living off my published novels. I admire the work of John Irving, Poe, Doyle, and Steinbeck, but I want to sell like King and Koontz! :) (Wait, this is History class, not Lit! ha ha)
I must be frank and say I'm taking this course because it's required and sounded slightly -- and only slightly -- more interesting than Political Science. I'm not any kind of proactive history buff, but I won't let that affect my doing well in this course. And I do think that the more well-informed about your country, the better your life and healthier your overall perspective will become.
What I hope to get out of it is to learn, read, and retain our history and its facts, since I've not studied it since 10th grade in 1988. I think it's important to know your past so you can interpret your present (and future) accurately, as well as learn from others' past mistakes.
The class being online is very convenient for saving gas and parking costs! :) There's something to be said for the classroom environment and getting out of the house (and away from noisy kids), but as I learn best by reading anyway, I think it'll be good. I finished Math D online recently with an A, and THAT was a challenge! I won't take another math class online. Some things you need to see done in order to learn.
That about does it for me. I look forward to learning and chatting with all of you!
My name is Nathan Gomer. I'm 36, an Air Force veteran, father of two sons (Alex is 6, Daniel's 4), and husband to one super-hot babe. :) I have a full slate of four online classes this semester (Hist 17A and 17B, ENGL 30A and 46B) and keeping up with them is already a bear. I also do work-study part-time at the Sacramento Vet Center on Howe Avenue from time to time, which is a counseling center for combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. During my 13 years of service in the Air Force I fixed computers, including soldering and component-level repair, and then spent 10 years as a Spanish linguist. I can't speak the langage in person very fluently, but if you want to chat me up here in espanol, I can probably hang with ya. :)
In my spare time, I write fiction. I've had one short story published, and have spent the past 30 months working on my first novel. It's finished, although I'm in my fifth draft now and hope to finish up for good around Christmas. I'll be trying to solicit a literary representative to sell it around that time, as well.
My major is currently the ultra-generic and all-encompassing Liberal Arts for convenience reasons (in other words, the G.I. Bill will pay for just about any class under this major). I'm hoping to change it soon to what I want, though, which is English. However, my ultimate goal remains to be able to make a living off my published novels. I admire the work of John Irving, Poe, Doyle, and Steinbeck, but I want to sell like King and Koontz! :) (Wait, this is History class, not Lit! ha ha)
I must be frank and say I'm taking this course because it's required and sounded slightly -- and only slightly -- more interesting than Political Science. I'm not any kind of proactive history buff, but I won't let that affect my doing well in this course. And I do think that the more well-informed about your country, the better your life and healthier your overall perspective will become.
What I hope to get out of it is to learn, read, and retain our history and its facts, since I've not studied it since 10th grade in 1988. I think it's important to know your past so you can interpret your present (and future) accurately, as well as learn from others' past mistakes.
The class being online is very convenient for saving gas and parking costs! :) There's something to be said for the classroom environment and getting out of the house (and away from noisy kids), but as I learn best by reading anyway, I think it'll be good. I finished Math D online recently with an A, and THAT was a challenge! I won't take another math class online. Some things you need to see done in order to learn.
That about does it for me. I look forward to learning and chatting with all of you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
