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).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
