Kontan’s Place

populism/progressivism

Populism: politics or political ideology based on teh perceived interests of ordinary people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite (farm reform)

Progressivism: (beliefs of progressives) any of 3 political parties that favored social reform and were active in the presidential elections of 1912, 1924, and 1948.

Progressive Era:
goal of progressives- end BIG business and corruption. period of the muckrakers.

still reading notes and will put together more tomorrow. *blah* (yes, that was intelligent wasnt it)

Civil War: Eastern and Western Theater

Were there reasons other than ability (or lack of) that made the East more successful than the West?

The size of the area of operation in the East was smaller. Lee’s job was to keep Richmond from falling.

The strategy defending particular positions rather than going after particular armies (Jominian Strategy: Do the greatest damage to enemy with least to self, concentrate all forces in strategic place, then go against enemy keeping interior lines of communication open.)

Government policy: Jefferson Davis concerned with saving capital, the West was not his priority.

Geography: Mountains in the East, rivers in the West. Union controlling rivers and Confederates had no navy or control. Confederates tried to defed rivers from land. The challenge was how to defend without a navy.

Navy factor: Union navy attacks from gulf up and down MS river. Confederate trying to build ironclads in NOLA, but no time to concentrate on navy. Confederates had the Arkansas as an ironclad. The Arkansas fended off Faragut in Vicksburg. CSS Arkansas was sent to Baton Rouge, but couldn’t make it, the Confederates blew it up.

Logistics: Lee has secure RR in rear around Richmond going south. Does not have major logistic problem. A lot of food was sent to Lee and not in the West who really needed it. The RR was down in the West. Rivers were tenuous at best, and ran east to west, and subject to raids. Also an expansive territory, so they could not guard all rail lines. Furthermore, n o standard guage.

Communications: not just telegraph. Due to distance from Richmond, many Confederate generals didn’t communicate with Richmond or each other.

Civil Support: For Confederacy in West (as opposed to VA). Because troops couldn’t defend all areas people were left vulnerable, less support for Confederates in the West. Lee had support in VA.

State government support: As long as Lee inn VA the state government offered support. In West, had to move government frequently to avoid capture. Some Governor’s protested because vulnerable. Not as much support in the West.

Decline of morale among Confederate soldiers: Happens to army of VA at Seige of Petersburg. Starts a lot earlier in Western theater. Desertion was a problem.

civil war

taking a little jump tonight for civil war info….

“The major cause of the U.S. Civil War was slavery, pure and simple.” Discuss.

There are several catalysts to the Civil War and each can be tied to slavery. I have previously discussed the Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Act. For the sake of continuity I will paste it here and pick up with Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid. Others include the writing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Dred Scott decision.

To begin with, in 1820 the Missouri Compromise dealt with the Louisiana Purchase territory. The compromise attempted to solve the problem of slavery in the LA Purchase, stating that in LA Purchase territory and only in territory draw a line at 36*30′, the southern boundary of MO. Slavery would be allowed south of that line, not north, except in MO. The suggestion was to draw that line all the way to the Pacific.

The question still remained, what to do with all new territory? The Wilmot Proviso tried to attach an amendment to appropriations bill that would support the Mexican War if territory obtained would not allow slavery.

The Compromise of 1850 proposed to solve several issues regarding admittance to the Union. The question most addressed is slavery and the determination of slave or free states. Some proposed the question be answered by popular sovereignty. This opened questions as to when the people decide. Should they decide before being admitted as a state? Should they decide with the adoption of a Constitution? Or, should they decide with a vote after statehood?

With the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in California it became necessary to create a formal government there. the New Mexico area also needed proper government organization. Recommendations were made for both areas to create a constitution and apply for statehood. The question was whether they would be slave or free. New Mexico faced other challenges as well.

New Mexico was involved in a border dispute with Texas. There was also the Mormon question. The Mormon’s had proposed their own state status near the Great Salt Lake. Although not pro-slavery they did accept polygamy, which was just as deplorable as slavery to some members of Congress. Therefore, the focus was drawn to California.

California quickly embraced the opportunity to become a state. A consitution was created, but did not allow slavery. This was frightening to Southerners due to the vast size of the area. To solve the issue the compromise of 1850 was proposed.

The Compromise sought to appease both the pro- and anti-slavery factions. California would be admitted as a free state. Texas would be excused from war debts if they would settled with the New Mexico border. All new territory below the 36*30′ line could enter the Union as slave states and that above as free which would in part allow slaver into new territories. The least debated issue, the stronger fugitive slave law, would become the most explosive.

It is believed Stephen Douglas had an ulterior motive for proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Although he was pro-expansion he also served to make money from the new trans-continental railroad in development. Douglas owned land in the Chicago area. The railroad was being constructed from California through the Kansas-Nebraska area to Chicago. Creating the new territory would hasten the railroad completion.

Again the question in the territory was slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for the determination of slave or free to be by popular sovereignty. It also divided the territory into two. Having two territories would allow a slave/free balance in Congress.

Many in Kansas did not desire to be a slave state. However, Kansas would be bordered on three sides by slave states. As Kansas is created as a territory and creates a Constitution leaving slavery to be voted on by the people, Missouri gets involved. At the first electon of a Congressional representative 1700 Missourians cross the border to sway the vote, choosing a pro-slavery candidate. In March 1855 a territorial legislature had to be selected, 4-5000 crossed the MO/Kansas border for this vote. Over 5000 pro-slavery otes were cast. Almost 5000 were fradulent but President Pierce did nothing. A pro-slavery legislature passed a strict slave code restricting office holding to only those with proslavery views, imprisonment for anyone questioning pro-slavery views, death for anyone supporting slave rebellion or runaways.

Free state settlers began to organize. Henry Ward Beecher suggested sending “Beecher Bibles”, or rifles, in support saying sharps rifles would do more than Bibles as that time to enforce morality. Free state settlers organized a free state party and held a constitutional convention to create a constitution prohibiting slavery. They established their own legislature in 1855-56. Pro-slavery voters boycotted. To prove themselves as not sympathetic to blacks they adopted an ordinance banning the entry of free blacks as well as slaves.

James McPherson describes the two Kansas legislatures, one legal but fraudulent, the other illegal but representing a majority of settlers. The Democratic Senate recognized the first along with the President. The Republican Senate recognized the second.

November of 1855 each side mobilized several hundred armed men along the Wakarusa river. This “Wakarusa War” consisted of only a few skirmishes. Following a harshly cold winter 700 pro-slavery men rode into Lawrence destroying offices, businesses and the newspaper, throwing its press into the river. The house of the free state governor was burned as well as a nearby hotel.

The actions here lead to Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid.

Bleeding Sumner took place about the same time as Bleeding Kansas.

May19-20 Charles Sumner speaks to the Senate regarding “the crime against Kansas”, using sexual metaphors of a rape against Kansas. Sumner also made abusive references to Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Two days later in retaliation for his cousin Andrew Butler, Preston Brooks enters the Senate Chamber and proceeds to beat Charles Sumner with a cane.

Why a cane? When someone is insulted, to get revenge they either challenge the person to a dual if he is an equal, or cane/whip them if they are an inferior. Caning Sumner was symbolic.

Brooks continued beating Sumner, who was trapped at his desk, until other members pulled Brooks away. Sumner was unable to return to his Massachusetts Senate seat for 3 years. It had been saved for him as a symbol of the barbaric nature of slavery.

Southern moderates denounced Brooks for his actions. However, others applauded him.(There were some who actually sent him engraved canes.) Due to Southern vote the necessary 2/3 majority needed to expell him could not be reached. Brooks resigned, but was unanimously re-elected in his district, and he returned.

John Brown believed an “eye for an eye”. He had organized a militia for the Wakarusa War. After learning of the caning of Sumner, Brown led a raid along the Pottawatomie Creek. They seized five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them by splitting their skulls with broad swords. This launched a guerilla war in Kansas. About 200 men died in Kansas fighting in 1856. A truce and strained peace was finally brought to Kansas after the replacment of Kansas Governor Shannon with John Greary.

According the James McPherson, the “violent conflict (at Harpers Ferry) climaxed more than a decade of rising sectional tensions.”

John Brown planned to capture the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, seize weapons, and supply slaves he thought would join him.

October 16, 1859: Brown rented a farm in Maryland across the river from Harper’s Ferry. He had 17 white and 5 black recruits to help. (He tried to get Frederick Douglas to join in, but Douglas refused, thinking the attack would be futile.)

Brown made several mistakes:

• failed to inform slaves of his intentions
• had no escape route
• had no extended supplies
• had no defense for counter attack
• ultimately he had no plan, but attack.

October 17: Local citizens and militia responded to the raid. They cut off bridges across the Potomac, blocking escape. The raid was put down by Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart. Brown would be tried and hanged for his insurrection.

No slaves voluntarily participated.

The actual raid was a failure, but the effects were tremendous. Brown was almost revered as a martyr for the cause of abolition. His trial and post-trial behavior was respected. People felt he acted with dignity. He accepted his fate and almost embraced it, telling friends and family he was worth more to the cause hanged. Brown gained Northern sympathy. Although many disagreed with his method, they embraced his teaching.

John Brow’s Harpers Ferry raid was sectionally divisive. The North sympathized with the cause. The South, according to McPherson, identified Brown with abolition, abolition with Republicans, and Republicans with the North.

War was the result of this polarization because no compromise completely settled the issue of slavery. Each compromise postponed the inevitable. Upon the deaths and destruction, public emotions became involved. The morals of people would not be subject to political compromise.

Hamilton VS Jefferson

Who was more successful at manipulating the machinery of government to shape American society? Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson? Why?

Thomas Jefferson:

• Jeffersonian
• Secretary of State
• Cautious about enhancing power of federal government
• Favored yeomen farmer
• Sympathized with French
• Policies continued that of Washington with westward expansion (Irony is the Louisianna Purchase. Jefferson was dedicated to strict interpretation of Presidential powers but seized the opportunity to double the size of the US with purchase of LA.)
• Explicit powers, strict interpretaion of Constitution
• Agrarian
• Jeffersonian Republicanism: self-sufficiency. If everyone is independent they are likely to behave in a maner that will sustain the republic.

Alexander Hamilton

• Federalist
• TreasurySecretary
• Had agreement of Washington with regard to broaden economy and strengthen national government for purpose of national growth.
• Concerned with development of material resources to make nation self-sufficient
• Tended to favor Great Britain in foreign affairs
• Pressed for larger regular army as a means of expanding the power of national government (justified by need to deal with Indians)
• Implied powers proponent
• Believed corruption of government is what makes it work
• Commercial, not agrarian
• Pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts
• During Era of Good Feelings his ideas take hold (develop military, internal improvement, charter national bank)

winner: Alexander Hamilton, father of the national debt. America develops a national bank, develops on credit, establishes a standing army, US still allies with Britain, and continues on the path of governmental corruption.

Continued: “Roots of Postwar Politics”

Preface: I hate studying politics. It is absolutely the most difficult arena for me…

During and after WWII there were recognizable changes regarding the relationship of business and government. The business sector pursued a positive image to avoid blame for the depression. Business also became more monopolistic. There were also changes in the nature of demagoguery. Whoever appealed most to the anger and frustration resulting from war experienced influence and rise in the political arena. According to Wolfe, business and military were more successful at directing “this sentiment against the New deal than New Dealers were to use it to their own advantage.” Politics in the postwar era became a process of securing business confidence in order to secure voters.

Wolfe explains the emergence of a growth coalition advocating economic expansion through policies of macroeconomics, acceptable to the monopoly sector of the economy. By using surplus, this growth coalition, planned to enable the poor and minorities to take part in the reshaping of cities through domestic policies. Regarding foreign activity, they planned to economic domination with military power to maintain American influence, while incorporating the poor into the growth through aid and developmental assistance. Wolfe states, “the growth coalition should properly be characterized by its dominant belief: the idea that growth at home and expansion abroad could unify the interests of the dominant sectors of the economy with an electoral base that would keep it in power so long as growth continued.” Eisenhower is credited with embracing such growth, therefore legitimizing it.

Wolfe also addresses the changing political vocabulary in the United States. He first defines liberals as “those who believed that the government should play a positive role in correcting the abuses of capitalism by promoting a concern with equality and social justice.” In contrast, he states, “Conservatives argued that business had made America great and that therefore as few reforms as possible should be passed that would undermine its privileges.” As with most political ideas and terminology, the meaning of both liberal and conservative shifted over time. Liberals became those that pursued rapid growth, while conservatives embraced consistent and tempered growth. According to Wolfe, liberals were willing to pursue rapid growth using government and that the result of growth would be a fiscal dividend useful to expansion of welfare benefits. The same principles of domestic expansion, advocated by liberals,were applied to foreign policy with the creation of the national security council. Conservatives were also advocates of growth, but preferred it to occur through the private sector and at a slower pace, in an effort to avoid inflation. Conservatives were also cautious with imperialistic foreign policy.

Fortunately Wolfe summarizes his liberal/conservative growth coalition debate stating the necessity of compromise. He believed the liberals and conservatives were closer on policy than either group would care to admit, stating, “the debates between the parties were real, but they concerned how fast and at what cost growth should be achieved.” To achieve success both groups had to find a middle ground to appeal to voters, therefore issue debates were more concerned with the means of achieving success, not the actual success. According to Wolfe, “the consolidation of this growth-oriented pattern of politics under Eisenhower was the most important consequence of the Republican interregnum of the 1950s.”

The Roots of Post-War Politics: Alan Wolfe

After WWII challenges faced the US regarding government organization and relationships within the world. There was a great push to return to business, while battling communisim and embracing ideals of isolationist policy. There were even some thoughts of continuing New Deal initiatives to a natural conclusion of democratic socialism, American style. (full employment, economic planning, national health insurance, commitment to peace though the United nations)

America chose economics over politics believing if the economy was under control, social issues would follow. Economic expansion was sought at home and abroad.

tbc…..

American Supremacy

“The war had overturned the world, and many American’s believed that they were now on top of it.”
Thomas Patterson: The Origins of the Postwar International System

This is the first of three essays I am looking at to evaluate the impact of WWII on America at home and abroad. This first is very well written, capturing attention with descriptive insight as well as historical foundations. Patterson examines the impact of WWII on politics around the globe and the early attempts of US leaders to guide the rebuilding process of the changing international system.

With the world in shambles, America was forced to shift from total war to peacetime production. Americans were ready to spend some of the money they had been saving during the war years. Women, who had replaced many men in factories and the general work force, were having to shift back to traditional roles as men came home from the war. (This is an intense side note here, but the article does not address so I will have to address it later as I further discuss women and industrialization in America.) Although America celebrated the end of WWII there was fear that the era of prosperity would collapse. The war, not FDR’s New Deal, brought America out of the depression. . . could it’s end send Her back? Although the rest of the world struggled with rebuilding their cities, societies, and governments, Americans were enjoying the excitement of vacations, entertainment, and industrial boom. Wages had kept up with inflation and with nothing to spend on during the war, Americans made up for it afterwards.

Abroad the US accepted the role of superpower. Patterson states, ” more than statistics establish American supremacy. World conditions did so. The United States was powerful because almost every other nation was war weakened.” The US had the opportunity to shape the rebuilding of the postwar system. The greatest concern was who would be on which side. Although devastated by the war, the Soviet Union accounted for a huge rival for American security. Patterson feels, and accurately so, that the major powers in the world exploited the opportunities presented by postwar reconstruction. Smaller nations alligned themselves with one power or another in an attempt to secure aid, independence, and security. Some nations embraced neutrality. In the eyes of the US such nations were either with America or against, believing the neutral nations were an alliance against America. Decolonization was an issue facing all major powers, none were immune. Independence was granted by the US to the Philippines, where the US continued to aid with security. A significant involvement is that of Vietnam. Both the US and Soviet Union competed for allegiance of new governments, Washington backing the French and Soviets allying with the Vietminh insurgents, as Patterson refers to them. Both sides saw the benefits of their alliance in the potential for strategic bases and new markets.

International politics were strained, with the bomb resting in the back of everyone’s mind. It’s power of immense destruction served as a deterrent as well as a means. It presented an arms race on an unseen scale. New problems arose in the post war world, new instabilities. Conflict of interests carried and hardened into a four-decade Cold War.

Morgan: American Slavery, American Freedom

In American Slavery, American Freedom Edmund S. Morgan presents the history of early Virginia, intending to also present the paradoxical relationship of slavery and freedom, and the role of each for support of the other. He contends American independence was purchased with slave labor. Slavery was not the original plan for the American colonies. Expectations were for the natives to welcome the new arrivals and adapt to the colonists proposed way of life. Much to their dismay, settlers underestimated both the climate and conditions of their new habitat, as well as the native reception.

Morgan begins with Roanoke and descriptions of grandeur for future colonial settlements in America. The described reality is not so grand. Differing agendas, natives unwilling to assimilate to the satisfaction of colonists, and little initial capital led to the story of the “Lost Colony” and what Morgan calls, “The Jamestown Fiasco.” Slavery is not part of either story in the beginning. In fact, Morgan maintains the colonists did not wish to enslave, or even force, natives to work. Even through difficult times they continued to desire a Utopian society of interracial cooperation. However, as times grew tougher, and tension higher, there was less cooperation among all participants in the colonial experience.

Although not forcing servitude upon the Indians, settlers did beg, trade, steal, and demand Indian cooperation for settlement survival. Without the native population early settlements would have been considered a dismal failure in the grand scheme of history. Some would find it an arguable point despite the passage of time and successful establishment of an independent nation. Regardless, some form of servitude is characteristic of colonial settlements, despite the early absence of slavery. Morgan describes three types of servitude: tenure, bond, and apprenticeships. To be a tenant was considered most advantageous as they were allowed to receive a portion of profit earned. Bond servants received nothing but their personal maintenance with a master receiving all profits. Lowest on the early servitude scale was the apprenticeship. Apprentices served a term of seven years to the planter paying for them and then another seven years as a tenant. Most servants were tenants. However, as tobacco became more and more profitable the nature of servitude began to shift more to bond labor. Laws were expanded to guarantee extended terms of service eventually leading to the acceptance of slave labor.

No longer wishing for the Utopian interracial society, some natives were enslaved. Later, the profitable nature of African slave labor was discovered by colonists. At first, not wishing to enslave the Africans, colonists bought them from island settlements. Over the passage of time, and increasing profit, the moral dilemma of enslaving another did not seem such a dilemma for colonists. After all, slaves were considered mere pagans and property to be utilized in the most profitable manner.

Upon this argument, Morgan successfully presents the paradox of freedom and slavery, the irony of one society’s freedom built upon the enslavement of another. However, without the benefits of slave labor it is likely that the colonists would not prevail in their struggle to break from English dependency. For such adaptation and acceptance to take place, Morgan describes the shifting prejudice that must occur to morally justify the cultural adaptation. His presentation seems at times to be judgmental of the colonists. By modern standards they do seem morally bankrupt regarding the treatment of fellow man, however their moral outlook is not the same as those of modern society, and modern society is not without its own moral bankruptcy. Morgan’s work is an interesting presentation of the history of Virginia, provoking examination of what he describes as the American paradox. He is rather slow in this provocation, not detailing servitude and slavery until well into the work.

Greene: Pursuits of Happiness

In Pursuits of Happiness, Jack Greene compares the colonies of the Chesapeake region with that of New England, as well as Old England and earlier colonial settlements. Four major goals Greene attempts to assess and reach in his work are to evaluate prevailing assumptions regarding the significance of New England colonial development to other settlements, compare experiences of settlers in various other colonial establishments, determine the emergence of American culture and outline important points, and provide a historiography for further research. Greene proposes to create awareness for the diversity of early settlements and birth of American cultural patterns based not only on one particular region, but a combination of the four broad cultural regions of Chesapeake, New England, the Middle Colonies, and the Lower South. In reaching the goals he outlines, Greene focuses on social development, examines European and African settlement patterns, and attempts to digress from generalities .

Greene describes the dominating characteristics of both Chesapeake and New England settlements. Where Chesapeake was secular, materialistic, and competitive with a high mortality rate, New England was religious with a benign environment of kinship networks and low mortality contributing to rapid growth. New England’s patriarchal system also had strong social institutions contributing to development. Due to the agricultural foundations Chesapeake had a high demand for labor and their disproportionate population did not allow for strong social institutions, but strong individualism was prevalent. Although Greene claims those coming to Chesapeake colonies intended to model Old England, it was not possible due to the harsh environment which would not cooperate with their lofty intentions. The Chesapeake colonies adapted for not only personal gain but necessary survival. It is not realistic to compare two vastly different climates of settlement, Chesapeake and New England, and assume they will successfully model the same area of origin.

Greene negates the assumption that New England colonies were more representative of Old England. In fact, he supports the argument that Chesapeake is more representative due to the nature of settlement and settlers of Chesapeake seeking to improve their economic status and personal growth, striving for economic gain and growth, thereby making society more competitive. Also, the social ladder was not firmly established, one could easily move up and down based upon circumstances. New England colonies were more religious and conformist in their desire for personal perfection, religiously paternalistic with stronger kinship ties.

With the passage of time, the bonds of New England society seemed to deteriorate. Settlers contributed this deterioration to moral and social decline, as well as a rejection of founding goals. Reverse of Chesapeake, New England developed from community to individualism. As the population grew in New England individuals and extended families dispersed attempting to establish their own dream of success. New settlements, semi-independent and somewhat antagonistic of each other, developed. They also experienced a decline in the influence of clergy. Greene argues that it is not a decline of society as they seemed to believe, but mere change and adaptation to the passage of time. Although religion continued to dominate New England society, it did not hold the same preeminence as with original colonial settlement.

Although off to a difficult start, Chesapeake became a more cohesive colony developing an extensive social system. Greene claims a closer relationship between rural Britain and Chesapeake Bay. Important to development was the replacement of indentured servitude with black slaves. Slaves were a free labor source that did not cease after a period of time, and it was self perpetuating. Over time, slavery allowed for economic growth and stability of the region. Chesapeake experienced the growth of a small and powerful elite and the expansion of religious fervor, yet the same dream was driving colonial development, that of independent happiness and opportunity.

Greene establishes that New England was the exception and not the norm. With time, Chesapeake and the lower South struggled from political and socioeconomic strife just as the island and European colonies had. Chesapeake eventually became, at least to a degree, what New England began as. In comparison, New England ntinbecame more like the competitive and individualistic society of early Chesapeake. Rather than developing into vastly different regions, the two gradually became more alike contributing to the development of American culture. Greene’s approach is both analytical and informative, offering a logical comparison of New England and Chesapeake colonies to that of earlier colonies and Old England. However, little information is provided to determine the impact of early colonies upon the development of future American culture.