The Federal Government for many years did nothing to stop or help the creation of monopolies, which was a new factor in the American Economy, and not till things got extremely bad with wealth being strung extremely thin in the lower and middle classes did they decide to change things around. It took time to both change the laws and get the trust of the American people back.
For example, “In the thirty years leading up to the Civil War, the law was increasingly interpreted in the courts to suit the capitalist development of the country. Mill owners were given the legal right to destroy other people’s property by flood to carry on their business. The law of ‘eminent domain’ was used to take farmers’ land and give it to canal companies or railroad companies as subsidies.” (Zinn, 175) Corporations were thus seen as getting special privileges to what they wanted above anyone else’s needs small business or single citizen. “By the middle of the nineteenth century the legal system had been reshaped to the advantage of men of commerce and industry at the expense of farmers, workers, consumers, and other less powerful groups within the society…. It actively promoted a legal redistribution of wealth against the weakest groups in the society.” (Zinn , 175) Corporations, with the government backing them, were running rampant on the American people with the nothing they could do.
Thus “Many Americans distrusted corporate charters as a form of government-granted special privileges. But the courts upheld their validity, while opposing efforts by established firms to limit competition from newcomers.” (Foner, 322) An example of the courts favoring the corporations, one can find it in the court case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, where the supreme court defined corporate charters issued by state legislature as contracts, which future lawmakers could not alter of rescind. However, 5 years later, in the court case Gibbons v. Ogden, the court struck down a monopoly the New York Legislature had granted for steamboat navigation even though corporate charters were viewed as contracts that future lawmakers could not alter via the 5 year previous court case. This just goes to show that corporations were a very confusing subject in the legislature because they had so much pull on what was passed while lawmakers had to attempt to appease both the corporations and the people. This attempt at appeasement, however, did not work for a majority of the time because the pressure that was put on the government by the corporation to keep the economy growing even if it meant people were suffering. The corporation ‘owners’ pockets were getting deeper and deeper as they gained more and more money and left much of the rest of the country homeless and without food. Zinn describes this best, “In 1873, another economic crisis devastated the nation. The crisis was built into a system that was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crisis… that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Andrew Carnegie was capturing the steel market, John D. Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.”(Zinn, 177) Not until the passing of the Sherman Anti-trust Act did these kind of corporate monopolies end.
In the end with how the corporations conducted themselves with the governments help they only passed laws to control monopolization of a certain economy, however, corporations still exist and still have much of the government help in what they do. One could possibly say that corporations make most of the economic decisions passed in the legislature today to help themselves and the money they make besides monetary policy. “A corporate firm enjoys special privileges and powers granted in a charter from the government, among them that investors and directors are not personally liable for the company’s debts. Unlike companies owned by an individual, family, or limited partnership, in other words, a corporation can fail without ruining its directors and stockholders. Corporations were therefore able to raise far more capital than these traditional forms of enterprise.” (Foner, 322)
Sources Cited:
1. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.
2. Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: an American History. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Proslavery Arguments
The points of view that these two guys write from just sounds completely ridiculous. I do realize however, that this is largely due to the fact that I am reading these ideas in the 21st century. I understand that my view on these writings could very well be the exact opposite of what they are now if I were reading these in the 1800s because back then it was normal and regular. The statements they make for how the slaves feel and what they are and are not capable of sound completely ridiculous.
In his writing “The Universal Law of Slavery,” George Fitzhugh states, “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world”. That is just absurd. If this were true, then how does he explain the fact that at least 1,000 slaves escaped and/or tried to escape from the South to the North? Not only do they have white masters talking for them and living in their own dreamland thinking everyone loves the idea of slaves, but they also have a good amount of the slaves themselves thinking that it was what they were made to do, which also just sounds absurd.
George Fitzhugh constantly downgrades the African American slaves by mention how “inferior” and “intellectually week” they are. Saying that they could not support themselves and that they would crumble if they had swapped places and the whites were the slaves. This is just ridiculous seeing as there is no way to possibly know that they would be unsuccessful. If the white settlers had gone to Africa as slaves the African slave holders would probably say the exact same thing about the white slaves they had.
James Henry mentions many of the same things that George Fitzhugh does in his “The Mudsill Theory” by showing his dislike of how the North handles the African Americans and that the Southern slaves are far better off than the North ones not only for themselves but better off for the country too. However he does mention some points that I could not help but agree with. He states, “The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing”. Many places did announce their “abolishment” of slavery but is there not the chance that they had only renamed it or sugar coated it by giving them a few more freedoms than before thus
giving the look of freedom?
Though I do not agree with this, I can’t help but admire his very well structured and worded argument with New York’s senators on this debate on slavery. One point that I especially liked is how he ends his argument, "How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?” I can just imagine how that must have impacted the New York Senators and opened their eyes to what the now “free” slaves could do with this right to vote. Overall, these writings sound completely crazy for our time, but if you held it up against the standards of the time in which it was written they probably would have sounded pretty normal to everyday people.
Works Cited
United States. Cong. Senate. "The 'Mudsill' Theory," By James H. Hammond. S. Rept. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Fitzhugh, George. "The Universal Law of Slavery," by George Fitzhugh." Web. 28 October 2011. .
The Black American: A Documentary History, Third Edition, by Leslie H. Fishel, Jr. and Benjamin Quarles, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois, 1976,1970
In his writing “The Universal Law of Slavery,” George Fitzhugh states, “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world”. That is just absurd. If this were true, then how does he explain the fact that at least 1,000 slaves escaped and/or tried to escape from the South to the North? Not only do they have white masters talking for them and living in their own dreamland thinking everyone loves the idea of slaves, but they also have a good amount of the slaves themselves thinking that it was what they were made to do, which also just sounds absurd.
George Fitzhugh constantly downgrades the African American slaves by mention how “inferior” and “intellectually week” they are. Saying that they could not support themselves and that they would crumble if they had swapped places and the whites were the slaves. This is just ridiculous seeing as there is no way to possibly know that they would be unsuccessful. If the white settlers had gone to Africa as slaves the African slave holders would probably say the exact same thing about the white slaves they had.
James Henry mentions many of the same things that George Fitzhugh does in his “The Mudsill Theory” by showing his dislike of how the North handles the African Americans and that the Southern slaves are far better off than the North ones not only for themselves but better off for the country too. However he does mention some points that I could not help but agree with. He states, “The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing”. Many places did announce their “abolishment” of slavery but is there not the chance that they had only renamed it or sugar coated it by giving them a few more freedoms than before thus
giving the look of freedom?
Though I do not agree with this, I can’t help but admire his very well structured and worded argument with New York’s senators on this debate on slavery. One point that I especially liked is how he ends his argument, "How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?” I can just imagine how that must have impacted the New York Senators and opened their eyes to what the now “free” slaves could do with this right to vote. Overall, these writings sound completely crazy for our time, but if you held it up against the standards of the time in which it was written they probably would have sounded pretty normal to everyday people.
Works Cited
United States. Cong. Senate. "The 'Mudsill' Theory," By James H. Hammond. S. Rept. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Fitzhugh, George. "The Universal Law of Slavery," by George Fitzhugh." Web. 28 October 2011. .
The Black American: A Documentary History, Third Edition, by Leslie H. Fishel, Jr. and Benjamin Quarles, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois, 1976,1970
Friday, September 30, 2011
Zinn's analysis of the American Revolution, especially as it relates to the class implications of the Revolution.
Howard Zinn does a very complete explanation of how the American Revolution started through the words of Elite figures of the time. The revolution was based extremely on the social class struggle of the lower class trying to up their social status by being freed through the war, the middle class trying to keep what they had in their land and views on politics such as the loyalist ways, and the upper/Elite class trying to defend their power by passing laws and bills which could better themselves, their status, and their family. As Zinn explains in this quote,“ The Continental Congress , which governed the colonies through the war was dominated by rich men, linked together in factions and compacts by business and family connections.” (Zinn, 80)
He starts the chapter A Hand of Revolution by explaining that the Revolutionary leadership knew it would be an extensive task to get the average white man on-board with the revolutionary ideas. Because the “revolution had no appeal to the slaves or the Indians,” he claims, “They would have to woo the armed white population.”(Zinn, 77) It started with attempting to recruit armed white men to join the colonial militia. They excluded “..friendly Indians, free Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home.”(Zinn, 78) Because number of Armed white men wanting to fight was very small, it forced recruitment to take the less respectable, homeless, and unarmed men.
“Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783.” This goes to show that while the colonies had a structured class society with Slaves and Indians at the bottom followed by white servants and women , then non-landowning whites, landowning whites and lastly the elite class with wealthy plantation owners, lawyers and merchants, much of the change during the revolution was fought out by the lower middle class.
A major example of how wealth and status played a role in the Revolution, Zinn explains how, “In Maryland, for instance, by the new constitution of 1776, to run for governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property; to run for state senator, 1,000 pounds. Thus, 90 percent of the population were excluded from holding office. And so, as Hoffman says, ‘small slave holders, non-slaveholding planters, tenants, renters, and casual day laborers posed a serious problem of social control for the Whig elite.” (Zinn, 82) This poses a major issue in trying to have equality throughout the social and governmental levels. Furthermore, “They (Maryland authorities) made concessions, taxing land and slaves more heavily, letting debtors pay in paper money. It was a sacrifice by the upper class to maintain power, and it worked” (Zinn, 83) At all costs the Elites and authorities were fighting to maintain their status and power. Once again, a class battle.
Another example of class implications could be seen in the mistreatment of loyalists who did not want any part of the war. The general mood was to take no part in a war that seemed to have nothing for them. Authorities demanded that they supply the troops and consume less for themselves; many however, were loyal to Britain and not to the revolutionary cause and did just the opposite of what the authorities asked of them. “Washington’s military commander in the lower south, Nathaniel Greene, dealt with disloyalty by a policy of concessions to some, brutality to others.” (Zinn, 83) He went to the south where people were not on-board for the war effort and had his troops brutalize them and kill a good portion to show the loyalists that they can either get on-board or leave. He explains, “It has had a very happy effect on those disaffected persons of which there were too many in this country.” (Zinn, 83) They brutalized loyalists because they did not agree with the efforts of the war and thus the elite military status punished the middle class which did not wish to follow. Also, much of the loyalists land was taken for not supporting the war effort and in return they offered the land to anyone willing to join after the war effort was over. However, once again, as Zinn describes “One would look, in examining the Revolution’s effect on class relations, at what happened to land confiscated from fleeing Loyalists. It was distributed in such a way as to give a double opportunity to the Revolutionary leaders: to enrich themselves and their friends, and to parcel out some land to small Farmers to create a broad base of support for the new government.”(Zinn, 84) The Elite class could get more land from the incentives than could any man in the militia.
“The huge landholdings of the Loyalists had been one of the great incentives to Revolution. Lord Fairfax in Virginia had more than 5 million acres encompassing twenty-one counties. Lord Baltimore’s income from his Maryland holdings exceeded 30,000 pounds a year. After the Revolution, Lord Fairfax was protected; he was a friend of George Washington. But other Loyalist holders of great estates, especially those who were absentees, had their land confiscated.” (Zinn,84) This just goes to show how being or knowing someone in the Elite class could get you a free ticket to anything or protected by anything. This Shows that the class system during the Revolutionary years was quite crooked, just as it could possibly be today. We could possibly consider corporations to be the “elite class’ nowadays with the select few government officials and rich business moguls.
During the revolution, as Zinn describes, the class struggle was even more magnified than it had been at anytime during the history of the nation because while slavery was still around there was also the struggle between wealth and social status. Also, With what Edmund Morgan, Richard Morris, and Carl Degler say about the revolution, it is very much true. With the saying “We The People” The Elite class made “…Town mechanics, laborers, and seamen, as well as small farmers” feel as part of “the people” through “…rhetoric of the Revolution, by the camaraderie of military service, by the distribution of some land (likely to be confiscated land from the Loyalists). Thus was created a substantial body of support, a national consensus, something that, even with the exclusion of ignored and oppressed people, could be called ‘America’.” (Zinn, 85) People were misguided, the government basically gave people, who served for them during the revolution, some land and made them feel part of ‘the people’ even though it was more directed at the people of the Elite Class. Thus, class implications played a major role throughout the revolution.
Work Cited:
1. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.
He starts the chapter A Hand of Revolution by explaining that the Revolutionary leadership knew it would be an extensive task to get the average white man on-board with the revolutionary ideas. Because the “revolution had no appeal to the slaves or the Indians,” he claims, “They would have to woo the armed white population.”(Zinn, 77) It started with attempting to recruit armed white men to join the colonial militia. They excluded “..friendly Indians, free Negroes, white servants, and free white men who had no stable home.”(Zinn, 78) Because number of Armed white men wanting to fight was very small, it forced recruitment to take the less respectable, homeless, and unarmed men.
“Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783.” This goes to show that while the colonies had a structured class society with Slaves and Indians at the bottom followed by white servants and women , then non-landowning whites, landowning whites and lastly the elite class with wealthy plantation owners, lawyers and merchants, much of the change during the revolution was fought out by the lower middle class.
A major example of how wealth and status played a role in the Revolution, Zinn explains how, “In Maryland, for instance, by the new constitution of 1776, to run for governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property; to run for state senator, 1,000 pounds. Thus, 90 percent of the population were excluded from holding office. And so, as Hoffman says, ‘small slave holders, non-slaveholding planters, tenants, renters, and casual day laborers posed a serious problem of social control for the Whig elite.” (Zinn, 82) This poses a major issue in trying to have equality throughout the social and governmental levels. Furthermore, “They (Maryland authorities) made concessions, taxing land and slaves more heavily, letting debtors pay in paper money. It was a sacrifice by the upper class to maintain power, and it worked” (Zinn, 83) At all costs the Elites and authorities were fighting to maintain their status and power. Once again, a class battle.
Another example of class implications could be seen in the mistreatment of loyalists who did not want any part of the war. The general mood was to take no part in a war that seemed to have nothing for them. Authorities demanded that they supply the troops and consume less for themselves; many however, were loyal to Britain and not to the revolutionary cause and did just the opposite of what the authorities asked of them. “Washington’s military commander in the lower south, Nathaniel Greene, dealt with disloyalty by a policy of concessions to some, brutality to others.” (Zinn, 83) He went to the south where people were not on-board for the war effort and had his troops brutalize them and kill a good portion to show the loyalists that they can either get on-board or leave. He explains, “It has had a very happy effect on those disaffected persons of which there were too many in this country.” (Zinn, 83) They brutalized loyalists because they did not agree with the efforts of the war and thus the elite military status punished the middle class which did not wish to follow. Also, much of the loyalists land was taken for not supporting the war effort and in return they offered the land to anyone willing to join after the war effort was over. However, once again, as Zinn describes “One would look, in examining the Revolution’s effect on class relations, at what happened to land confiscated from fleeing Loyalists. It was distributed in such a way as to give a double opportunity to the Revolutionary leaders: to enrich themselves and their friends, and to parcel out some land to small Farmers to create a broad base of support for the new government.”(Zinn, 84) The Elite class could get more land from the incentives than could any man in the militia.
“The huge landholdings of the Loyalists had been one of the great incentives to Revolution. Lord Fairfax in Virginia had more than 5 million acres encompassing twenty-one counties. Lord Baltimore’s income from his Maryland holdings exceeded 30,000 pounds a year. After the Revolution, Lord Fairfax was protected; he was a friend of George Washington. But other Loyalist holders of great estates, especially those who were absentees, had their land confiscated.” (Zinn,84) This just goes to show how being or knowing someone in the Elite class could get you a free ticket to anything or protected by anything. This Shows that the class system during the Revolutionary years was quite crooked, just as it could possibly be today. We could possibly consider corporations to be the “elite class’ nowadays with the select few government officials and rich business moguls.
During the revolution, as Zinn describes, the class struggle was even more magnified than it had been at anytime during the history of the nation because while slavery was still around there was also the struggle between wealth and social status. Also, With what Edmund Morgan, Richard Morris, and Carl Degler say about the revolution, it is very much true. With the saying “We The People” The Elite class made “…Town mechanics, laborers, and seamen, as well as small farmers” feel as part of “the people” through “…rhetoric of the Revolution, by the camaraderie of military service, by the distribution of some land (likely to be confiscated land from the Loyalists). Thus was created a substantial body of support, a national consensus, something that, even with the exclusion of ignored and oppressed people, could be called ‘America’.” (Zinn, 85) People were misguided, the government basically gave people, who served for them during the revolution, some land and made them feel part of ‘the people’ even though it was more directed at the people of the Elite Class. Thus, class implications played a major role throughout the revolution.
Work Cited:
1. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Fisk University Jubilee Singers
Module 2
The Reconstruction Era was a very hard time for the African American population living in the United States after being freed by the emancipation proclamation. Many Amendments which were passed to help them turned out to make them even worse off. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment, which discontinued any form of slavery and involuntary servitude unless serving punishment for a crime, and also kicked start to the Reconstruction Era. Second was the Fourteenth Amendment in which any person born in the country could not have his/her privileges or immunities taken away and were to be guaranteed life, liberty, and property, and were not to be taken away without due process of law. Lastly the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed every citizen, no matter race, the right to vote. These amendments, however, were written by much of congress with loopholes to continue to restrict African Americans the rights.
During this time however, many predominantly African American colleges were opened; Including Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, Spelman College and Morehouse University in Georgia, Howard University in Washington DC, and Fisk University in Tennessee. This is relevant because Fisk University in Tennessee founded a group named The Jubilee Singers of Fisk University. As you may imagine with all the racial hatred throughout the country, this group was extraordinarily hard to start and get popular; however, they took off with much of the racial stigmas set to the side by making music that was enjoyed throughout the world without the opinions based on race.
Fisk University, opened in Nashville in 1866, was a ground breaking institution because it was the first American university to offer a “liberal arts education to young men and women irrespective of color“ 1, with no segregation. This idea was unheard of at the time, and the university may have suffered because of it. After 5 years the university was underwater in financial debt; however George White the treasurer had a big plan of making this 9 member ensemble of African American students to tour the world and fund the college with their talents. “The first concerts were in small towns. Surprise, curiosity and some hostility were the early audience response to these young black singers who did not perform in the traditional ‘Minstrel fashion‘.” 1
As they kept performing, “Continued perseverance and beautiful voices began to change the attitudes among predominantly white audiences. Eventually skepticism was replaced by standing ovations and critical praise in reviews. Gradually they earned enough money to cover the expenses and send back to Fisk.”1 This in turn fixed Fisk’s financial troubles and made them a flourishing university.
This group went on to perform at major venues including the 1872 World Peace Festival in Boston. President Ulysses Grant likes the performance so much, he invited them to perform at the White House. They later, in 1873, added 2 members to make 11 and toured Europe, and with the funds constructed a still standing building recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 1975.
This group is remarkable because it was a huge component to early American Music and a precursor to southern Jazz throughout the 1930’s. Also, they showed that through music, they could change racial opinions and tension by making music that everyone can enjoy.
An example of their music is shown below. While it was recorded in 1909, it gives you an idea of what type of music they made.
Sources Cited:
1. http://www.fiskjubileesingers.org/our_history.html
2. http://www.jazzistry.org/timeline.html
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/singers/sfeature/songs.html
4. http://www.youtube.com
The Reconstruction Era was a very hard time for the African American population living in the United States after being freed by the emancipation proclamation. Many Amendments which were passed to help them turned out to make them even worse off. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment, which discontinued any form of slavery and involuntary servitude unless serving punishment for a crime, and also kicked start to the Reconstruction Era. Second was the Fourteenth Amendment in which any person born in the country could not have his/her privileges or immunities taken away and were to be guaranteed life, liberty, and property, and were not to be taken away without due process of law. Lastly the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed every citizen, no matter race, the right to vote. These amendments, however, were written by much of congress with loopholes to continue to restrict African Americans the rights.
During this time however, many predominantly African American colleges were opened; Including Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, Spelman College and Morehouse University in Georgia, Howard University in Washington DC, and Fisk University in Tennessee. This is relevant because Fisk University in Tennessee founded a group named The Jubilee Singers of Fisk University. As you may imagine with all the racial hatred throughout the country, this group was extraordinarily hard to start and get popular; however, they took off with much of the racial stigmas set to the side by making music that was enjoyed throughout the world without the opinions based on race.
Fisk University, opened in Nashville in 1866, was a ground breaking institution because it was the first American university to offer a “liberal arts education to young men and women irrespective of color“ 1, with no segregation. This idea was unheard of at the time, and the university may have suffered because of it. After 5 years the university was underwater in financial debt; however George White the treasurer had a big plan of making this 9 member ensemble of African American students to tour the world and fund the college with their talents. “The first concerts were in small towns. Surprise, curiosity and some hostility were the early audience response to these young black singers who did not perform in the traditional ‘Minstrel fashion‘.” 1
As they kept performing, “Continued perseverance and beautiful voices began to change the attitudes among predominantly white audiences. Eventually skepticism was replaced by standing ovations and critical praise in reviews. Gradually they earned enough money to cover the expenses and send back to Fisk.”1 This in turn fixed Fisk’s financial troubles and made them a flourishing university.
This group went on to perform at major venues including the 1872 World Peace Festival in Boston. President Ulysses Grant likes the performance so much, he invited them to perform at the White House. They later, in 1873, added 2 members to make 11 and toured Europe, and with the funds constructed a still standing building recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 1975.
This group is remarkable because it was a huge component to early American Music and a precursor to southern Jazz throughout the 1930’s. Also, they showed that through music, they could change racial opinions and tension by making music that everyone can enjoy.
An example of their music is shown below. While it was recorded in 1909, it gives you an idea of what type of music they made.
Sources Cited:
1. http://www.fiskjubileesingers.org/our_history.html
2. http://www.jazzistry.org/timeline.html
3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/singers/sfeature/songs.html
4. http://www.youtube.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)