Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts

Friday, August 31, 2012

Jacksonian Lecture 1: Introduction to the Early American Republic, 1801-1848

Opening Lecture, August 30, 2012.
H302
by Bradley J. Birzer

These years proved an anxious time for Americans. I can’t imagine a generation with a more difficult task—how to live up to what the founding fathers had given them.

The Revolutionary Generation had spoken, acted, and achieved with a deep-seated confidence.
And, as they surveyed the land to the West, they felt a sense of overwhelming Providence.

John Adams, for example, had said as early as 1765:
“I always consider the settlement of American with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

Of course, we can think of the excellent work by our own brilliant scholar and gentleman, Richard Gamble.  Much of this anticipates American exceptionalism—especially given the Puritan idea of a “City Upon a Hill” and rethinking at the time/renaming of the Plymouth Combination as the “Mayflower Compact” to give it a less religious feel.

Americans had several questions to ask during the early Republic:

  • How could they possibly live up to the Revolutionary generation–both the intellectuals who declared Independence, wrote the Northwest Ordinance, and the Constitution and the soldiers who gave their lives for the Patriot cause? Why had God granted the Patriot movement so many heroes and gifts? Why wasn’t he granting the same types of men and women now? The burden was immense. Madison had issued the challenge to his own generation and later generations rather bluntly in 1787 in Philadelphia: “It is more than probable we are now digesting a plan which in its operation will decide forever the fate of republican government.”[quoted in Major Problems of the Early Republic, 20]. Probably true, but this leads to all kinds of questions and those answers each have huge implications. 
  • How find virtue necessary to support a republic–especially in a commercializing society? A) Religion seemed one obvious answer–but what about all the Roman Catholics and bizarre sects developing? Second Great Awakening quite different from the First Great Awakening. B) What about warfare? But, that goes against the Republican fear of a standing army? 
  • Is America a Nation? And, if so, in what sense? Something akin to an Old Testament Nation or like a modern Nation State? Or, a federal system–something unique in the world. And, if federal–which sections, which layer, is the most powerful? What about huge differences, such as between the North and the South? Every nationalist, ironically, had his own vision of what a nation should be. 
  • Are we a new or old people? Are we the descendants of the Romans and the Greeks or something new, the country of the future? Or, both? Regardless, America needed a myth–something to hold it together, to bind all Americans into one? 
  • Should the Republic be a passive model or an active advocate of further Republicanism? 
  • Are we a Republic or a democracy? Can democracy produce a natural aristocracy, or is that passe? Or, does it produce military demagogues like Andrew Jackson? Indeed, the transition from a J.Q. Adams to an Andrew Jackson is one of the most important transitions in American History. It signaled the end of the Old Republic. 
  • What to do with the Indians? Empire of Liberty or Manifest Destiny? Republic or Empire? 
  • What is the role of the Man of Letters–or should a free society have such a thing? Could it possibly corrupt us? Isn’t it decadent? 
  • What about unfree peoples–such as those from Africa? 
  • How keep up with immense technological change? (these years saw the widespread use of the steam engine as well as the advent of the Railroad). And, what does it mean? Though, usually celebrated. 
Such questions kept persons up at night. Anxious, anxious years as American attempted to define itself. And, of course, in many ways America failed and did so horrifically– 
  • the Civil War was a result of the compromises, the bickering, the anxiety of the men of the Early Republic. 
  • Imperialistic expansion, the complete annihilation of Indian Rights and dignity. 
  • Utopian reform movements and their egalitarian monstrosities–would be the non-violent (usually) and often religious brethren of the atheist French Revolutionaries and the forerunners to the twentieth-century ideologues, the harbingers of death 
  • Extreme nativism 
But, amazing personalities–from James Madison to James K. Polk, from James Fenimore Cooper to Herman Melville, from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Joseph Smith.

And, we find some of the most important political debates ever in U.S. history.

And, the anxiety came because Americans knew how well they had it. Washington Irving, for example, wrote in 1832:
I come from gloomier climates to one of brilliant sunshine and inspiring purity. I come from countries lowering with doubt and danger, where the rich man trembles and the poor man frowns–where all repine at the present and dread the future. I come from these to a country where all is life and animation; where I hear on every side the sound of exultation; where every one speaks of the past with triumph, the present with delight, the future with glowing and confident anticipation. 
But, with anxiety also comes energy. And, the Early Republic was nothing if not filled with intense energy. Everywhere: in government, in reform societies, in business, in westward movement (six new states just between 1816 and 1821).
Almost dizzying and overwhelming. “Jacksonian man” was restless man, man on the move.

Such restlessness and energy very evident in birth rates. The World has never seen anything like the American birthrates during this time period (and up to 1870).  The average woman on the frontier had about 13 children.

One Congressman stated: 
I invite you to go to the west, and visit one of our log cabins, and number its inmates. There you will find a strong, stout youth of eighteen, with his Better Half, just commencing the first struggles of independent life. Thirty years from that time, visit them again; and instead of two, you will find in that same family twenty-two. That is what I call the American Multiplication Table.
Almost all population increase during our time period was internal. That is, very, very little immigration. That would begin in full force in 1848–with the influx of Irish Catholics and German Catholics and Lutherans.

Up until then, free America meant Protestant Anglo-Saxon-Celtic America.

And, yet, all were welcome to come.  As John Quincy Adams put it–in an official pronouncement from the state department: 
The American Republic invites nobody to come. We will keep out nobody. Arrivals will suffer no disadvantages as aliens. But they can expect no advantages either. Native-born and foreign-born face equal opportunities. What happens to them depends entirely on their individual ability and exertions and on good fortune.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Kansas

Today, 150 years ago, the federal government officially recognized Kansas as a state.  After six years of terrorism and guerilla warfare between the "Pukes" (aka Border Ruffians)  and the Jayhawkers, the Jayhawkers won.  Topeka triumphed over Lecompton; free labor and free soil triumphed over the evils of slavery.


God bless, my home state, Kansas.  To the stars through difficulties.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Daniel Webster on the evils of slavery in the West, 1819


“The laws of the United States have denounced heavy penalties against the traffic in slaves, because such traffic is deemed unjust and inhuman.  We appeal to the spirit of these laws; we appeal to this justice and humanity. We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, with all their force?  We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration of slavery.  Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community which cannot be immediately relieved from it without consequences more injurious than the suffering of the evil.  But to permit it in a new country, where yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to encourage that rapacity, fraud, and violence against which we have so long pointed the denunciations of our penal code?  What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of our country?  What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of mankind?” [quoted in Remini, DANIEL WEBSTER, 169]

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

New York Times on the Civil War

The New York Times is running a nice series of articles on the Civil War.  This post by historian Susan Schulten (especially with her explanation of the 1860 map of slavery) is rather stunning and revealing.  Thank you, Professor Schulten.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/visualizing-slavery/

2011 Civil War Syllabus

Tomorrow, I get to start teaching this semester's "Sectionalism and Civil War" (H303) course.  I've not had the chance to teach it for a few years (I share the duties with my good friend, David Raney), and I'm very excited.  Here's the syllabus (you'll notice some things from the blog explanation).  Let the semester begin. . .

Jefferson Davis to Franklin Pierce, January 20, 1861

“Mississippi, not as a matter of choice but of necessity, has resolved to enter on the trial of secession.  Those who have driven her to this alternative threaten to deprive her of the right to require that her government shall rest on the consent of the governed, to substitute foreign force for domestic support, to reduce a state to the condition from which the colony arose.  In the attempt to avoid the issue which has been joined by the country, the present administration has complicated and precipitated the question.  Even now if the duty ‘to preserve the public property’ was rationally regarded, the probable collision at Charleston would be avoided.  Security far better than any which the federal troops can give might be obtained in consideration of the little garrison at Fort Sumter.  If the disavowal of any purpose to coerce So. Ca. be sincere, the possession of a work to command the harbor is worse than useless.” [Jefferson Davis to Franklin Pierce, “Some Papers of Franklin Pierce, 1852-1662,” American Historical Review 10 (1909): 366]

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Anderson Moved His Command to Fort Sumter


Major Robert Anderson, commander of United States forces in Charleston Harbor, moved his entire command, under cover of twilight darkness to Fort Sumter, 150 years ago tonight.  There, he hoped, he could keep his command secure from the growing Charlestonian mobs.  

He thought, hoped, and prayed this move might also give the entire country some breathing room.

Had President Buchanan supported Anderson fully, Civil War might very well have been averted.  

Such, of course, was not the case.

At a little after 8pm, Major Anderson wrote to his wife: “Thanks be to God.  I give them with my whole heart for His having given me the will, and shewn me the way to bring my command to this Fort.  I can now breathe freely.  The whole force of S. Carolina would not venture to attack us.  Our crossing was accomplished between six and eight o’clock.  I am satisfied that there was no suspicion of what we were going to do.  I have no doubt that the news of what I have done will be telegraphed to New York this night.  We saw the signal rockets thrown up all around just as our last boat came over.  I have not time to write more—as I must make my report to the Ad. Genl. . . . Praise be to God for His merciful kindness to us.  I think that the whole country North and South should thank Him for this step.” [quoted in Lawton, Major Robert Anderson (1911), 8-9]

Friday, December 24, 2010

Review of Harry Stout, UPON THE ALTAR OF THE NATION (2006)


Harry S. Stout, Upon the Altar of the Nation: A Moral History of the American Civil War (New York: Viking, 2006).

Christian gentlemen founded South Carolina, informants assured the London Times correspondent, William Howard Russell, upon his arrival in Charleston in April, 1861.  “It was established not by witch-burning Puritans, by cruel persecuting fanatics, who . . . breathed in the nostrils of their newly-born colonies all the ferocity, bloodthirstiness, and rapid intolerance of the Inquisition,” they claimed, shortly after their bombardment of Fort Sumter.  Confusing its own bigotry with Christianity, Puritanism birthed impurity and “inchastity.”  Further, Yankee Puritans “know how to read and write, but they don’t know how to think, and they are the easy victims of the wretched imposters on all the ‘ologies and ‘isms.”  To make matters unbearable, such hateful and ignorant persons had recently elected Abraham Lincoln as President. 

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Russell Kirk on Abraham Lincoln, 1970


One hundred fifty years ago today, the Union—or, what was left of it—was in an uproar.  Two days earlier, after three days of debate, the South Carolina Convention declared itself independent of the American Union. 

Never before or since has a greater threat existed against the cohesiveness and integrity of the United States of America.  The hapless James Buchanan, a liar and a coward, sat in the Oval Office, impotent.  The incoming president would not take the oath of office for another three months. 

It seems appropriate, then, as we begin the 150th anniversary of the events that led to the American Civil War, we turn to the intellectual and spiritual patron of this website, Russell Kirk, and consider his views on Abraham Lincoln, the man who would become so identified with the four-year noble tragedy.

[posted originally at imaginativeconservative.org]

Doubleday Concerned

One hundred fifty years ago today, New Yorker and Army Captain, Abner Doubleday, sat concerned in Charleston, South Carolina.  


Only three days earlier, South Carolina had declared itself independent from the American Union.  One could find federal property throughout and around the city (forts, treasuries, armories, etc.), and Doubleday wondered what the hapless Pennsylvania Democrat and dough face occupying the White House might do about it.


The declaration of independence and secession was clear enough.


AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America." We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.  Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty. 


Simple enough to state; extremely difficult to make real.


As Doubleday recorded in his memoirs, writing as a Unionist and self-proclaimed "Black Republican," in the heart of secession, “This dallying with treason in the Cabinet was one of the most discouraging signs of the times. . . . It was plain enough, from demonstrations already made, that . . . the rebels would seize the fort, and turn its powerful armament upon us.  There was no one there to resist them.” [D-day, Reminiscences, 57]