Edited by author 09-09-2002 04:35 PM
Hello and welcome to the America 1820-1890 web discussion board. For a complete description of the expectations I have for this part of the course, take a look at the syllabus guidelines, located at (http://www.furman.edu/~benson/41sylf02.htm). I am a big fan of how this format promotes reflective thinking, participation by all members of the class (regardless of how active or quiet they are in the classroom), and thoughtful refinement of ideas through experiment and exchange.

In the spirit of "submit a short description of yourself, here are some things about me: I was born in Ithaca, New York. My mother is from Raleigh, North Carolina, and my father was raised in Olney, Maryland. I did my undergraduate and graduate work at the University of Virginia, and have been teaching at Furman since 1990. Briefly characterized, I am Furman's Civil War Era historian. I went to Gettysburg for the first time at age eight and have been back there two dozen times since. In hockey I root for the Capitals and in football for the Paladins, the 'Hoos, and the Redskins. I enjoy watching but am agnostic about baseball, lacrosse, tennis, golf, wrastling, and racin'. I smile politely when Dr. Granieri goes on about the Bills. On T.V. I watch Law and Order, CSPAN, the History Channel and the Simpsons. My CD playlist for this week has included Dave Matthews, Domenico Scarlatti, Patty Loveless, Mel Street, Boston City Limits, Nickelback, the Bubba George Stringband, and B.B. King. I swim, bike, and run. I read three to five different newspapers a day and subscribe to a dozen magazines of various genres. I have been married since graduate school and have a son who is a freshman in college. I have four brothers, two dogs, and two cats. In humor I tend to favor puns and irony. I am almost always enthusiastic about my job and this class. I usually don't get enough sleep during the academic year. I think most people, (including me) should take more risks.

Hi! My name is Brittany Thome, and I am a senior from Loganville, Georgia. I have two sisters that are married and have one child each. I love being an aunt! Personally, in my freetime I enjoy running, hiking, hanging out with friends, reading and painting. I am excited about this class and my final year here at Furman. I want to make the best of it!

Hello, my name is Dan and I am a senior majoring in business administration. I was born and raised in New England, living in Massachusetts and Maine until I decided to try out southern living. I do not have any particular plans for post graduate study, though that may change suddenly. I currently plan to work in the field of accounting, and am deciding whether or not to sit for the CPA exam.

Hi! My name is Ensley Parkinson. I am a Senior and a Political Science major. I was born in Baltimore, MD but moved to Charlotte, NC before I was 2. So, I guess you could say I'm from the south. I have no clue what I want to do when I graduate, but I feel I don't need to worry about that right now! Hope everyone has a great term!

Hey I'm Meghan and I'm a sophomore. Right now I'm from Lincoln, Mass (really small town near lexington and concord) but I've also lived in Texas, Virginia, and Florida. I think I'm going to be a Political Science major and hopefully go on to work in international relations.

Hi, my name is Lindsay Keaton and I'm a junior and a history major and I'm also seeking my teaching certification in secondary social studies. I hail from a small town of 20,000 called Jacksonville, Illinois. For those of you who are wondering Jacksonville is located in west-central Illinois just west of Springfield, the capital.

Hey, my name is Sam Wells and I'm supposed to be a junior, but thanks to CLP's, Furman still consders me a sophomore (one shy). I'm a Political Science major, but I'm hoping to double up with History if scheduling permits me to do so. I'm from Orangeburg S.C., which is a little town on I26 in between Columbia and Charleston. I'll go ahead and warn yall that Lindsey Keaton and I will be disagreeing on a lot of things on this board, especially when we get to 1861, but Lindsay knows I'm usually right. Right Lindsay? :)

Hey everyone, I'm Becky and I'm a junior born and raised right here in good ol' Greenville. (hearty chuckle...) I live across town with my family, which consists of my parents and my older sister (FU Class of 2000). I'm an intended history major, but haven't actually declared yet. I'm the business manager for WFTV-Channel 61 and the social chair and historian for the Gamma Omega Sigma sorority.

My name is Rusty Lee, and I hail from the metropolis that is Hartsville, SC. I am a history/philosophy major, and this is my 3rd consecutive class with Dr. Benson. My mom is a legal secretary, and my dad is retired on disability. I enjoy reading, Counting Crows, Seinfeld (I definitely quote at least one episode daily), arguing, baseball, and all things historical, interesting, or generally quirky. I also rarely get enough sleep during the academic year (the non-academic year too, for that matter). In my spare time, I write songs and poetry, and read almost anything. U.S. History is insanely fascinating, and I am sure that these 12 weeks will provide quite a beneficial experience.

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -- Ghandi

"The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." -- W. Faulkner

Hi this is Andy Gould and I'm a sophomore English/(something else) major. I was born in CA, raised in IL, and I now reside in Gastonia, NC, so basically I can't really be called northern or southern. I play guitar, watch obscure movies, and party at every opportunity. Hope this class will be as good as what I've heard.

My name is Cal Leipold and I'm a sophomore history major. I am from Stone Mountain, Ga. One of my intrests is American History so I am hoping to get a lot out of this class.

Hi! My name is Ashley Carroll and I'm a sophomore from Columbia, South Carolina. I think I'm going to be a history/political science major, but haven't declared anything yet. I didn't really get interested in American history until my class with Dr. Barrington last year, so I'm hoping I'll enjoy this as well.

Hi everyone! My name is Emily and I'm a sophomore with some kind of business major. I'm from St. Simons Island, GA which is about an hour below Savannah. It's a resort community, so it's nice to be back at school and away from all the tourists. I enjoy history and I think this is going to be a great class.

Hi there folks. I'm Christan (pronounced like "Kristen"... my parents were obviously a little creative) and I'm from Springboro, Ohio. I'm sure you've never heard of it... you aren't missing out. I like studying all history, but American history in particular. I don't know what my major is, but I'm leaning toward history or French or both.

What up my name is ian bramhall and im a sophomore on gambrell 200 serving as a frad. michael parker is my roomate, also in the class. im probably either gonna be a history major and may throw in poli sci with it since it requires a low amount of courses and it makes it look like ive accomplished somethin.

My name is Michael Parker and i'm a sophomore and as the previous post said i'm Ian Bramhall's roommate (i'm actually doing this on his computer). I'm not sure of my major yet but i'm leaning towards either History or Poly-Sci. You might remember me as the guy who came in late today and then tried to sit in a left handed desk.

My name is John Ball and I am a sophomore from Richmond Virginia. I am undecided about my major, but I know for a fact that my ideal job would be to work as a sports broadcaster for a television station. I enjoy history classes and have been to many Civil War battlefields in Virginia, so I am sure I will have a good time in this class.

My name is Chris Cox and I am a sophmore from Spartanburg, SC. I'm serving as a frad on Blackwell Base. I will most likely be a religion major. I might double with history but that is yet to be determined.

Hey, my name is David Gladden. I am from the small town of Concord, NC, just outside of Charlotte. I am the RA on McGlothlin Base. I also am a political science major.

Hey, my name is Paul Johstono, some of the folks call me PB. I'm a sophomore, probably a History/English major, and I hail from good ol' Leesburg, Georgie (don't worry, you haven't heard of it--unless you're a freak). I live on McGlothlin base. Methinks that covers it.

Hey my name is Catherine Bonardi and I'm a sophomore sociology major. I'm from a town 5 minutes outside of Washington DC called Chevy Chase (no, it's not named after the actor- rumor has it he was doing stand up in DC and needed a stage name so he picked Chevy Chase after our town). I'm still getting used to the move from a big, liberal city like Washington to a smaller more conservative city like Greenville, but I've found that the south can be a lot of fun. This year I'm living in Townes 400, on the Chi-O hall.

Edited by author 09-11-2002 12:57 AM
Most everyone knows me as "jefe". History, Econ major. have a phreternal (sp?) twin brother named Chip. chattanooga tn is my hometown. I've been on 3 freshmen halls: Great Outdoors (A-300), Kingpins (A-300), then Medieval Peasant Farmers (C-100). now i live in NV-D. I love to watch people transform.

    I am a senior History major from Easley, SC, pursuing Secondary Education certification for Social Studies. I also plan to get my masters in School Administration. I love Mexican food, the outdoors, and pushing down the little plastic buttons on the tops of fast-food soft drink lids.

I was born and raised here in South Carolina in the great city of Easley, only 25 minutes away from campus. I happened to be pretty good at football, which is what landed me here at Furman, I am # 35 for the Paladins. This is my junior year, and I am a History major.

My name is Mike Orr, although anyone from either Manly 2 or Poteat 3 last year would know me as Tony. I am a sophomore history major. I was born in Charlottesville, Va, grew up in Fairfax County, Va, and went to high school in Durham, NC. I live on the AD hall, connecting Poteat and McGlothlin.

My name is Sean Parshley. I am a fifth year senior here at Furman, so I know my way around pretty well, and have worn out my welcome here. I was an Elementary education major and I know I am a history major as of last year...hence why I am still here. I love sports and right now my attention is focused on my Michigan Wolverines. Go Blue!

my name is liz moore and i am a history major from charlotte, nc. i am a senior and this is my 4th straight year living on a freshmen hall. currently i am the AAC in south housing and i get the privilege of living in the blackwell base apt, which is on a freshmen boys hall... go figure!

Hi! I'm a junior from Columbia, SC and just declared History as my major. I am really looking forward to this course, and hopefully today will be the only day I am not in class :) See everyone tomorrow!!

I'm a sophomore from southeastern Connecticut, and I've already found the class engaging. I thought the questions posed for Dr. Benson today were all intriguing and I hope the class goes smoothly for everyone. Good luck!

Hey, Im a sophomore from Newnan, Georgia and I really enjoy history and plan on majoring in it. I also play football here at Furman with Corey, so everyone come out to support us this weekend.

As for the discussion today, I would think that the artist of the sequence of paintings we saw was definitely not a proponent of large government. His/her basic ideology seems to be that people work best in self-sufficient, small-like communities. As soon as grandiose notions of large cities and empires arise, things go entirely downhill.

And as for the question I would ask the class...what is your opinion of Vanilla Coke?

I think Vanilla Coke is nasty...but then again, all coke is nasty...

The address for today's presentation page on Republicanism, the Frontier, and Land Law is:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/republicanism.htm)

After today's lecture, I've come to the conclusion that a pure capitilistic republic will inevitably fail. When looking at our own government, I believe things that aren't capitilistic in nature have kept our government from crumbling. I consider myself to be very conservative in political thought, but our society would be very top heavy in economic terms without government comfort blankets like monopoly laws, commerce laws, and the list could go on and on. Without some government restrictions on our economy, we would be no better off than the USSR ended up being in the later days of communism - but instead of the government owning everything and the bureaucrats making all the decisions, just a bunch of members in our wealthiest class would be calling all the shots. It seems wrong that people like Bill Gates can't keep striving to make themselves even more wealthy and more powerful, but we can not count on our nation's most powerful to take care of the less fortunate and to keep them happy (to prevent violence). Just a quick glance at the recent Enron scandal would prove that. Anyway, to conclude, we aren't a pure capitilistic society and we do have hints of socialism. The happy medium (well leaning more toward captitalism) between the two has kept our government stable.

Edited by author 09-12-2002 05:06 PM
The Kent/Buel debate over suffrage, while being composed of two very distinct positions, contained common views of the age that even the disagreeing arguers shared. Granted, Chancellor Kent presents an assertion that only landOWNERS should be allowed to vote for members of the Senate. He even goes so far as to suggest the existence of an elitist aura, by stating that, "...their habits, sympathies, and employments,...inspire them with the correct spirit of freedom..." Thus, Kent seems to feel that landowners, simply by tying their work and lives to their land, inherently hold the supreme knowledge as it relates to what is best for government to do. Buel, on the other hand, relies heavily on several pre-existing situations in which non-landowners are allowed to vote in their state senates. Also, he raises very intriguing points about the inability of landLEASERS to vote. He correctly points out the negligible difference between owning and leasing.

Though these two men staunchly disagree in principle, their vision of the future is eerily similar. Even though Buel strongly advocates an extension of voting rights, he practically admits to a future vision that includes a nation still dominated by a landowning quasi-aristocracy. He makes sure to appease landowners by assuring them that, no matter the result of the debate over suffrage, no class or combination of classes will be able to usurp power or ultimate "correct knowledge" from the landholders. Thus, we see the narrow confines in which many 19th century debates took place. It's almost akin to 2 members of a political party disagreeing over which presidential nominee to back. There is definitely heated quarreling, but many of the ideals, principles, and long-term assessments remain strikingly similar.

Despite all his examples of failing European nations, and current nations, striving without universal suffrage, Chancellor Kent seems stuck in the past. He does not seem capable of looking to the future and the possible changes in his state. Of course hindsight, for us, is 20/20, but one should never expect life to always continue in the same way forever. Kent claims that there is not enough reason to allow all men to vote, since most of the people in the state were farmers anyway. Were he to consider the possibility that the state's population and agricultural basing might change in the future, he might have seen more reason to allow the landless to vote. His idea that "universal suffrage jeopardizes the rights of property and the principles of liberty" and that those giving little would care less than those giving much are both completely absurd. He is clearly playing to those coming from his same background and prejudices towards those without the same opportunities.
Buel seems to want to move away from the past and what he feels are too many connections to the old world. He reminds us that the idea of voting rights based on property is an idea of the English, who we are now no longer associated with. He even goes as far as to say the framers of the constitution were still too close to the British rule that they themselves were not capable of understanding the situation properly. Buel's most effective argument, however, is that other states with in America were allowing for universal male suffrage, and still striving. Above all else, Buel seems to be interested in progress and moving on from the British roots from which we came.

Having read through the article in great detail as well as the comments made by the students before me, I am struck by the vast difference between the two debators of the issue of suffrage. Having never read anything on this subject before, I am led to imagine what these two men would look like. On one hand, I imagine Chancellor Kent to be an American version of an aristocrat from a southern state, such as Virginia. In fact, his title Chancellor even has a ring of aristocratic blood or tendencies. I see him so caught up in who his father was and what took place in the decades before him that he is unable to leave the bubble of his plantation on which he lives. On the flip side of the two stands Buel. I imagine him as a northern merchant who is looking toward the future and seeing the United States as a vast land of farmers and a booming economy.
Yet, as Mike previously said, Kent remains stuck in the past. He is a picture of the life which has been held in such esteem by his European counterparts. In his response his main argument is that universal suffrage will endanger the power of the landed class, the same people who founded this country. After reading his response, I had more of a sense that he was writing much more out of fear of losing his own power and land holding than anything else.
My most notable insight into the response of Buel is that he is a classic early 19th century American. He is comparable to Daniel Webster, the writer of the first American Dictionary. I say this because he is trying to separate himself, as well as the nation, from their European counterparts. After having gained its political independence from Britain, America sought to gain its cultural independence. This is one of the reasons that I thought of Buel as comparable to Daniel Webster, for Webster wrote the American Dictionary as a way to separate the American language from that of the British. Buel seem to be trying to do the same. He talks of the present state of voting rights in the United States as similar of that to Britain and the rest of Europe for it belongs to the elite few in each nation. Beul is seeking to extend the suffrage to the masses to further the distinction between the United States and its former "mother country", Great Britain.

The debate between Kent and Buel seems based not upon differences between the two men debating, but upon the fears of Kent. Both men live in the same state, yet their views on what takes place within and without of the state differ greatly. Kent fears the masses of the cities and the monopolies that will form if they are givin the privilidge to vote. He sees the cities as the future of the state, and says, "New York is destines to become the future London of America" (p11). This outlook proves to be correct in the long run, but because he has so much fear of the masses of the cities, Kent wishes to deny them suffrage without land ownership. Land ownership, believes Kent, will give the members of the Senate some greater ability to makes descisions than their nonlandowning brethren. Conversly, Buel envisions universal suffrage, yet sees the New York of the future as a primarly agricultural state. The vision of Buel is the opposite of Kent, whose vision is primarily based in fear. As Rusty notes, Buel makes strong points about landowners versus landleasers and the small differences between them.
What is interesting about this debate is that Kent essentially recognizes what the future will bring, yet attempts to hold it at bay in order to preserve the power of the class to which he belongs. Lindsay remarked that Kent remains in the past, and I agree to this to a certain extent, but the vision that he sees for the future is quite accurate in some areas.

In this debate, we are presented with two people of probably similar backgrounds(wealthy landowners) who view the world and, more specifically, the United States in different lights. As has been stated previously, Kent appears to be stuck in the past and is unable to see beyond the rigid societal hierarchy that was present in the U.S. during his lifetime. Non-landowners were, in Kent's opinion, incapable of making decisions pertaining to the government and, essentially, their quality of life. Therefore, I agree with Rusty in his assesment that Kent feels only landowners hold the knowledge as to what is best for the government. Kent even goes so far as to refer to landowners as a "wholesome population"(pg. 7), thereby implying that a person's morality is dependent upon his ability to own land.
Another fault in Kent's logic is his continual comparisons between the U.S. and various European countries without considering the possibility that America could be different. After all, the U.S. was founded upon basic principles of democracy, a tenet which is virtually non-existent in the other countries. However illogical or unsubstantiated Kent's claims appear now, they were the status quo at the time of this debate, which makes Buel's arguments even more shocking.
I hate to use the word "radical" when talking of Buel's ideas, perhaps realistic and maybe even modern are better descriptors. He wasn't exactly original in his thoughts, but instead based a lot of his arguments on the experiences of other states. Buel came to the conclusion that if universal suffrage worked in those places, it should work in New York without too much problem. He is ready to try something different, but not something entirely new.
I agree with Lindsey in that Buel was attempting to create an America that was different than other countries, but at times his vision of the U.S. seemed to be a little too ideal. Perhaps I feel this way simply because I have the advantage of hindsight. Buel envisions America as always being a nation of farmers and dismisses, too quickly, the idea that the poor "may rise and usurp the property of the landowners"(pg. 35). Whereas Kent was unrealistic in his visions of the non-landowners corrupting all aspects of government, Buel was unrealistic in his visions of all classes coexisting and governing together peacefully. All in all, I found Buel's arguments to be more substantiated than those of Kent, who, in all honesty, just came across as a person terrified of changing his comfortable existence.

The fundamental basis of any effective debate is that the defenders of both sides of the argument are familiar with their topic and are willing to listen to the points raised by their opponents. I believe that Kent and Buel both fit this description, but I also agree with Lindsay and Mike that Kent preferred to remain in the comfort and familiarity of issues in the past, while Mr. Buel was more interested in focusing on the future. However, the part of either side that attracted my attention was p10-11 of Chancellor Kent’s argument about the city of New York: “The growth of the city of New York is enough to startle and awaken…” and “It is rapidly swelling into the unwieldy population, and with the burdensome pauperism, of an European metropolis.” These phrases, which I have loosely and most likely incorrectly tied together, reminded me of the pictures we studied in class earlier this week. New York, in 1821 when Kent was writing, was probably most like the first and second pictures: a workable size population and a sense of community. Kent foresaw, however, that the more the city grew in geographic size and as a national power, as he later stated in p11, the less community-oriented it would become. He also stated that the size of the population would grow “unwieldy,” lessening the sense of individuality then found in the city and transforming this comfortable zone into a large and “burdensome…metropolis” much like those found in Europe, such as London. Government would then focus on the city as a power structure rather than as a tightly bound group of individuals. The city would eventually become like the later pictures in the cycle we studied in class: consumed by the materialism and power of a mighty “empire” and then destroyed and desolated.

The debate between Chancellor Kent and Mr. Buel over the issue of universal suffrage is an excellent example of two contrasting viewpoints that also serve to represent the shared attitudes of the two different sides in question. Kent is a firm believer in maintaining the directional decisions made by the founding fathers in regards to their belief that the ownership of property should remain as a central requirement for people to be granted the right to vote. Buel on the other hand is more in tune with the changing times as some of the earlier comments have suggested. Buel uses the example of the more modern Pennsylvania constitution which states that a person need only to be independent of the "will of another" to earn the necessary respect to vote. As Lindsay has said, Kent seems to be heavily influenced out of his fear of losing his personal power and responsibility. To put it simply, while some of Buel's points will prove to be inaccurate in the future, his reasoning does represent a more advanced way of thinking in regards to the coming changes in America's society.

FYI--

Interesting discussion so far.


For those of you who are curious, the population of New York City in 1820 was about 124,000 people, which is about the same size as Savannah, Georgia currently, and less than a third of the current population of Greenville County.

I have posted a map of the settled area of NYC in 1811 here:
(http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/NY1811.JPG)
and a picture of some typical buildings along Broadway in 1831 (across from City Hall, about three blocks from ground zero) here:
(http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/broadway1831.gif)

In our examination of the debate between Chancellor Kent and Mr. Buel, it seems that we are glossing over the debate itself and viewing it from a modern perspective that -- I think -- we have taken for granted as a positive progress. Remember which painting we thought seemed most virtuous? The second--Arcadia. I nearly condemn myself for writing what I do, but perhaps if we examined it, America, or at least New York, would have been better off without universal suffrage. At the very least, we cannot condemn Kent for the position he takes--it seems rather hypocritical actually, considering the results of our class survey. And though he is obviously self-centered and self-righteous (two faults I know I too struggle with, and I am sure many of y'all suffer from them as well), he raises a few points worth contemplation:
1. Were the landed farmers the most likely to understand the needs of a republic and the ideas of liberty? Most likely, yes, as they were best educated. The only problem I see there is that one could not trust them to apply that knowledge justly, seeking instead to give themselves the most justice and freedom even while mitigating that of others.
2. His fear that millions of non-landed, un-educated laborers from New York City would take control of the state if granted suffrage was rather accurate, and the fear springing from that that they would be controlled by "ambitious and wicked men" (p. 9) is startlingly accurate. While an intelligent class well grounded in the ideas of liberty could resist an "American Hitler" from taking office, the masses, if granted suffrage, could be tricked into sending a most heinous man to power in our nation, as happened similarly in Germany.
Mr. Buel himself said that "virtue and intelligence are the true basis on which every republican government must rest" (p.32). I think we are too quick to brand him a modernist and revolutionary thinking for the future, for he states in p. 32 that he supports suffrage for the masses only because he knows that the farmers will always be the larger portion of the population. Kent grasped, unlike Buel, the coming explosion of city population. I believe they are under the same thinking, but Buel believes that he is safe in expanding liberties, while Kent understands what the future holds, as well as America's susceptibility to the decadence of European republics, a notion that Buel denies (p.31). We are far too eager to champion Buel.

Both Kent and Buel make excellent points in their debate, and each supports himself very thoroughly. Each presents a valid argument for why he believes his stance on suffrage is the right one.

First, Kent points out that there is already a well-balanced government in place, and essentially, the people of New York shouldn’t try to fix what isn’t broken… they have only been a state for 44 years, after all. He also speaks of past history repeating itself, citing examples in which universal suffrage has traditionally led to the demise of the society. Another of Kent’s key points is that humans have naturally selfish tendencies. This would inevitably be reflected in their voting patterns, and government would no longer be serving the best interests of the people, but their greed instead. As Cal mentioned, Kent had great foresight in predicting New York City’s growth and future importance, thus he was a man who was able to see beyond the immediate effects of an action. Kent, in not approving of universal suffrage, does not want to limit liberty in the least; in fact, he wants to protect it. He says that a senate not elected by means of universal suffrage would check “all the mischiefs of a crude and mutable legislation.” Kent also reminds his colleagues that universal suffrage can never be taken away once it is granted. These men must be careful as they are essentially deciding the future of the state of New York.

While Kent may seem to be “stuck in the past,” we must be careful not to impose our culture or beliefs when we read things like this. We have to keep in mind that Kent was saying these things in 1821, not 2002. For the time he is in, his viewpoints most likely accurately express the feelings of many people, property holders especially.

Buel, on the other hand, begins his argument by pointing out that several states have universal suffrage in place, and New York is one of the few that not only does not, but also requires property ownership in order to vote. In addition, he discusses that certain circumstances were present when New York’s constitution was framed that no longer exist in 1821. Another interesting and logical point that Buel brings up is the distinction between those who own land and those who lease it. He feels there should be no separation, as both are equally attached to their land. He negates Kent’s theory that the state of society in America even remotely resembles that of Europe. The United States has no aristocracy, and it has established common schools. These public schools will result in educated citizens, which will then result in wiser voting decisions. In conclusion, Buel concedes that property is a very important right, but it should not be the sole basis for suffrage rights.

Clearly Buel’s argument makes perfectly logical sense to us in the 21st century, but I can imagine what a radical proposition it must have seemed in the 1800s. Obviously, Buel won in the long run; however I don’t believe that even he could have ever imagined all US citizens 18 and older would one day be granted the right and privilege of suffrage.

In short, each of these men felt passionately about their positions on this argument, and I was very impressed by their respective arguments. It is hard for me to say with whom I would have sided… probably Kent. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to lose my political status and power to a bunch of uneducated, non-landed people.

At surface value the argument here seems to be about land ownership and the right to vote. Kent argues that only those that actually own the land should have the right to vote, while Buel contests that landleasers should also be included in the voting public because while land is a privilege, it doesn't "make" a person. But I believe that there is a deeper issue throughout this debate. All arguments presented can be traced back to the biggest issue of all: power. I agree with Ashley when she noted that Kent seems more concerned with the security of his own position and well-being. In fact, he even admits these worries on page 8 when he comments that changing the Constitution would interfere with "that security we at present enjoy…is that security which I wish to retain." He claims that universal suffrage would "jeopardize the rights of property, and the principles of liberty," but in my opinion he is more concerned with losing power than losing his "principle of liberty."
Buel, on the other hand, comes off to be the common man's representative. He speaks adamantly for the landleaser's rights, making the argument that "community is an association of persons-of human beings-not a partnership founded on property"(pg. 36), yet I got the feeling that he was a little more realistic in expectation. While he claims that universal suffrage would bring more equality in America, his vision of "equality" seems almost similar to that of Kent's. As Rusty pointed out, the two men end up with almost similar visions of how America will evolve. Enough so that I often found myself wondering WHY they were arguing when ultimately they were going in the same direction.

Kent is obviously against universal sufferage while Buel is for it. Kent makes an arguement against universal sufferage because he's worried that the non-land holders will ruin the government. He, in a way, stereotypes the non-landholders as not as educated and much more foolish than any landholder. In some ways that is true because some of these people are poorer they aren't as educated. However, the amendment only grants universal voting rights and that just means that the people can vote for whomever the candidates are. The thing is that the political parties would not allow a candidate to run for an office that they felt was not suited for it. Therefore, the people would be voting for one of several suitable candidates who had enough education to competently run the government, and to be educated enough that person would have to have money. Therefore, the candidates would most likely be a landowner or someone who was concerned with the preservation of the notion of keeping one's property.
    Buel reasons through Kent's concerns and proves that they are unwaranted. He makes the valid points of it's already been done, that this is not England and America does not have a long tradition of problems between the gentry and the commoners, and anyways if the poor do get control and the government does become corrupt you can always buy off the voters and get what you want done anyway.

This article poses an interesting debate that portrays many popular attitudes of the time period. Kent is the aristocratic white male that is threatened by the possibility that he or perhaps his collegues will not be in control anymore. The decision to only let land owners vote was a way to secure the wealthy's way of life. He assumes if you don't have enough money to own land then you must not be educated enough to vote and will depend on other people for your opinion. He says the wise, intelligent men who wrote the constitution thought land ownership was an important qualification than they knew best, and why change?
Buel answers that with the remark of what good has actually come of it? He sees universal sufferge not as a threat but as a step towards advancement. Social class distinctions were fading with the introduction of large cities. Many states already had laws allowing universal sufferage. The non-land owning crowd will not change the vote so much that the country will fall apart. Even though they don't own land they do have a vested interest in seeing the country succeed.

The interesting thing that I have noticed about the argument of Chancellor Kent is that he was concerned that universal suffrage would allow the poorer people run amuck. He figured that these poorer people because they coveted the landowners property, would try to use the government to gain land. Kent would probably freak if he knew that today both minorities and women are allowed to vote. His idea of universal suffrage wasn't really universal (although it probably was considered to universal for his time) The question is what impact has universal suffrage really made? Sure, every single American citizen over the age of 18 can vote. The poor can vote, the disenfranchised can vote, but what difference has that made? These people certainly haven't overturned the government and taken the land of the rich. The rich seem to grow richer and the poor seem to grow poorer, but as my PoliSci professor said today, we all think that we are middle class. Anyway, Kent seriously underestimated the non-landholding citizens of the New York. Decadence did not come from "universal" white male suffrage. Mr. Buel (I love how this is an argument between Chancellor and Mr.) was obviously correct in saying that New York needed to catch up with the other states and allow the non-landholders to vote. But it wasn't enough. The vote is powerful but still only as powerful as the people running for office make it.

These two arguments made by these respectable gentlemen were both very interesting and i had a hard time choosing sides. Although i agree with Chancellor Kent in that universal suffrage should not be granted, i dont think that granting it too the non landowners would change much. People are ignorant and therefore are not as informed as some and should not have the privelege to vote on something they have no stinkin idea about. But who says wealthy people do not belong in this category as well. But even if the misinformed people vote, they are choosing from the best that the particular party has to offer in a candidate. No moron is going to be nominated and therefore no moron will ever be elected by those who Kent feels should not be allowed to vote. And therefore "The tendency of universal suffrage, is to jeopardize the rights of property, and the principles of liberty" as Kent said, i believe is a completely bogus statement. Whoever the igmo is that runs on that platform will never get anyone's vote. The candidates for office, voted for by whoever, are educated and i believe, in most cases, do try their hardest to improve society.

The issue of suffrage has thoroughout history caused much debate. Though I don't agree with him, I understand Chancellor Kent's point that landowners alone should have the right to vote. It makes sense that if things are going well for New York, little change should take place. "Do we not expose ourselves to the danger of being deprived of the blessings we have enjoyed?" states Kent. However, Kent's theory is severely flawed in my opinion, and Mr. Buel does a wonderful job of capitalizing on the weakness. Buel uses a quotation from Judge James Wilson, a framer of the Pennsylvania state constitution to drive his point: "That every citizen whose circumstances do not render him necessarily dependant on the will of another, should possess a vote in electing those, by whose conduct his property, his reputation, his liberty, and his life may be almost materially affected." This is exactly how I feel about the issue. It is essential that all men and women who are required to obey laws have a say in how those laws are formed. Chancellor Kent comments that by allowing universal suffrage, New York will allow for the production of "corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny." Does he not realize that anything less than universal sufferage causes these things. Though I respect Kent's opinion, he is sorely misguided.

Chancellor Kent's viewpoint against the extension of voting rights to freeholders reflects a perspective that was not that uncommon during the time period, but in this debate he seems to have been outdone by Mr. Buel. The first major 'what the...?' I had while reading these arguments came in part 5 when he suggested that the "Lord of the harvest" might punish them for changing a system that was flourishing. Not only does this seem beside the point he's trying to prove, it makes his statements seem like more of a personal or emotional appeal than a reasoned response to a serious question. Then later in his argument in part 14 he suggests granting the freeholders a "branch of the legislature for their asylum and their comfort," as if such a condescending motion would sedate the well reasoned perspective crystallized in Mr. Buel's argument.
  Against Kent's theoretical and emotional statements, Buel responds with facts and numbers. His most influential statements can be found in parts 29 and 30, where he uses the example of England to point out inadequacies in the current American system of voting for senators. I find Buel's argument much more valid not only for his use of facts and examples, but also that he has a much more hopeful outlook on human nature and man-made government systems.

In the setting of 1821, this debate between Chancellor Kent and Mr. Buel was seen as dramatic and of the upmost importance. Today, years later, I still find it intriguing and captivating.

Kent encomposes a thought process that I think too many of us describe as foreign, yet is fundamental to our forefathers. Kent in his argument repeatedly warns against extremes and stongly promotes balance. As we have studied in class, Harrington and Sidney's writings, and through the paintings, extreme living ultimately brings destruction. Therefore the desire to maintain balance is great and essential to our success. Kent was arguing the thought of the day, the conservative stance at the time.

His proposal to maintain the voting structure was a prevalent opinion, not an attempt to hinder progress. He argues that America is experiencing great wealth and improvment under general suffrage so there is no need to change. After listing various accomplishments of our country Kent urges the people to "pause in our career, and reflect well on the immensity of the innovation in contemplation" and to not engage in the "bold and hazardous experiment of remodelling the constitution". Kent feared what our forefathers feared, that the evolution of a "well balanced government" would ultimately end in destruction.

Buel approaches the argument with a different perspective and one that most of us would identify with. He sees the issues at the time with a more factual outlook. Buel looks at the fact that twelve states have already extended universal suffrage and urges New York to do the same. He points out that this change has not brought turmoil nor destruction, but rather that the notion of landholder suffrage is fundamentally wrong. Buel says the "notions of our ancestors, in regard to real property, were well derived from England" and are insufficient to deal with the America of the time. Instead one should look to the facts rather than ideology based upon past experience and allow America to progress under universal suffrage.

Both Kent and Buel make strong points for their case. However their approaches are directed at two different audiences. Kent attracts those who hold to the past notion of theories and ideology, while Buel appeals to those who favor facts and modern day experience.

Edited by author 09-13-2002 09:53 AM
 In the status quo Kent vs. revisionist republican Buel debate over universal suffrage, it is interesting to know the end result. In the present day, we hold voting rights to be a given right by any citizen, and therefore we tend to side with Buel, the more liberal democrat, in his arguments over a now-settled issue. In saying that, I try to dismiss subjectivity over the matter, but I honestly feel that Buel presents a better case.

 In the undertones of his speech, Kent displays an extremely selfish, holier than thou attitude about his role and the role of property owners in the political arena. He blasphemes the poor and accuses them of various indecencies, such as violence and greed, before they commit the crimes. He holds it that if universal suffrage is granted, the stupid, greedy, ungrateful poor will surely take advantage of the system and never play a positive role. He also makes other points, such as the failure of European empires who have practiced suffrage as well as the damages voting rights would do to the justice system. All in all, I am more intrigued by Buel’s comments on the issue. Kent’s attempt at voicing a concern for the virtue of property was too overshadowed by his own selfish ambition and fear of someone in a lower economic bracket having a say. His appeal was strictly to the individual (and to the rich individual at that) and only based on a personal view.

 On the other hand, I admire Buel’s presentation. His argument appealed dramatically to the appropriate senses of his audience, and even if he was wrong, it is of no question as to why New York adhered to his plea. The Founding Father generation in 1821 was still alive, and although old age might have meant a conservative, satisfied view on the way things had been, Buel tactfully used the symbols of democracy and the republic to overshadow any traditional practices. In following the enlightened thought of those revered in the origins of American history and the supreme diction of the Constitution, Buel makes comments centered around liberty, equality in all aspects of life, progressivism, and true virtue. He downgrades the idea of traditional institutions and forces his audience to think policy through for themselves. Only then will they connect with the shoes of the common man, a feeling essential to the adoption of any equality or suffrage amendment. Finally, Buel contrasts Kent in appealing to the overall sense of “Americanism” rather then individualism. In speaking of European matters, he praises the United States and claims that Americans can do much better and are much better than any other nation, especially England; they shouldn’t simply back down from the notion because others have failed. All in all, one’s opinion of suffrage is often based on his or her persoanl wealth. But we are all Americans, and we all want to see our country advance in every aspect, both economically and virtuously.

After reading the two arguments put forward by Chancellor Kent and Mr. Buel, we can get a good reflection of two very prevalent viewpoints possessed by upper-class Americans in the first half of the 19th century. Although both sides were argued well, Mr. Buel's points came across as better researched and organized and therefore he was easier to side with. One of Mr. Buel's best tactics for his argument was to switch up his use of numbers, history and political facts in order to make his point. Right at the beginning of his argument he states the qualifications necessary in the original states to be eligible to vote (pt. 20-22). To keep his argument from being too dry, he then switches to finding points in Pennsylvania's constitution (pt. 34) in an attempt to demonstrate his correctness by showing that his views are in fact supported by political fact. Finally, he gives an example from history of England's land-owning and voting policy (pt. 28). This serves as a particularly effective technic because it displays his intelligence and broadens his debate.
     However, what I found to be most interesting about this arguement were the assumptions held by Mr. Buel (and I'm sure most of the rest of the country) about what direction the nation was going in. In pt. 32, he states "The farmers in this country will always out number all other portions of the population" and that "the city population will never be able to depress that of the country". It would be interesting to for MR. Buel to see the state the nation is in today...

I am almost certain that I would have sided with Chancellor Kent if I had read this debate when it was written in 1821. Maybe I am just a sucker for what is consistant and comfortable, but I do not really see anything wrong with Kent wanting the government to stay the same, especially since he could not see into the future. As he looked to his country and saw that the government was working fine (at least for him), and as he looked to Europe and saw what was failing, I can understand why he was content to live without universal suffrage. I think I would agree with Kent that if the government is providing "a regular, stable, honest, and enlightened administration of justice," why change it? I guess I'm just not cut out to be a revolutionary!
What struck me the most as I read the article was the word INTEREST. As Emily mentioned, Kent built much of his argument against universal sufferage on the fact that only those who have land have a vested interest in the government. He believed that those who were not landowners would be disinterested in participating in the government and would make foolish choices because the outcomes would not affect them greatly. Buel says that "every citizen whose circumstances do not render him necessarily dependant on the will of another, should possess a vote in electing those, by whose conduct his propert, his reputation, his liberty, and his life may be almost materially affected." I agree with Buel that it is not just landowners who are materially affected by the government, and I also agree that all those who are affected should be given the right to vote. However, as I read I began to think about America today and about how disinterested most Americans are in their government. Today, many people take their voting rights for granted. Even though all Americans are materially affected by the choices their governement is currently making, it would be a miracle to have all Americans interested enough to cast their vote on a consistant basis. As I read the article, I wondered what Kent would think if he knew that suffrage has been extended to all citizens 18 years and older and yet many of those people do not think twice about using that power.

Edited by author 09-13-2002 10:53 AM
To properly examine the debate between Kent (who favors only landowners right to vote) and Buel (who favors voting rights for all citizens)it is imperative to keep the time period in perspective and to keep an open mind. If we approach this issue from a modern perspective most people would agree with Buel. However even in modern times (most recently the 2000 Election) their are rumors that cigarettes are being given to the poor to influence their vote. Unfortunately practices like these have always affected elections. However, this fact alone is not a good reason to deny American citizens the right to vote. As David Gladden pointed out earlier (when he changed Kent's quote around to support universal suffrage); anything but universal suffrage brings about "corruption, injustice, violence, and tyranny," Giving the poor and uneducated the right to vote for the reprensentatives who make decisions that affect them is an absolutely neccessary action.

The universal suffrage debate in New York in 1821 seemed to be a contrast of styles.

Kent seemed to be the sort of man who was taking too much information from the past for literal present day application. He seems to think that a man would not be able to make an informed decision about the person to vote to the Senate unless he has property. This argument would hold true in the day of the founding fathers. I think that the crux of his argument was that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when the law was passed that only those who possessed $250 worth of land should be allowed suffrage. So, he takes the stand that elements and issues of society in the day of the founding fathers are the same elements and issues of the present day. This might be true, but the ways of solving these issues must evolve with society.

I would have to agree with Mr. Buel's argument. He does realize that the founding fathers made the law the way it was because of the political climate of the day. He does a good job in agreeing with the founding fathers and seems to think that it was the right decision at the time. He does, however, have more forward thinking than Kent. He argues that the state of education will remarkably assist those who possess less or no land and will help them make decisions for the Senate. He also effectively argues that when the bulk of the land is in the hands of the few, dissention and anger among the bulk of the population builds and ultimately will result in rebellion.

Buel defenitely seems to be a forward thinker and has been educated about the faults of the past. Kent seems to have good intentions but does not know where America will be heading if his argument is accepted.

Kent seemed to believe that there is no need for universal sufferage. He felt that the way the constitution was set up is the way it should be. He believed that the founding fathers made the sufferage law the way they did because the landed elite are the only ones informed enough to make the "right" decision. He believed that if the law was to change then it will set the country back and we will lose the possibility of being the hieght of civilization. Also he states that since the ideals of the day are the same as they were when the country was founded that nothing should change.
Buel seems to be thinking a little more towards the future. He does realize that the founding fathers set up the constitution how they did because of the ideals of the day. What Buel realizes is that they also saw that there would be a need for changes and that they left a way to do so. He realizes that there needs to be a change in order to allow the majority of the population, the white male population, to have a say.

       As a previous speaker pointed out, the way to ensure instability, corruption, bribery, etc. is to not grant universal suffrage. I would like to make the broad claim that greed, corruption, and other various and assundry misdeeds are inevitable in any established nation. Whether that be the rich getting richer or the poor living off the aristocrats' wealth, it is the nature of a group of humans to want more money and to do things (legal and illegal) to get it. Feelings subside and evil abounds. Look at today for any needed examples. Authorities bribe politicians, businessmen launder and wealthy athletes get off easy for crimes they commit. Ghettos abound with muggings and murders, pushers feed addicts, and poor blue-collar workers sometimes cheat on their April 15 forms. My point is simple. Crimes of the heart and of the law are inevitable in any system, whether that be a system ruled by property-owning white guys or the common man. An agrarian, communal society is the only way to avoid it.

The debate on suffrage in 1821 was a well-presented and thought out argument by each individual. Chancellor Kent in his argument draws on the ideals of the upper class landowners and their right to wield a greater power than that of the lower class. What Kent sees in universal suffrage is a repeating of the past mistakes of European societies and claims that if universal suffrage has never worked why should it work in America. Kent contends that the land is still the major money maker and life force of the country and therefore the people who till the land and provide for the country should be the ones who form the leaders and make the laws of the society. Property, Kent asserts, should be the main focus of government and the people who own it should run the political sphere.

Buel on the other hand gives a very convincing stance for the idea of universal suffrage. Maintaining that the idea of restricted voting rights is outdated, Buel fervently argues that the once necessary restriction on the grounds of landownership now has no bearing on the abiliy of the common people to govern society effectively. Buel simply asks, "But are arguments, drawn from the state of society in Europe, applicable to our situation?" What Buel sees is a glaring contradiction in ideals, in which landowners have rights that leaseholders, who are just as important to society, do not have.

What these debates essentially become focused on is the idea of past versus present. Kent believes that the mistakes of the past in European society show us that these restrictions are necessary; while Buel asserts that these past mistakes are not easily repeated in American society which has an utterly different culture and set of circumstances. Aside from this argument of past versus present they also focus on the idea of voting based on land ownership. Kent believing that the landowners have earned a right to vote and maintain a higher status in society than the common man. "Our country freeholders are exclusively our jurors inteh administration of justice, and there is equal reason that none but those who have an interest in the soil, should have any concern in the composition of that court." (Kent, p16) Buel believing that the landowner in present times is no more educated or more important than the common man and that property should have no bearing on the suffrage debate. "Property is only one of the incidental rights of the person who possesses it; and, as such, it must be made secure; but it does not follow, that it must therefore be represented specifically in any branch of government." (Buel, p36)

     To read this debate with the knowledge of how the politics of our country have unfolded, allows for a very unique and critical judgement of the opinions of these two men. It seems quite obvious which of these men I would have supported in 1821 and in most part still would today. If we were to look at the voting records from the last non-presidential elections in any particular state, I think that the names that appear on the records would be those who have a vested interest in the government. It almost strikes me as funny that, especially in more recent times, as more and more people have gained suffrage, the percentage of the population who actually registers and votes is probably remarkably close to the percentage that voted before suffrage was granted universally.
     In order to determine who was more accurate in their predictions, all we have to do is look at our politics today. So few of those who are able to participate in selecting the representatives who make the laws that govern THEIR OWN LIVES, actually choose to. This alone makes me realize that Mr. Kent was a man who was very very well versed in the history of politcs and the nature of suffrage. He predicts exactly what has happened in the age of universal suffrage. "There is a tendency in the poor to covet and to share the plunder of the rich; in the debtor to relax or avoid the obligation of contracts." Wow! Does that not sound exactly like today? The wealthy are forced to redistribute their wealth to the poor through programs such as Social Security where those who put in the most get nothing in return and those who put in nothing get the most. Our country is in more debt that we can imagine. Debtors have relaxed and forgotten theor obligations though evidence of the massive amount of debt.
    In my opinion, this is a very interesting debate, that at it's core, is still alive today. And Mr. Kent's arguement is still the most well developed, well researced and most logical, even today.

Edited by author 09-13-2002 11:49 AM
Hey, what's with all the Buel-sympathizers?! Yeah, Kent's argument doesnt' seem to appeal to a humanitarian slant, his argument doesn't flow like his "honourable friend's", and I also think he sometimes digresses from the Republican point of view (?).
 But i think he's got a valid point. See, for the first time, this property-holding qualification for voting makes sense! I always thought it was a blindly self-interested platform of the arrogant rich. And yeah, it is that to some extent, but if you listened to Dr. B's lecture, the Republican -- Kent's -- perspective makes a ton more sense. Anyone without property is immediately dependent on someone. Think of a homeless man: by his very nature, he is dependent on someone or some THING to live, to eat, to survive! What does this mean? He is a PAWN for the democratic politician. Give him bread and you instantly have his vote -- regardless of what his true political beliefs are. This is the CRUX of Kent's argument. I'd love to bore your ears with the specifics of what was going on at the end of the Roman Republic, how the poor, whose land was confiscated by the greedy rich when they were off to war, suddenly became pawns of the rich politicians b/c they had become landless. This led to the growth of political giants like Marcus Crassus, who bought his army from the landless Italians, and used this mercenary army to achieve his self-interested goals. Chancellor Kent is calling for property qualifications, not so that the rich can dogmatically dominate politics (although this is a veritable concern, no?) but SO THAT the people voting aren't those who are greatly dependence on anyone else for their sustenance and thus might likely be swayed by opportunistic demagogues. I hope this makes sense. And sorry about waiting till the last minute. HEY, by the way, didn't the class largely agree that poor people in society are those prey to fiery demagogues?
Thanks for reading.

I agree with Brittany's point that Kent's arguments in the suffrage debate appeal directly to the fears of America's first leaders of their new freedom and liberty loving republic following the same pattern of corruption as the failed republics preceeding them. With America, the founding fathers had the opportunity to create a nation they felt would be impervious to the evils which destroyed past great nations, and they felt that ensuring suffrage for the property owners would America's success. I understand the importance of learning from past mistakes, but also agree with Buell in his argument against Kent that America is not like England in several ways, so it has the great possibility to make it's own history that is different than any nation that went before it. America was unlike any nation that existed before it in that it was the complete under dog when it won it's independence from the super power Great Britain, as we discussed in Dr. O'Neill's History of the South course over the summer, and so it's history was already so distinct that I would have to agree with Buell and say change in voting regulations is necessary even if it is unprecedented.

Edited by author 09-16-2002 09:30 AM
        James Monroe may not be on your “Top Five Presidents of All Time” list. He may not have much more associated with his name in history than his foreign relations policy and doctrine of 1823. He was not an overwhelming life-changing leader, but he was a smart politician. And I mean that in the worst way possible.
 
        Monroe was a president that stressed impartiality on nearly every issue that grazed his desk, maintaining a neutral, stand-off perspective on the economic and social dealings of the United States during his terms. He made no real enemies among his people, but he exemplifies a strong characteristic of a worthless politician. It is one thing to not stir conflict, but it is another to stir nothing. Monroe, like many men and women in office today, was concerned with being re-elected and maintaining a good reputation for himself while in the chief executive role. He advanced no progress toward the betterment of his nation with the exception of speaking some words to Congress about European matters, words that were actually written by his Secretary of State and not himself. I get frustrated with “leaders” that refuse to get involved in major issues that matter, in Monroe’s case the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise. I understand that we have division of power in government, and that Congress can handle things on their own, but I simply find it discouraging when the president of this nation, a nation that values hard work above all else, chooses not to take a stance or speak out because he doesn’t want to get his hands dirty. James Monroe was a smart politician, but a cowardly, inefficient president.

        Kent’s argument over the aristocrat’s control in an election and the poor man’s dependency issue makes sense. It makes perhaps more sense than Buel’s. In a perfect world, I would embrace it with love, but we do not live in a utopia.

        Kent’s argument is a perfect philosophy with many assumptions, and his arguments simply can not hold up in a realistic world already filled with corruption and bribery. For example, he claims that in making property a requirement for suffrage, the rich would not be able to influence the dependent poor for their vote. Even the rich man is dependent on someone or something – everyone is. This world thrives on a dollar, and everyone is out to get more. Votes are bought and bribed even in the wealthiest of circles, perhaps even more often. In fact, the influence of a vote in an aristocratic circle stands for more to gain, more power to grant, and more money to receive, whether that be in flat bribes or business deals. It’s all the same. We are all human. I feel that this is the major flaw with Kent’s argument: he assumes and indirectly says that only the rich property-owning white man should be granted the right to vote because the rich property-owning white man is more virtuous than the poor, landless fool and will therefore make unbiased, uninfluenced, unselfish decisions all the time. However, the poor man, dependent on the dollars of those above him, will always make dumb decisions and is unable to voice his mind. Besides, if a man of low status wants to give up his vote for a piece of bread, then so be it. It was a smart decision on his behalf if he needed it that badly.

This is in response to Nathan. Sure you're not thinking, like P.B. (Johnstono) discussed, with a modern mindset? I don't know if you could say "everyone [was]" dependent on someone or something in the 1820s except perhaps on God himself. At this point, Kent's argument doesn't sound like a rich vs. poor thing (it could, I'm no scholar), but an independent vs. politically maneuvarable one. Peace out.

In regards to the 1831 book, I don't think the author has chosen the most effective way to explain the year. I often have difficulty knowing whether or not the issue being discussed even happened in 1831. However, despite my struggles in determining a clear chronology (other than simply looking at the timeline of course), I think Masur does do a good job of showing how difficult a time it was to live in. He brings to light so many issues of the day, I hardly see how anyone could have kept up with, let alone had a definitive opinion on all these issues. Even though he does not seem to show how they are all connected, he does show how many different issues there were to deal with. So often, in school we are taught that many issues faced the country in the pre-Civil War years, but we are only given large time periods, such as the 1830's or 1840's I find it interesting that so many of national issues and discussions in the immediate pre-war time period, began long before.
I have not yet finished the book, so I am hoping that the end of it will tie together some of the problems I have had in reading so far.

The presentation today on Jacksonian issues can be found at (http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/h41a.htm)

 In regards to the clarity and effectiveness of Masur’s approach and portrayal of the events of 1831, I agree that the structure and wordage of his work become rather cumbersome to the reader. However, taking into account the nature of his work, which seems to me to fall somewhere comfortably between a novel and a textbook, I think that he was very efficient and concise in his presentation of the entire year and it’s events.
 More specifically, the most captivating section of the book was the initial segment on slavery and abolition. Masur encompassed all angles of the question over slavery and in many instances presented aspects of the debate that I was wholly unfamiliar with. For instance, I never realized the extent to which Southerners, even slave owners themselves, believed that slavery was such an evil and, in the case of Virginia, tried thoroughly to find some manner of ridding themselves of the institution itself. Whether their motives were purely self-interested or morally persuaded is debatable, but nonetheless, the attempts at ending slavery were there in much larger numbers than I expected. The methods and “plans” for ridding the states of the slaves and the free blacks were also quite startling. Everyone has heard of the Colonizationist movement and Liberia, but plans such as “acquiring Texas and making it an independent black state” seems so outrageous in hindsight (57). The idea of sending slaves “home” to Africa now seems like one of the most ridiculous ideas in American history. If that is not a violation of supposed American ideals then I don’t know what is.
I was also very impressed with the efforts of Masur to continually tie together events previously discussed in order to display the relationship between specific events, such as the Nat Turner revolt, and the reactions of lawmakers and the elite.
More than anything, however, Masur portrays the ominous indications of a future conflict. Whether in the letters of travelers such as Tocqueville or Beaumont or in the journals of statesmen, Masur illustrates the incredible tension of sectionalist issues and slavery nearly thirty years before they would finally erupt.

This may be an admission of my own ignorance, but I never could have imagined that in the course of merely one year, so many pivotal events occurred that could effect a nation's future. I enjoyed the way that Masur ties in the eclipse as to signify that the times were changing.
The most intriguing part of the book was that of the Anti-Masons, and how politicians were quick to jump on the "band-wagon" , such as Wirt, to gain supporters, and starting the Anti-Mason party. Even thought the Anti-Masonic party didnt succeed, in some way this attests to Richard P. McCormick's theory that parties perpetuate themselves, and that beliefs change in every election.
Also, in reading some of the events, a reader can really feel the tensions building between the "North" against the "South". Not just on the issue of slavery, but also on the nullification of tariffs.
Although this books chronology kind of threw me off in the beginning, the way that Masur illustrates the events that occurred in 1831 briefly but very efficiently.

1831 was not just a year of the solar eclipse but also one of ideals and beliefs coming to a head. Unlike the solar eclipse of 1831, which resulted in a far less dramatic display than expected, the tension felt among Americans grew to unprecedented proportions. People everywhere felt the foundations of the Nation tremor and the dividing line between North and South rise. Slavery was that line, and choices had to be made.
Tocqueville on page 45 of the book offers an interesting theory. He postulates that there were two options concerning slavery- 1.)Americans "could educate, emancipate, and intermingle with the black population" or 2.) "remaining isolated from them, keep them in slavery as long as possible". Debate between these two ensued across the Nation. However ,in reading Masur's book, I feel that neither of those options were completely sufficient nor followed by the North or South.
The North, although advocates for freedom, didn't see blacks as equals. Even free black men were shunned in Northern society to the point that Tocqueville questioned that if the races "do not intermingle in the North of the Union, how should they mix in the South?" (p.44). It is true that the North did not practice slavery to the extent that the South did, but nonetheless they held the blacks within social chains.
The South choosing to physically enslave blacks were unable to isolate themselves. They were directly affected by the life and activities of their black helpers. Especially in 1831, when Turner revolted, blacks were impossible to ignore. Life apart from black influence seemed an impossibility.
Therefore Tocqueville's options, in my opinion, seem limiting and inaccurate in comparison to reality. The North certainly was able to mascarade as abolitionists while enslaving blacks within society, and the South, through time, found it to be exceedingly difficult to ignore or constrain the black uprising that seemed at hand.

I agree with Corey—it’s mind-boggling that so many history-changing events could have taken place within such a short time of each other. It is no wonder that these people believed the world would end with the coming of a solar eclipse. As Dr. Benson pointed out earlier in this course, it is sometimes hard for us, caught up in our own modern thoughts and actions, to comprehend how past generations rationalized their thoughts and forgot about their own pasts. In the section “Slavery and Abolition,” Nat Turner’s lawyer, Thomas R. Gray is quoted as describing Turner’s revolt as “the first instance in our history of an open rebellion of the slaves.” Exactly how far back does Mr. Gray’s history go? In 1739 in South Carolina, a rebellious band of 150 slaves stormed plantations along the Stono River, brutally torturing and murdering the slave owners and their families, leaving their decapitated heads on their front porches and setting their plantations on fire. In 1800, Gabriel Prosser, a slave in Virginia, organized a group of slaves to seize Richmond. In 1811, it took over 300 white men, planters and soldiers mainly, to put down a rebellion of slaves in Louisiana. In 1822, the Vesey affair took place in Charleston, an extremely well organized mass conspiracy by slaves to storm arms magazines and lay siege to the city. In 1823, Bob Ferebee led a ragged group of runaway slaves on a killing rampage in Virginia, killing several white people. Although Nat Turner’s rebellion was the last and most gruesome significant revolt before the Civil War, it was not, by any means, the “first” or only of its kind. Mr. Gray and his peers seem to have forgotten these previous slave uprisings in favor of keeping up pretenses of a happy, contented slave society in which the slaves had nothing but kind feelings towards their masters. Masur goes on to point out, however, that not all Southerners shared Gray’s distorted views of slavery as an institution. With the publication and widespread support of William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, Masur demonstrates that not all Southerners favored keeping slavery, but that some agreed with the North that the institution was past its prime and should be ended once and for all. The problem that some Southerners had was with the federal government trying to legislate the end to slavery, rather than allowing individual states to bring an end to the bondage in their own time and on their own terms.

Edited by author 09-19-2002 07:26 PM
 "1831" provides quite an interesting paradox in the area of assessing the importance of dates. There are those that would refer to dates merely as arbitrary schedule-conveniences, while others would hold that months and years are as important as the actual events that happen within them. I find myself caught right in the middle of this very dilemma. On the one hand, it is hard to ignore all of the specific, historically monumental events that happened within the 12 months from January to December of 1831 that Masur focuses on. However, with each specific event, one is forced to analyze and interpret the trends and animosities that preceded and followed. Thus, importance may be assigned to both surrounding factors and actual dates.
 Placing the relative importance of the date issue aside for a moment, I would like to focus on another aspect of the book--the one that struck me as most fascinating. I found myself mesmerized with how many of the individuals quoted in the book, at various times around 1831, seriously worried about the inevitability of civil war. Topics such as tariffs, slavery, and nullification led people so far as to, almost prophetically, assert that the Union would one day be stretched to the limit if the current political paths did not change. From the evidence provide, though, one could almost sense the dividing entities of the United States even in 1831. Many southern states became worried about tariffs and protection of their agricultural interests, and also about the respect they were receiving as bona fide, legitimate representatives to be listened to in Congress. Northern manufacturers, conversely, wanted their economic interests protected. Moreover, political debates were running awry when some southern states felt they had the right to nullify laws that they deemed harmful to their interests.
 One more note...I found this to be, on the whole, a good book. However, I felt that if any section was indeed superfluous, it was Audubon section. Granted, the emphasis on nature was important, and then there was the idea of wealthy people being able to purchase huge paintings of birds, but I just felt like this section did not mesh well with the rest of the book. I feel that Masur's pages on politics, and particularly Jackson, were his strongest. As I mentioned previously, though, "1831" is a very interesting read. It is always amazing to see how certain concrete events can be expanded to encompass the abstract, broad ideas and forces of an age.

In 1831, Masur presents a candid portrayal of American society in the Jacksonian era. Through use of the thoughts and opinions of foreigners and prominent Americans, Masur is able to accurately convey the sense of uncertainty and need for reform that characterized the year. While I don't really feel that the references to the eclipse of the year were particurarly helpful, it was a creative way to tie everything together.
After reading 1831, what struck me the most was the overwhelming trend of greed and selfishness that seemed to characterize American society--especially concerning the issue of slavery. Yes, legislatures and prominent people discussed the evils of slavery and the need for emancipation, but only conditionally. Most people only wanted slaves freed if it was either financially benficial to them or if it was possible to eradicate the black population at the same time. As the English traveller Thomas Hamilton noted, "slavery has only ceased in those portions of the Union, in which it was found to be a burden on the industry and resources of the country"(37). The inability of the citizens to envision blacks and whites living together peaceably foreshadowed all the coming strife over the slavery issue. As Rusty mentions, the people of 1831 knew thirty years ahead of time that civil war was probably unavoidable.
The religious revitalization that occurs at this time also reflects a little bit of the selfishness that marked 1831. I'm not going to debate whether traditional calvinistic doctrines are correct or not, but I found it interesting that beliefs tended to switch to that of free will. As Masur writes, "religion had been turned into a business of self-examination"(79). People turned away from the thought that God controlled their lives and instead decided that they controlled their destiny. Maybe selfishness is too harsh a word to describe this revitalization, but it was defintely a move towards individualism.
Greed and selfishness were apparent in the politics of 1831,but there was also an underlying need for real reform. In the midst of the Indian removal, financial problems, and the instability of the white house infrastructure, there was a real push to try and make things better for society as a whole. Workers were trying to better the lives of the lower classes with shorter work days and more reasonable handling of debt. There was also the improvement of the transportaion system that provided a glimmer of hope to a nation caught in the midst of uncertainty and greed. Masur does a commendable job of pointing out some of the positives in a year that seemed mostly full of problems.
All in all, I think 1831 is a thorough exploration of all aspects of society during that year, but it lacks the "pre-history" that is necessary to fully understand a historical event. I found 1831 to be very interesting because, due to focusing solely on that year, Masur offered insights into American society that are not generally offered in generic textbooks.

Masur's use of Tocqueville's insights and opinions on the condition of the United States in 1831 was essential to my understanding of the period. Tocqueville seemed to see not only the issues and struggles of the country through eyes no one else seemed to have, but also the future of the country. The best part about Tocqueville, to me, is how he not only understands what's going, but knows how to put his thoughts into words that are quite easy to understand. For example, Tocqueville claimed if emancipation of slavery were to happen, then "the Negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle", but also wondered if they "do not intermingle in the North of the Union, how should they mix in the South?" He explains that abolishing slavery was not as easy a solution as we today think it was. Masur also points out many ideas and arguments amongst the slave states concerning the emancipation of slaves. As I eluded to in my previous posting, this was surprising to me. It never crossed my mind that there were advocates of emancipation in southern states. I also have always given the southern states a bad rap concerning their attitude towards the issue. Masur rebuked me quite well in that he showed the reasons why abolishing slavery immediately, or even gradually, were simply not feasible at the time.

My feeling is that on the whole, Masur opened my eyes to the realities of 1831, and helped to cast aside my surpringly stereotypical impressions. Perhaps his greatest strength in this book was simply spelling out the issues, their importance, and how they connected to one another and other surrounding circumstances. This was not a hard book to follow, apart from the complexity of some of the issues introduced.

The book 1831, in my mind, displayed a very vivid portrayal of a very turbulent and important time in the history of America. First of all I thought that Maysur had a very thorough and well-designed writing style that incorporated a very large amount of information. It is clear that he is a very polished writer, but at times I also thought that his thoughts got a little muttled and a little tenuous to read. However, after getting through the writing it was an extremely interesting book. As with most of the class, I thought it was amazing that so much happened in such a short period of time that would impact the whole of the United States. I thought the most interesting and eye-opening topic in 1831, was the discussion on slavery and abolition. I thought it was alarming how brutal slavery was not only physically but mentally for the slave as well. I also found it very intriguing how at this time even people who opposed slavery vehemently still did not advocate an immediate abolishment. They knew that this would not only create a dilemma for the slaveholding south but also for the slaves themselves. William Lloyd Garrison is portrayed in the book as being a stout abolitionist (especially after his imprisonment). I was never aware of how revolutionary Garrison actually was in his thinking, to be so adamant yet rational in his dealings with the idea of slavery some 30 years before it would escalate into the civil war. One very common misinterpretation of history is the idea that the south was evil and viewed slavery as right and reasonable, when in fact most of America saw slavery as wrong and one Georgia planter even went so far as to say it was "the one great plague of America." (42) Maysur does an excellent job of discussing the slavery issue from both sides, making sure to acurately portray the sentiments of the times. Aside from the slavery issue I also thought the religous revivals of the time period were interesting as well. As had been mentioned earlier by a classmate, the view began to change from a Calvinistic predestination to a more individualistic approach. This approach was used in the preachings of Finney who began to look at an individuals worth and decision making and rely less on the works of God. "No idea was more important to the day than the belief that man had the power to improve society, perhaps even to perfect it, and in so doing help usher in the milennium." (72)
Another glaring theme in this book, and one that we briefly touched on in class yesterday was the era of Jacksoninan democracy under which all these events occurred. In my opinion Andrew Jackson is one of the most, if not the most, intriguing president of all time. His rugged appeal and no holds barred attitude captivated the American people. Jackson's views also contributed to the removal of the Native Americans, a very important, and still hotly debated topic today. Although many opposed Jackson and the cloud that hovered over his marriage, he was still widely popular and was re-elected. I thought that it was fascinating to see all the negative press and images that surrounded Jackson, yet it never seemed to phase him or his popularity with voters. With the frontier image of Jackson engrained in the people's minds it shows how important that aspect of American culture was during the 1830's.
Mayur's book, 1831, was a very interesting read and I thought a very unique stance in discussing one year of American history. The idea of discussing all of these historical events through the hotly anticipated eclipse was very cool, and presented an interesting way to examine the feelings and belief structure of the time before ever talking about the political and social ramifications of 1831.

"1831" is a book that offers insight not only on the the time period in which it deals, but it also makes me wonder what events are happening in the world around me that will have an impact on my future and the future of the country. Masur creates a portrait of America which is quite strong not only becasue of it's deapth but because of it's breath. Masur's use of prominent characters in the history of United States to show the varied events that took place in the course of a single year, and the impact of these events on the future of the country is well done. The use of the solar eclipse as a metaphore resonates strongly through his work and helps to provide a theme to his story. The eclipse is applied to many different areas of life in the United States and helps to tie these varied aspects of life together. Masur does a good job of demonstrating the importance of slavery in the United States in 1831. I did not have nearly as good a grasp on the complexity of the slavery question as it stood in 1831 before I read the book. Masur explains clearly the problems and proposed solutions of the time and presents them in an interesting manner by using the historical figures of the time.

I think that Masur took an interesting position on the importance of dates by writing his book as he did. By choosing to set the book up in a subject group format, as opposed to a more chronological format, Masur demonstrates the importance of time in each area of his book but not time as an overarching theme. For example, he might choose to focus on events in the area of religion that occured in July and then in August, but he does not tie these events into the overall timeline of events very well. Many events of grat importance took place in 1831 and Masur does a good job of presenting them in a critical light for the reader.

I find it very interesting that Masur uses the eclipse on Feb. 12th, 1831 to symbolize the American political and religious thought of the actual year of 1831. The eclipse, just like the new reform-minded thought among some Americans, "proved (to be) anticlimatic"(5). To see this, one would have to look no further than Masur's writings on slavery and the ideas of abolition to see my point. Masur started off with the Turner revolt in Southhampton, Va, and thus sets the stage for a long line of reform attempts in 1831 that failed. Of course, we all know Turner's revolt was short lived (2 days) and ultimately ended up being a failure. William Lloyd Garrison and his “Liberator” called for the immediate emancipation of slaves. Once again, we all know there was no immediate emancipation of the slaves in 1831 and thus again another failed attempt for freedom of slaves. Lastly, something that must have had some celestial involvement was the actual debate in the Virginia Legislature over the gradual abolition of slaves. Who would have thought a southern state would even mention such an idea? Unfortunately, once again, slavery was left intact, and no end to slavery could be seen in the near future. What do all these things have in common? Well, the fact that no immediate changes took place, and American society was right back where it was before 1831. This reminded me of the eclipse. There was short-lived excitement over something that turned out to be a disappointment for those who were excited about it. In the end, everything was the way it was before, and the "multitudes” were "sadly disappointed" (5). This is exactly what happened with abolition hopes in 1831. The abolitionists and even slaves had a short-lived excitement that maybe slavery was coming to an end. Of course, most people didn’t expect slavery to end in 1831, just like most people knew that the eclipse would change nothing. However, that didn’t stop people from thinking that things might change. Change would not come for the slaves of America until the 1860’s, but the seeds of emancipation were planted during that short-lived excitement in 1831.

After reading "Eclipse" I share the same sentiments with my fellow students, that of disbelief when faced with so many important happenings in one year. It kind of got me thinking, "What if someone writes a book about the year 2002 some day? What would the important events be and who would be quoted?" and other related questions. The section of this book dealing with slavery and all the various viewpoints was so powerful I could not put it down. I had always thought of the question of slavery as a cut and dry, north versus south kind of thing, but now I see that many Southerners saw the flaws in the system and that many Northerners could be equally contemptible for their prejudice to freed blacks. I could feel my skin crawl every time someone was quoted about sending the slaves back to Africa, or crying for "their immediate removal from among us."
The way the book is organized was a definite bonus because I could read the different sections in whatever order suited my mood at the time without feeling like I had lost something in the sequence. As earlier mentioned, the section about Audubon seemed less significant than the rest of the sections of the book, but overall the book showed a good deal of unity for such a broad range of topics. I'll have to say that the most interesting part of the whole book for me was the part where the Freemasons jailed and kidnapped William Morgan for threatening their secret code. Kind of makes me wonder what they have that's so secret and why they would have to kill a man to protect it. His death reminds me a bit of Jimmy Hoffa in the way he has never been found.

Like practically everyone so far has mentioned, I was impressed at the author's structuring the book around one year. I am curious whether he began this book becuase he stumbled upon the fact that all these events happened to take place in 1831 or whether he set out to write about that from the beginning. I find it interesting though that the "anticlimatic" eclipse was used as a metaphor for "anticlimatic" events that took place over the year. In other words, many things happened but not much dramatically changed. Of course the events of 1831 was anticlimatic. Most of history is anticlimatic. However, it is those "smaller" events that change history, sometimes more than the most dramatic reforms, wars, and upheavals. Foundations were set in place here, which I believe is what Masur was trying to show. The thing that bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of America that is displayed in this book. Not that I have room to talk. The progress of the United States in its 55th year was undermined by some upsetting events. The treatment of African slaves and Indians being the most glaring. I wonder why there wasn't a William Lloyd Garrison earlier than this time. Why were we so prejudiced against Indians to kick them out of their land? Their stories depicted in this book, like the fate of Wi-jun-jon, makes me believe progress is not worth steamrolling these people. Even a religious revival, something that has potential for great good, brought division. So in 1831, the lines continue to be drawn. Those smaller events led to big things and Masur does a good job of showing it. Overall, I liked the book. It was slow in parts, but overall it gave a good feeling for the time period.

I really enjoyed the layout of this book. The division of the book into chapters which layed out the topic of discussion was very helpful in understanding the thing. Like many of the others have said, it really makes you think about what issues would be addressed in an "2002" book. i loved the way the issue was layed out and different opinions were tossed out about the idea and then the opinions were backed up by each person. The issue of slavery interested me the most. Some favored it and some wanted immediate emancipation. However, it seems that if the slaves were freed without any "preparation" then their lives, in my opinion, would be worse. They would go to the north and not have a job and end up struggling to survive, while in the South, although slavery was whacked up, the slaves were, for the most part, taken care of because they were property. Seeing many sides concerning this issue, and every other one, was very good in helping me form my own opinions. The book was great and i actually enjoyed reading it and i am kind of, and i stress kind of , lookin forward to our research.

Upon first reading the title of Masur’s book, I was bewildered at the thought of 1831 as having any historical importance. Throughout my schooling, my brain was hammered with important dates such as 1066, 1776, 1861, 1945 just to name a few. However, I had never thought of 1831 as fitting into this list of pivotal years in history. As I soon found out, I was very wrong.

1831 was a year filled with drama. Events ranging from Nat Turner’s Rebellion to the Second Great Awakening in Upper New York to the issue of nullification in the state of South Carolina occupied the minds of Americans throughout the year. More important, however, is each of these events played into the other, either as a cause, an effect, or a secondary branch of an earlier issue. For instance, following Nat Turner’s Rebellion we find the Virginia Legislature debating the gradual emancipation of slaves. As a direct result of the increased tariffs, South Carolina turns to nullification and its stance of a state’s rights sovereignty over the national government. Also, playing into this crisis of state’s rights versus the national government are the issues of the Federal Bank and the relocation of the Cherokee nation. Lastly, during this period we find the formation of the two party system in which the Whigs are in favor of giving power to the national government, and the Democrats are in favor of state’s rights.

Before I continue, I must say that I noted two very interesting comments made within the book. First and foremost, on page 29, Masur makes an interesting comment about William Lloyd Garrison and his idea for the emancipation of the slaves. As Masur states, “Garrison believed in the Christian doctrine of nonresistance, that evil should not be resisted by force; moral, not violent, means would transform public opinion and bring an end to slavery.” It is ironic that the idea of non-violence was not used in the emancipation of slaves in 1831 nor in 1861. Secondly, I was also struck by Hamilton’s premonition that slavery would end in a great war. Masur quotes Hamilton saying, “’My own conviction is, that slavery in this country can only be eradicated by some great and terrible convulsion’”(38).

Looking back, I find the overall theme of the book to be extremely poignant. As Sam previously stated, the great eclipse of 1831 is symbolic of the excitement that embodied the American public during the year. Just as the excitement and fear of the great eclipse embodied the minds of the people, so did the events that were happening all around them. And yet, just as when the eclipse passed and everything returned to normal, so did the great events of 1831 settle, and the public moved on following that year. Like Sam said, 1832 was just like 1830. Or was it? Yes, the events settled and the crises of nullification and the bank and the decision not to emancipate the slaves in Virginia were resolved. The United States returned to a somewhat normal state, but 1831 was a pivotal year. For the first time the United States was truly divided between North and South. A division between the political parties had occurred, South Carolina had threatened nullification and, in a sense, secession. The division between the North and the South can further be seen with the beginning of the abolitionist movement with the founding of William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator. The events that occurred in 1831 will come to a boiling point exactly 30 years later as the country was eclipsed once again, only this time by the sound of cannon fire on Fort Sumter. The great eclipse of 1831 had a dramatic impact on the United States as it set the stage for the future crisis to come.

The general consensus of the class thus far seems to be that everyone found Masur's "1831" informative and entertaining, and I would have to agree with that. Masur writes with a writing style that seems to pull you into the times you are reading about and experience firsthand the tension and conflict of the year, unlike the dry format of typical history textbooks. My only complaint of the book is that I would have preferred to read a history more chronologically oriented. I often became confused as to when the events were occurring and how they fell into the big picture, but overall the stories were lively and very readable.
Again, agreeing with many of my classmates, I found the sections on slavery the most interesting. Like Andy, I had always thought of the slavery issue as the stereotypical North/South conflict. I often wondered why it was so hard for the Union to abolish slavery, and when it eventually began to occur, why it happened so slowly and with so much objection of the South. Reading this book definitely opened my eyes to a new perspective on the issue. It is now a lot easier to see the "bigger picture" and how all the other events and problems of the times affected the abolition of this institution.
Towards the end of the book, I found a passage that struck me as a powerful, yet true statement of the times. Frances Trollope, author of three novels containing her impressions of America, stated that, "You will see [Americans] with one hand hoisting the cap of liberty, and with the other flogging their slaves (210)." I feel that this statement accurately portrays the sentiments of the Union concerning slavery during 1831 and throughout this period of Jacksonian Democracy.

Edited by author 09-20-2002 01:23 AM
I agree with my classmates that the sequences of events described in 1831 was often stunning. I was very suprised that so many pivotal events were located in (or at least around) a single year. Yet one notion gnawed at me: where do we look for significance in what we do now? The many seemingly earth-shattering events of 1831 mean nothing to most people today--even the Cherokee Indian removal, about which Mr. Wirt said that "Remember, the Cherokee nation!" would silence "the proudest boasts we [America] can ever make" (p. 123), is remembered by many Americans in the same way they remember John Wayne. I'll admit that I know it was an important event, but its not changing my life. Do we think that the things we put so much significance in will hold any sway in the future? I know I'm sounding like the author of Ecclesiastes, but is there a point to all these endeavours? Do we expect people to remember our time for anything more than the events surrounding the September 11 attacks or the economic downturn? Well, enough of that.
I found the religious thing interesting mostly in one respect: Charles Finney was a Presbyterian! I would never have thought that, considering his teachings. Ok, yeah, well, I just thought it was sorta funny.
Masur's narration, though dragging at times--as noted by others--seemed strongest in the story of the Second Bank of the United States. The entire conflict between Jacksonians and Federalists/Whigs over federal powers was very interesting. The adversarial exultations of Justice Story and President Jackson are stirring, and the examination of the reasoning behind the veto of the bank charter or court opinions in the Cherokee controversy was very interesting. The heated conflict over state's rights between the developing parties seemed to form a base line to many of 1831's political vignettes. Does anyone thing there is a similar pervading issue behind American politics of, say, the last decade?

Like everyone I found that this book made 1831 a lot more significant in my mind than ever before. I was interested to see such a large number of issues exist in one year and that one can already see the great divide between the two sides. I was also disturbed by the way the people of this time period acted. It was not that long ago that the United States was founded yet no one seemed to remember the philosophy it was built on. Yes, the whole freedom thing and rights for all was never really aknowledged except in the cases of white men but there were other ideals that the founding fathers had. The enlightenment and John Locke's theories about the state are completely forgotten. When a state is formed the people of that state must vote with the general welfare in mind so that the state may continue to exist.Everyone is out for themselves in this time period. Many states brought up states' rights and they just wanted to do what suited them best and not what would achieve the greatest good for the whole country. They acted like spoiled little kids who were concerned only with what they had and who was getting more than them. Also the American dream seems to have blown up in their faces. No one is concerned with the general wellbeing of the state anymore. They are only concerned with making money and expanding to achieve their own dream.
   The politicians of this time also bother me greatly. At times they don't listen to their constituents at all. When petitions were being signed all over the place to let the Cherokees keep their land there was hardly anything done about it. It was only those who were in the government who had any say about it. The politicians seemed to be more concerned with the gossip and drama of DC than the actual decisions that they would be making.
   Masur's book is great at showing how in just one year so many things can culminate or begin. It seems as if this year marked the beginning of one era and the end of another.

Beginning this book, I was skeptical as to what relevant happened in 1831 that an entire book was written about it. But after reading, I realized the many small events that took place were extremely relevant in the years to follow on the issue of slavery mainly. Masur placed importance on each event in 1831, pointing all aspects in the same direction- furthering differences between the North and the South. The chapter on slavery brought out the idea that it wasn't a clear cut divide between North/South before this year. Opinions with in the regions on the actual act of enslaving another human being differed as did the opinions of how to emancipate the slaves and what do to with them once they were free. Before the year is over though, the distinction is clear and will reamin so. It's interesting to see how every scholar of those days saw the potential for civil war and they also saw there was no way to compromise with out that culmination. The tensions and fears that were just beginning to mount were brought out in the open during this year. Abolitionists were speaking out, especially Garrison and the "Liberator", and the controversy over tarriffs became prominant mostly to avoid the issue of slavery. Important in my understanding of the subject was the way Masur chose to organize the book into chapters with distinctive themes. This was an effective way to emphasize the importance of the year 1831 in the years to come.

Edited by author 09-20-2002 02:05 AM
Wow, by now this must sound like a broken record, but I too enjoyed the book. I feel that by separating the events of the year 1831 into five separate categories, "Eclipse," "Slavery and Abolition," "Religion and Politics," "State and Nation," and "Machines and Nature," Masur did an excellent job of organizing this book. This made it easier to understand, as Ian pointed out. Two points interested me most: slavery and Anti-Mason politics.

The issue of slavery in the South has always perplexed me. In the past I wondered why slavery wasn't abolished sooner...who cares how Southern states felt about it. It was an immoral practice that needed to end. I have learned from Masur, however, that the issue was much more complex than that. "By allowing the federal government a direct role in the disposition of slavery, Southern states would yield their autonomy"(56). Race relations were even more of an issue than I had realized...and I never knew that shipping slaves "back" to Africa had ever even been discussed. What got me most about the slavery section of this book was the way in which Masur described Nat Turner's insurrection. I cringed while reading the story of the Vaughan family.

The other section of the book that interested me was the Anti-Mason politics section. Though my father is a Mason, I hadn't realized that the Masons at one point virtually dominated politics. I also had not heard of the rumors of violence and corruption in the organization's past. Though many political office holders at the time were Masons, I really don't see the need in forming an Anti-Mason Party, or "coterie" as Tocqueville calls it. I agree with Henry Clay "that Masonry or Anti-Masonry has, legitimately, in my opinion, nothing to do with politics"(96). Personally, I believe that the Anti-Masonry party, though it was slightly effective for a short time, did very little in the grand scheme of things. As Corey Tant pointed out, it is a great example of how quick politicians are to jump on a bandwagon.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading the book, and feel that I have learned much, not only about the eclipse of 1831, but also of the events and issues that followed it.

    Ezekiel 18:31, which was read in 1831 to a congregation on 1831 Magdalen society Ln, tells of 1831 31'ers who left their Cherokee state in angst and tears, while in the same year Sue Browning's girl, Mabel (friends call her "Mabey-doo") took her first step. A handful of Masur's 1831 events are a bit of a stretch (one for sure is Monroe's death -- am I missing something in the purpose of this event?) in terms of their purpose, except to exalt this year in some extra way. But that's about the only critical thing I have to say. One thing this myriad of 1831 events show me: While historians are eager eager eager to identify general historical trends as frameworks TO all the events in history, some things just happen, too.
      The first chapter to this book, moreso even, the first QUOTE (see p. b/f the contents) made me excited about reading a well-researched (WOW), well-crafted novel of non-fiction. One weird thing I found: a paradox? INDEPENDENCE and INDIVIDUALISM do not appear to rise in parallel but in opposite directions in this history. This book shows the rise of individualism, propagated by the fiery Armenian (free-will) evangelists and manifested in the self-made President (Jackson), while our lectures of the same time in history detail the growth of interDEpendence (commerce, landless poor), which threaten the original ideals of the Republic on every front. Why is this?
    My second observation is how easily observable are the threats to the Republic in this book: Just check out pp. 84-88, with its abolition of DEBT imprisonment debate,84, increase in POVERTY (George Evans: "Poor creatures are to be seen on every corner", 85), PATRONAGE is even mentioned on 87, and state-run education (86) shows the emergence of a newly forming Republican ideology. A mention of the erie canal and its expansion discusses the meteoric rise of city life and COMMERCE in Rochester (p65). The Republic is being threatened for sure, and the creation of a new Republican ideology is certain to come (p.s. is the William Seward mentioned in the politics chapter our same W.H. Seward?)
   Third observation: The conflict of conscience and self-interest is hot! Masur's discussion of abolition shows the inner wars raging in people's minds, just look at them! They know that slavery just can't be justified in their conscience but they sit paralyzed in fear at the prospect that it might be abolished, b/c its economic benefit is terribly alluring. They scream back economic justifications: "Oh the govenment can't afford to purchase all our slaves and deport them...so let's just you know, forget about it." They refer to these human beings as property, yet they regard them as intelligent, at least smart enough to where the pro-slavery folk are afraid of them hearing about the possibility of emancipation, for fear of increased Nat Turnerage. Richard Furman, president of a huge Southern Baptist sect, even goes so far as to defend good ol' slavery (or his conscience) through God's Word (this isn't in the book, by the way). And the Indian Issue! Jackson's stupid reasoning on p125 for Indian Removal (please read it) demonstrates how he doesn't have a legitimate argument for kicking out the Indians. He knows it's inhumane, but d***it, those Indians are going. Makes you think about yourself, doesn't it? All those times we've been willing to totally deface another person either to make ourselves look superior or dominant, or maybe just to destroy them cuz we don't like them, like Jackson and the Indians.
   Well, I still need to read some more of the book. I'll add something tomorrow I hope. Thanks for reading.

I have to start out by saying that I thought 1831 read a little bit like a fifth grade history report. Masur tried to cram all the information he found about 1831, which was a great deal, and cram it all into the book. While the book was amazingly well researched, it did seem to have a few random details that never quite fit in with the rest of the big events. However, the book was informative and not painful to read; I felt that I had been enlightened about what I had previously never realized was such an apocalyptic year in American history.

I found it quite intriguing how prophetic some of the men of 1831 were. They foresaw or predicted so many important events: secession, civil war, deforestation, and even flight. This book makes it apparent just how long before Ft. Sumter the roots of the Civil War were growing into the infrastructure of the United States.

Another point on which Masur spent a long time was the Anti-Masonic movement. I knew bout similar movements against the Masons in Enlightenment Europe, but was unaware of the significance of Anti-Masonic politics in America.

It could just be the way the author presented it, but when nullification was discussed, I felt no sympathy for the Southerners. They blamed the tariff for their economic trouble, but it was largely a result of higher production on their part. It seemed to me that they were jealous, in a way, of Northern industry and the wealth it generated.

I’ll conclude by saying I’m glad I read 1831, even if I wasn’t a huge fan of his writing style. It won’t be one of those books I regret reading. Masur tied together so many event of this pivotal year in just over 200 pages. That’s quite a feat.

     As most of my classmates have previously stated, I also enjoyed Masur's book about the year 1831. I must admit that I had also underestimated the importance of the year's many historical events. I feel that my ignorance helped me enjoy this book since Masur presented me with vast loads of new information on subjects which I had had previous misconceptions about. Some of these issues included my opinion that slavery was just a clear cut North vs. South debate as Catherine and Andy have already mentioned. Another issue that I was uninformed about was the debate over Indian removal. A final segment I really enjoyed was the insight Masur presented into the turmoil facing Jackson's Presidency. As soon as I realized how little I knew about these events, I found it much easier to read the novel with great interest.
     What I loved in the novel are the quotes Masur uses to express how the different individuals who faced these varying issues felt. As a native of Virginia I found the excerpts dealing with the slavery issue following Nat Turner's rebellion the most fascinating. I really loved when Masur described the actions of Thomas Jefferson Randolph at the Virginia House of Delegates in early 1832 (60-61). Randolph had attended with the intent to propose a plan to gradually free the slaves of Virginia. Yet, as I am sure I would have done under similar circumstances, Randolph crumbled under the expectations of his namesakes and the moment. In a few short pages Masur was able to present Randolph as a human being who had the same flaws we have today. It may be easy to criticize people of power in 1831 like Randolph who were not able to instill changes that possibly might have prevented some of the future turmoil of this country, but when Masur describes the various scenes where important decisions were made with such attention to the opposing and surrounding influences, it becomes easier to relate to the pressures these men faced in their era. 1831 was an informative book, but what made it so enjoyable I feel were the insights Masur provided into the decision making processes of the year that impacted our nation so much in the next few years and decades.

I’ve never seen an author encapsulate every major event or movement that happened in the course of one year as well as Masur. His easy-to-read style and precise, flowing use of numerous quotations was both entertaining and informative. Although at times, he seems to jump without notice into a separate subject within one entry, the book is overall easily followed and packed with information. Masur easily displays his editing expertise within his own writing.

 History can be affected by many events, people, and ideas within the seemingly short 365 day cycle we dub a “year;” we can easily attest to that in our age of media and mass communication. I don’t, however, feel that Masur’s data on the pre-Civil War era is necessarily exclusive to the year 1831. It is more a year that he feels best displays the attitudes and activities encircling the early nineteenth century. History does not follow a calendar year; that is just our way of organizing it. The subjects described by Masur were affected by and affected other time periods and dates. However, using the central theme of the “eclipse” (which he surprisingly didn’t harp on as blatantly as expected), the year 1831 was a prime choice for the book.

 Overall, my impression of the work was a positive one; I enjoyed its content and found it to be very well-written for a wide audience, something I feel many historians do not appeal to. However, my impression of Americans was a negative one. I empathized more with Trollope and Tocqueville, foreign travelers, than I normally do with other textbook accounts of the period. I found issues of slavery, racism, bird-hunting, Indian removal, nullification, (I have a slightly more negative view now, even as a faithful and proud South Carolinian), anti-Mason movements, etc. to be disturbing and uncharacteristic of the typical “democratic, American” man of liberty and freedom. I now further realize that Americans at all times, as an overall population, have been simply guided by their own selfish ambitions and the little green bill with Washington’s face. It’s a sad conclusion, but it’s a realist perspective of the way things are sometimes. I am not much less proud to be an American now, but I am quite ashamed of much of our past.

    After reading "Year of Eclipse", I really like how the title and the opening prologue were used as a sort of metaphor for the year 1831 and the previous and following years. Masur did a really great job of demonstrating the events of the year and how they added up to create more controversy that would ultimately lead to the civil war. Perhaps more so than ever, slavery was looked at as a legitimately inhumane act that really had to be looked into being changed. Nat Turner's rebellion in the fall of the year scared and opened more people's eyes about what was really going on more than any other event to this date. This event led to the abolition movements becoming stronger than ever before.
    I also really liked how Masur tied in the large religious awakening that occured in the year. With more people coming out to church after moving sermons by the reverands Emerson and Finney, it is easy to understand how slavery would be looked at in an even more critical light. This connection between the slave insurrection and the sort of religious awakening that occured this year shows the growing feeling of discontent that resulted towards slavery. These two events make the year seem to be a kinda cut-off point in the sentiments of the country; before the year slavery was looked down upon but no one was about to openly call the slaveholders out on it until now.
    All in all, I thought it was an excellently researched and easy to read piece of non-fiction. It was not a stress to read, as some works can be. As for criticism, the only complaint I had was at times the reading was a bit too bogged down by too many quotes which at times made it harder to understand where Masur was going with his argument. Besides this however, it was interesting and fun. I'd say B+/A-

Before I forget, I want to give props to Masur for including our very own Joel POINSETT from South Carolina in his book. After minimal research I discovered that Joel was indeed the first man to build a road through the mountains into Greenville. It's kind of fun when you can make connections!
Earlier Jefe said, "We are willing to totally deface another person to make ourselves look superior or dominant." Right alongside that Megan said, "Everyone is out for themselves in this time period." I agree with both of these statements, and I think that 1831 was an anti-climatic year because people were not willing to look just beyond their interests to the interests of the country as a whole. People were unwilling to budge on their old stances on things such as Indian removal and slavery because they simply wanted what served them best. I really enjoyed Masur's presentation of slavery because I think he set it up in a way that really showed what a Catch-22 abolition was. While reading his chapter on slavery, I thought there is clearly no way that the country can justify slavery and slavery has to go. I loved Garrisons quote; "I am in prison for denouncing slavery in a free country!" I appreciated the opinions of the travelors from Europe who mocked America for being "free" and said that "as long as so foul a stain shall tarnish the brightness of America freedom, this otherwise prosperous, powerful, and highly civilised country, must be content to forego its proud claims to superior advantages over the rest of mankind." Then Masur would point out all the complications of abolishing slavery- where do the slaves go, they will not actually be free just becase they are let go, they will not have equal opportunities and wont be able to make it on their own, there isnt enough money to send them back to Africa, how do we deal with southern prejudices towards blacks once they are free, etc etc- and I would wonder how in the world it would be possible to free slaves. Now, I appreciate more that ending slavery wasn't an easy task, but an issue that really could only have been ended by fighting. Too many people were affected by slavery and there were too many complications involved to just end slavery.

I think that Masur's whole idea about incorporating an eclipse and an influencial list of historical events which all occured in the same year is quite interesting.
The way in which he takes basically four different topics which were the most prevelant in the day, and shows how 1831 was a year in which so much had happened that would affect the future of America as we know it. It was easy to see from this book how the "North" and the "South" would eventually be moving toward a conflict. Tariffs and slavery were just a couple of the topics that through the information in this book could easily be seen as tearing the United States apart.
I especially liked the way the eclipse was used as a way to show that times were changing. I feel like a bit juvenile saying this, but I enjoyed the works of art and photographs that were included in the different sections and really felt that they gave good perspective into the times and lives of the people.

Masur on 1831

Source: Louis P. Masur, "Louis Masur Responds to reports of Teaching _1831_," H-NET discussion list for History of the Early American Republic, 15 August 2002.)

I am grateful to Jonathan Sassi for organizing this session and to Jonathan Earle, Dan Herman, and Mike Vorenberg for assigning _1831: Year of Eclipse_ so early in its publication life and for taking the time to offer their comments.

It is perhaps worth saying something about the gestation process of 1831 because I believe it addresses, indirectly at least, some of the issues about writing and interpretation that come up in the responses. I was in my first year of graduate school (1979) when I noticed the convergence of major events that had taken place in 1831. Looking back, it now seems inevitable that I would one day write about the year. ("We live life forward, we understand it backward," the saying goes). After my first book appeared (1989), I was teaching in Southern California and I read Bernard DeVoto's _Year of Decision: 1846_. I was thinking about various approaches to history taken by non-professional historians and I proposed an essay on DeVoto for _Reviews in American History_ (see September 1990, 436-451). Reading DeVoto' s papers at Stanford had a marked effect, because I found in DeVoto a model for a writer of history who had no use for professional jargon or historiographical exegesis. From 1989-92, I had a fellowship and taught in the history and literature program at Harvard where I roamed Widener's stacks, attended lectures, and played basketball with various history department graduate students. Simon Schama's _Dead Certainties_ appeared in 1991, and again I found an appealing model for the way history could be written (I reviewed the book in the _William and Mary Quarterly_, January 1992, pp. 120-132).

And so I began 1831. But my first steps turned out to be missteps and it would take a while before I could do what Annie Dillard, in _The Writing Life_, admonishes us to do: "You must demolish the work and start over. You can save some of the sentences, like bricks. It will be a miracle if you can save some of the paragraphs." The problem was that the book as I first conceived it was a long book in which every event was a chapter and the chapters gathered in sections and the whole structure looked like an athlete on steroids. I'm allergic to thick history books. Whoever it was who first asked forgiveness for writing such a long letter because he did not have time to write a short one had it right. So it would take a while before I figured out a structure through which I could tell the interrelated stories of 1831 and write a creative synthesis of the period.

I came to the City College of New York in 1992 where I taught a course on the Civil War and started re-thinking all the material that I had accumulated. One summer day I wrote the opening line of the first part of the book, Slavery and Abolition ("The heavens darkened and Nat Turner prepared to strike"). I never looked back. This is the part that Dan Herman assigned to his students. Of course, I wish he had compelled them to read the three other parts as well, because the themes of race, religion, states rights, and foreign understandings of the American experiment appear again and again in the book. Indeed, that is the point: to see connections where we might not normally see them if we are only writing about a specific subject from a particular angle of vision (political, social, cultural, etc.). I'm pleased that Herman's students were moved emotionally by the discussion of Turner. I hope they looked closely at "Horrid Massacre in Virginia," the frontispiece that accompanied Samuel Warner's account. To get readers to respond viscerally ("history is a bath of blood," said William James) and then have them connect the emotional with the intellectual is to help make the past relevant to our students.

Herman, Earle, and Vorenberg each raise the issue of how _1831_ is written. History as a literary art is a crucial topic to me; my manifesto on the subject ("What it Will Take to Turn Historians Into Writers") appeared last year in _The Chronicle of Higher Education Review_ (July 6, 2001, B10). Literary or creative non-fiction does not have a single form, and there are many examples of it in which a thesis or argument is clearly stated and frequently repeated, but mine isn't one of them. I'm of course not surprised that Vorenberg's graduate students squirmed and twitched because _1831_ doesn't announce, over and over again, what its argument is. This is what we call professional training and it has had a destructive effect on the ability of academic historians to communicate with those outside of the seminar room. Earle's undergraduate students were "frustrated in their search for an overall argument," but they looked for one and, at the same time, said that the book "tied together the issues of the day," which means they found something thematic in the work. Herman's students wondered what a thesis was and whether 1831 has one; I have no doubt that they would have found it had it not been for the shock of reading about hatchets slicing into heads.

Of course _1831:Year of Eclipse_ has a thesis. Every book does. But the thesis, the answer as Shelby Foote explained it to Walker Percy, is "in the form, the method of telling, the exploration of self, which is our only clew to reality." Vorenberg e-mailed his class and asked about the eclipse as event and metaphor, the play of light and dark that permeates the narrative. His students responded that it felt forced. Maybe they are right, but I wish they would try to develop their ideas about literary form and the different ways in which arguments can be made: through plot, character, voice, imagery. _1831_ is shaped with carefully constructed transitions between topics and I use those transitions to illuminate connections. _1831_ is loaded with quotations, with the words of historical actors in the past, and I use those voices to advance my arguments. _1831_ is filled with images and I use those images to create juxtapositions between the visual and the textual. If we ask students to approach works of literary non-fiction with some of the same tools that they must use to approach fiction, they would ha ve little difficulty discerning themes or arguments.

As for the thesis of _1831: Year of Eclipse_, it is quite simple. 1831 marked the year in which America was transformed from a post-revolutionary republic into a democratic nation and the events of 1831 marked the staging ground for those issues that would erupt in Civil War thirty years later. Thomas Cole's painting _Tornado_ is on both the cover as well as the penultimate page, because I use Cole to recapitulate the themes of the book. The canvas shows a nearly indistinct individual in an American forest. He is buffeted by winds and bordered by ancient trees as he braces against a violent storm. The sky is black. Cole already had in mind what would be his masterpiece, his five-part cycle _The Course of Empire_ (1833-36). He feared the destruction of the nation as a consequence of the loss of all moral principle in the pursuit of wealth. In his paintings, nature alone would outlast ambition, selfishness, and hubris. Thirty years before the Civil War, he contended that the struggle over slavery, political rancor, the pursuit of individualism, and technological development would eclipse the glorious potential of the early republic. The events of 1831 forever changed the nation's course; at its core, my book explores the turmoil of Jacksonian America and contemplates the coming of the Civil War.

These issues of writing and interpretation are some of the most important issues that historians face, and I'm grateful to Dan Herman, Jonathan Earle, and Mike Vorenberg for raising them. I hope that we can continue the discussion. Maybe at an upcoming AHA or OAH or SHEAR conference we can have an informal discussion about our writing lives. Whoever is interested is invited, and coffee will most definitely be on me.

Lou Masur City College of New York

I thought I'd begin by saying that I felt Louis Masur's book 1831 does a good job proving the historical significance of that year. Like many people in the class have already mentioned (especially because I'm posting this an hour before class) I was suprised by all the important events that took place during this year. Two parts of the book that I found most interesting dealt with the rise of the Anti-Masonic Party and how the treatment of a woman named Peggy Eaton sent Jackson's cabinet into turmoil.

It was fascinating to me how a whole political party rose to prominence when as Henry Clay said, "Masonry or Anti- Masonary has, legitimately, in my opinion, nothing to do with politics" (pg. 96) This statement is interesting because Clay's refusal to unite with the Anti-Mason's was only based on masonry and probably cost him the election. Pride and stubborness also seemed to play a part in Clay's unwillingness to unite; "we ought to draw them to us, instead of being drawn to them." (pg. 96)

Before reading this book I was largely ignorant on the personal life of Andrew Jackson so I found it interesting to observe how he reacted to the ill treatment of Peggy Eaton (the wife of secretary of war John Eaton). Jackson (largely because of the memory of his wife's treatment) was willing to defend the honor of Peggy Eaton at the expense of his cabinent and his Vice President. He also allowed Martin Van Buren to rise in the political ranks because of how well he treated Peggy Eaton. This insight into Jackson's personal life and its effect on his decisions was something I was previously unaware of.

Although I share the same opinions of many of my classmates that this book was sometimes slow and often had a random order I still feel that it did a good job making connections and showing the importance of these events.

     Before reading Louis P. Masur's 1831 Year of Eclipse, if anyone asked me what had happened in 1831 I am not sure I could have named any one incident particular to that year. Now, however, in addition to learning it was the year of an eclipse, I have a deeper understanding of the issues that were facing Americans in a growing nation in 1831, which are, as previously stated by my fellow classmates; slavery, tarrifs, nullification, indian removal, religious revival, social reforms, the Banks of the United States, and emerging political parties and ideologies (not necessarily presented in that order.) I found the manner in which Masur organized his novel, by subject, to be logical and made the book much easier to read than if he had given a chronology of the year. So was 1831 a pivotal year? I would argue yes and no.
     As Nathan pointed out, the events and ideas of 1831 grew from those of earlier years and extended far beyond the last day of the calander year to impact the nation for decades to come. Throughout the course of the book I felt that the excerpts from foreigners Vigne, Toqueville, and Beaumont (and Trollope in the final section) provided the most interesting, and often unflattering, observations and opinions about the American people and their country. In so many instances an outside source can provide the greatest impartial insight into isues that interest them but do not necessarily involve them directly. I also found it amazing how many people knew that the issues of slavery and state rights would eventually lead to a devastating end, and was shocked at how many people actually thought all African Americans had to relocated back to Africa in order for crisis to be avoided. I have also never stopped to think about what would have become of Texas and the United States if William Brodnax's idea of turning Texas into a "sable state (p 57) was implemented. Would America be the scene of constant wars on it's own land over cultural and geographical issues like in the modern day middle east? As much as I want to believe people of any background should be able to peacefully co-exist, I do not know what my solution to the Native American problem would have been. Living in South Carolina and Georgia my whole life, I am removed from any present day conflicts about this, but I feel like I have heard about western states still dealing with this difficult issue.
     The year 1831 cannot claim the signing of the Declaration of Independence or the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, but the American beliefs at the foundation of these monumentous occasions, those of freedom and liberty, were being discussed and debated right there in 1831 from the floor of Congress to the streets of New York, and to me that qualifies 1831 as an important year, if not a pivotal one.

Upon first getting the book 1831 I thought it was kind of strange that we were reading a book focused around one year considering I couldn't think of anything that happened that year. After reading they book I realized there was so much that happened. As one of my classmates stated I also found it very suprising that the treatment of Peggy Eaton caused so much trouble in the President's cabinet at that time. I thought that the events that were discussed in 1831 that focused around slavery and specifically Nat Turner's rebellion showed that the time for a great conflict between the North and the South was coming. I enjoyed this book greatly and was fasinated by how much happened in the year 1831 that I never knew about before.

Edited by author 09-20-2002 11:22 AM
As an addition to my original comments on the book, I would like to make a comparison between 1831 and revolutionary America. While I do not personally endorse the doctrine of nullification, I feel that it has much cultural relevance in our nation.

The practice of nullification goes against the ideal republic. However, I would argue that nullification falls completely in line with the practice of the Founding Fathers. South Carolina did not want to pay tariffs because of the economic burden it placed on them, both with the initial payment of coin and with the threat of the dismembering of its means to profit – slaves. There had not been a previous tradition of forced tariffs on the states, but the powers that be thought it a necessary means of raising money to decrease national debt. Similarly, there had not been a tradition of forced taxation on the American colonists of the 1700s, and when Britain declared the Stamp Tax in 1765 to help pay off their national debt of the Seven Years War, the colonists were enraged. The Founding Fathers and those who fought with them refused to pay the various unprecedented taxes and eventually went to war over the issue.

South Carolina felt the need to reject anything that had not previously been set in stone and that hurt them financially, exactly what the American revolutionists had done some time before. Jackson and Britain acted alike in their aggressive manner and both times, war was the eventual result. The main difference is that South Carolina, as a group of citizens, had representation in their legislative body, but it was a poor representation at that, as the outnumbering, overpowering, industrial North sought ways to gain profit from the agricultural South’s shortcomings. That is not nationalism; rather it seems more like old school practices of mercantilism. Overall, I do not agree with South Carolina’s decision to nullify and wage civil war, but I do believe that we often forget historical comparisons that can prove our thoughts paradoxal.

Edited by author 09-21-2002 12:16 AM
In response to Ensley’s mentioning of the Nat Turner incidence showing the coming time of a North/South shootout, I would add that thoughts of abolition and slavery had been around for a long time in 1831. Europe at this time had emancipated nearly all its slaves, and enlightened founding fathers even addressed the issue in their writings. However, in noting Nat Turner, it showed to be typical of American reform. When blood is shed, Americans notice things. We've seem this with Columbine, the Twin Towers, etc. The Nat Turner revolt marked the first mass-communicated bloodshed over the issue of human enslavement. When the public learned of this, after some mourning and a lot of fear over their own skin, they were allowed to expand their minds on the real issue at hand. Bloodshed marked a key time, and eventually served a real purpose, as it often attempts to do.

As Nathan mentioned thoughts of abolition had been around for a while before Nat Turner's Rebellion. I was just stating that I see the revolt as the first time the issue of slavery was brought to the attention of the whole country. Of course there were people before the revolt that wanted to abolish slavery, I just see this as the first time a mass group of people woke up and realized maybe something needed to change. Maybe it was time to abolish slavery or at least start thinking about it more seriously.

Schantz's book is written in the context of a larger academic debate about whether capitalism corroded traditional family relations and religious structures. While Schantz is not a Marxist he presumes that readers have a full understanding of Marxian models of capitalism's impact on religious values and social institutions. If your memory of these ideas is fading you might find it helpful to look over my annotated excerpts of the Communist Manifesto, located at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst11/docs/cmanifesto.htm)

In Piety in Providence, Schantz does a commendable job of discussing not only the development and diversification of religion in antebellum Providence, but also the effects of the new market economy on religious experiences. I found it interesting that "in the beginning" people were fairly willing to worship with members of various classes and races--it seemed to me that religion was in its purest form at this time. It also seemed that charity during this period was done in a much more personal way. Instead of forming large societies to fight the evils of the world and help those in need, churchgoers were willing to personally help poor members of their church. I don't really know if that makes any sense, but that's the overall impression I got of the charity situation.
Prior to reading this book, I had no idea that pews were auctioned off or that these auctions subsequently paved the way for hierarchy within a congregation. As the economy began to soar, pew auctions not only became more commonplace, but the average price for a pew increased as well. It also became a common practice amongst the elite to buy multiple pews. By doing this the purchasers were able to "join displays of...individual ambition with Chrisitan charity"(pg. 129)because the pews bought were often considered "undesirable" and so, it was a charitable act to "relieve" the church of said pews.
Dr. Benson noted that the book was written in the context of the debate over whether capitalism corroded traditional religious structures. I think if one looks at the practice of accumulating multiple pews, it becomes clear that capitalism was definitely affecting religious structure, but this doesn't answer the question of whether or not capitalism corroded religion. Personally, I think capitalism did negatively affect relgious structure. What convinces me most of this is the fact that as time progressed and wealth was accumulated, it became increasingly necessary to have luxurious pews, altars, and structures. I think this shows a shift of importance-people began to care more about comfort and beauty than religous experience. And, not only did they(burgeois protestants) prefer comfort, they also condemned those who did not adhere to this idea. Churches did not truly gain respectability until they had all the trappings of "respectable piety"(pg. 178).
The notion of "respectable piety" caught my attention while reading. I found it interesting that the burgeois further distanced themselves from the lower classes(with whom they use to worship) by denouncing all of their traditional religious practices. Maybe they truly felt this way, or perhaps they were simply trying to rationalize the class segregation of churches.
Overall, i found Piety in Providence to be very informative. The only aspect of the book I didn't like was the fact that the reader is so drawn into the information about religion that it becomes easy to neglect other events that were occuring simultaneously. It just seems that Schantz is attempting to connect everything that occured in Providence to religion in some manner or another, and I don't know if that is a realistic portrayal.

Edited by author 09-29-2002 08:26 PM
    While I applaud Mark Schantz's efforts at connecting economic class and religious culture, and I concede that he made numerous valid and interesting connections, I overwhelmingly feel that he relies far too heavily on individual experience, specific details, and sometimes stretched assumptions. There are too many instances involving one person's story or feelings. For example, Schantz uses the story of an African-American woman who was "tricked" out of her possessions by greedy businessmen, and somehow tries to assert that reaction to this happening symbolized the overall focus and purpose of bourgeoise women's roles in society.
     Also, somewhat related, I felt that Schantz tended to spend 10-15 pages discussing almost biographical aspects of people such as Brown, Wayland, etc... Granted, these men were key players in 19th century religious life. However, Schantz often fell into overly drawn out paragraphs that concerned parts of these mens' lives having little to do with religion or economics. I am not trying to hold that various areas of one's life do not play a part in one's religious feelings; I am simply saying that Schantz's occasional lack of focus or pertinence sometimes led to a lack of concentration or understanding on my part.
     Lastly, I feel I cannot leave this discussion without mentioning how much I disagree with religion, in general, as it was carried out in 19th century America. BUYING PEWS?! This practive makes Catholic indulgences seem almost ethical! Couple pew-buying with the economic elites' idea that they were some sort of Noble-Religious-Model-Always Right-Rulers of how society ought to be, and you will have hit on the head why organized religion draws so many critics. Did they also sell gold-plated communion cups, or silk gloves with which to hold the Crouton O' Christ? Anywho...

I would ultimately say that I agree with Schantz at the core--that religion and economic class in 19th-century providence were somewhat related. I do think, though, that he could have attempted to find more cogent evidence than that of several loosely-related individual stories.

Hope everyone's weekend was great. See you tomorrow.

I agree with Ashley that the in-depth discussion of the religious aspect of Schantz's argument almost made the reader forget the entire point of seeing these things in conjunction with the other changes happening in society. To me, his example of the selling of the pews, however, did show the “bifurcation” in the church and in society as a whole as a result of the blossoming market economy. The relegation of the lower-class worshippers to the balconies or the backs of churches represented the change that was taking place in society, the transformation of the town from a community-minded group that survived the Revolution by sticking together into a hierarchically divided one, split into the wealthy industrialists and business owners against the common working men. The sale of the pews showed the power that these upper class people, the “bourgeois,” had over the “plebeian” inferior class.

Generally, I liked Schantz’s book and thought it fairly well-written, with the noted exception.

Schantz' Piety in Providence clearly defined the religious and economic world of antebellum Rhode Island. In general I found his argument intresting and thoughtful. The ties between the market and religion were closely tied at this point in history and have shaped the way we worship today. In fact, while reading this book, I often found myself captivated by how similiar we were to the characters within the book. Issues such as a women's role within the church are still heavily debated among church members.
Schantz argues that "religious culture played a decisive role in the process of class formation in antebellum Providence" (Shantz, 2). He offers very pertinent information such as pewholdings, mill villages and the revival of 1820. He utilizes Wayland and Luther to provide individual voices that promote their ideological perception. Finally, the Dorr Rebellion intensified the struggle between wealth and religious conviction.
 I think Schantz makes a respectful theory, but I wonder if it is wholly encompassing of the reality of the time. He relies to heavily on making religion out to be a social institution rather than a supernatural one. I find it hard to believe that activities in the church directed social formation or vice versa.

Piety in Providence is one of those books that make you think about real people. I really enjoyed the fact that Schantz used sources pertaining to common people. He talked about women, laborers, and blacks extensively. In light of our discussions of 1831, this was a refreshing change of pace from elitist points of view.

However, I cannot say that I didn’t question the validity of some of the connections that Schantz attempted to make in Piety in Providence. He tried to tie sometimes seemingly random facts together to make a point. On some occasions I could buy it; on others, he seemed to be making huge assumptions. In addition, Schantz acknowledges a lot of missing or unavailable data, yet still tries to make projections about it. For example, in Chapter Three, he cites that much of the membership information for the African Union Meeting House doesn’t exist, but he attempts to make an argument based on what he believes it would have been. I didn’t realize Schantz was alive in the antebellum period.

I do agree that there was a correlation between class and religious denomination in Providence in the 19th century. And I will also concede that this belief is due in large part to Schantz’s arguments. Hi work was way too detail-oriented for my personal taste, but, in retrospect, I can see how it all falls together as a whole.

Schantz does a great job of showing how class and economic and social status were a major part of religious life in Providence. It seems that he believes that those factors were, in fact, more important than the actual religious convictions of the people he discussed. He mentions several individuals who never seem to make it to the point where they can publically announce their faith, but who give large sums of money, and in some cases land, to support the local churches. Also, the whole business of selling of pews seems only to perpetuate the importance of wealth and status instead of faith. I mean, people owned mulitples pews, not only in one church, but in several different denominations. In my opinion, this is the most telling sign of the attitude towards religion, at least from the more affluent members of society.

Though Schantz does an excellent job of detailing the situation and circumstances of Providence and the surrounding mill villages in the 19th century, he does not address the nation as a whole very well. Providence, Rhode Island simply is not representative of the United States during this time period. Schantz even admits this fact when he mentions early in the book that Providence was not affected by the early 19th century economic scares. The town was also affected by the revivals differently than other cities, partially due to their relatively easy time during the depressions.
Basically all I'm saying is that though Providence was very unique and interesting, it does not satisfy my want in understanding how the nation was affected by social class and religion. I don't really see the significance of Providence, when really it was quite small and relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
That being said, I did enjoy the book and was intrigued by the level of detail and information Schantz was able to produce. However, the importance of this city, and even this state, is a bit lost on me.

Schantz' book Piety in Providence provides an interesting and detailed account of life during antebellum Rhode Island. His work is very detailed and well researched, and the arguements he puts forth are strong presented. Despite this, Schantz' book is flawed in that he fails to step away from in focus on religion to account for all the other factors and influences of the time.
Religion is seen by Schantz mainly from an angle that includes the influence of the economy and capitialism. An example of this is shown in most of the table that are in the book. These table deal mainly with some type of economic element of religion during the time. Schantz's discussion of the selling of pews, and the buying of pews in more than one church is strong and detailed, yet it seems at times that Schantz ignores the idea of faith in religion. His outlook is almost cynical at times as he deals with the buying of pews by the upper class of society. Schantz has a strong arguement in dealing with the purchase of multiple pews, but the arguement does not deal well with the idea of faith.
One good point that Schantz does make concerns the placement of the poor to the rear of the church. This gives good support for his arguements dealing with the effects of market revolution on class dimensions.

I agree with Brittany when she says that Schantz overkills his point that religious culture played a decisive role in the process of class formation to the point of taking the supernatural out of the church institution. However, I do agree with Schantz that religious culture and social formation are directly linked, as I see that as the religious cultures began to split off and move further and further from each other, so did the different social groups.
There were a few things that surprised me as I read Piety in Providence. I didn't realize that the religious cultures in the 1800s were so diverse. I was very surprised to hear that blacks were allowed to vote in church elections despite not being able to vote in government elections. I thought it was interesting that much like today, many more women than men were actively involved in the church- why is this a common theme in America that has lasted for hundreds of years? I also thought it was interesting that while many men bought pews, few made religious conversions. This is especially interesting when you put that fact along side the fact that women did not own pews, but were more likely to undergo a spiritual conversion. I had never heard tell of pew auctioning, and was quite surprised to hear that such a thing existed. I think that Schantz used pew auctioning well to make his point and I liked his comment that "To view an early 19th century pew plat is to glimpse the economic hierarchy of a community" (20). No wonder men weren't undergoing religious conversions, they were too conserned with what level in the hierarchy they sat in. I think that pew auctioning is a perfect example of how the sacred Church was merged together with the "profane domain of the market economy" (18). I wonder what church would be like today if we all sat in order of how much money we have in our bank accounts. Or just for kicks, what if Dr. Benson sat us according to how much money our parents make?

"Piety in Providence" has given me a new outlook on the revival of religion in 19th century America. Schantz takes the reader away from the stagnant two-dimensional accounts of religious revivalism and the 2nd Great Awakening in America by personalizing the story. He focuses not on the great orators of the day, but on the common people who experienced the result of the events first-hand. I agree with Cal when he said that Schantz did an excellent job in researching for this book, however I disagree when Cal said that the book is flawed because "...he fails to step away from the focus on religion to account for all the other factors and influences of the time." I think that his failure to look to any other factors other than the economics and social dimensions of the time adds to the story. Schantz says himself in the introduction that he has tried "...to avoid treating religious culture as the simple product of 'deeper' social and economic forces"(5).
"Piety in Providence" is a clear depiction of the social strata of the early 19th century. It depicts the contradiction in society between the wealthy elite and the property-less working class in Providence. The best example of the difference in class is in Schantz's description of the auctioning of pews, meaning that even in a religious setting, people are still divided by those who can afford a pew and those who cannot.
The religious revivals of 1820 marks a wave in the number of people who profess their faith. However, the irony as Schantz points out on page 86 is that "'the great democratic revivals of the early nineteenth century emerged primarily not from the new middle class but from Americans whom the market revolution had either bypassed or hurt.'" The fact that the working class "plebians", as Schantz referred to them, gain the most from the revivals is reminiscent of the Marxian concept of the lower class overtaking the bourgeoisie in the great revolution. Because, the "plebians" rose to this religious occassion set them equal to the the middle and upper classes of nineteenth century Providence. Although the religious revivals did not spark a great revolution, the working class did obtain a piece in the religous community. Churches began to look out for the lower class in society. As an example, Schantz examines the Universalists who represented the most "affluent of the revival era congregations"(87). The Universalists, despite their wealth, still made provisions for the lower classes in their society.(88)
On a final thought, Schantz also notes as to the effect of the religious revivals on the political status and endeavors of those who are left out of the political arena in the nineteenth century: women and African Americans. Women were able to exercise political power within their congregations. Although the leadership was still in the hands of the men, Schantz points out that religion gave women "...authority over a vast array of reform efforts...groups such as the Female Charitable Society and the Providence Female Tract Society were institutions over which women exercised administrative and financial control"(106). One the other side, African Americans were increasingly discriminated against in society. Free African American men were no longer allowed to vote, they were allowed to exercise some political authority in one example that Schantz discusses on page 103. When the African Americans who did own real estate became subject to a tax, they refused to pay it based on the revolutionary idea that "'taxation and representation went together...'" African Americans also formed a church of their own known as the African Union Meeting House and this "...continued to nurture black political aspirations"(103).
In conclusion, Schantz expertly describes the correlation between the religious revivals and their influence on society in antebellum Rhode Island.

Prior to reading "Piety in Providence," I was very apprehensive about reading a book based solely on the religious practices of the 1800s. But after a few chapters, I realized that it was actually quite interesting. I felt that overall, Schantz did a good job covering all aspects of the topic. Unlike many of my classmates, I enjoyed the side stories of the "common folk." I felt that it brought the time period to life, and made the characters easier to relate to. At times, Schantz did take specific examples and generalize the overall feeling of the town, but I don't think that these rare generalizations in any way discredited the points that he made. I doubt that Schantz would have included obscure details to make such broad assumptions of the times.
The point that I found most interesting in this book was the way in which the pews were valued and sold. Every time this subject came up in the book, I found myself wondering if this religious revival was based on the actual religious ideals of the different denominations, or if it was purely a continuation of the market revolution. As the wave of religious awakening progressed in Providence, the pews seemed to become a status symbol. Those that purchased the most expensive seats (the elite) were respected more in the congregation, whereas the less wealthy members of the community were almost looked down upon for their lack of donation to the church funds. In my opinion, that way of operating a church totally defeats its purpose. Essentially, the church was supposed to be a type of haven where the citizens of the town could gather together to get away from the vicious monopolies of big city businesses and worship God as equals. But in keeping with the trends of the times, they created a business just as bad as the ones they were fighting against.
I thought that this book was very well written, and I actually enjoyed reading many parts of it. I felt that I learned a lot about the different religious denominations and religion in general, but also the hidden corruption that lurked inside of it.

Schantz did a great job with this book. He did a real indepth job of discussing the varieties of religious views back in the 1800's and how those religious views came to life. It was also neat to see the way that the new market economy in antebellum US affected various religious practices. i enjoyed the tales of the regular citizens and the minute details provided in the stories.

I found it very disturbing, when reading about the auctioning off of the pews, to see that you couldnt escape the class system even at church. it would seem to me, as Catherine pointed out, that church is a place, maybe the only place, where class shouldnt matter and you could escape from the outside world. the rich need the gospel just as much as the poor do. that should not have played a factor in the church. However, this didnt seem to be the situation. Althought class was not escaped it seemed to be that the world gender and race situation was escaped. women as well as african americans were given opportunity to take part in the activities of the church including the right to vote.

i enjoyed this reading. it was real interesting to see the way things were run back then from a religious standpoint, especially the church.

"Piety in Povidence" is an excellently researched book, Schantz throws everything into his book, from tables to maps, to give the reader a picture of life in 19th century Rhode Island. I too wasn't exactly jumping at the chance to read about the subject of religious practices in the 1800s, but in the end I was consumed by the detail put into the book.
What I found to be the most intriguing was the buying of pews. This was Schantz biggest argument for class dimensions in the church. The more affluent members of the church (the bourgeoisie) bought the most expensive pews, the working class (plebeians) bought the cheaper pew, and the African-Americans were in the back or sat up in the "pidgeon hole"(p.100) But lets not forget women, who really had no pewholding status, only what their husbands owned. Pewholding in the 19th century is almost comparable to real-estate ownership today. Owning a pew was to have rank in the society, and the more costly, the higher you move up.
A statement that I want to make is that the class dimensions in the church that were formed in 19th century Providence are still here, possibly on a bigger scale. The small town that I am from has this. We have the bigger churches, whose members are wealthier business owners, doctors, lawyers, etc., and the smaller ones, whose membership base is the factory workers. Perhaps this could be the case in your town too.

Edited by author 09-29-2002 11:57 PM
  Through Piety in Providence Shantz brought to my attention the major connection between religion, economics, and politics in 19th Century America. Also I was unaware of the development from allowing everyone to come together and have an equal part to making it so only men who had money could make the major church decisions. I thought that at the beginning it was great how women could have a major say in what the church did but it was dissapointing to see that as time went on women had less and less influence even though they were the people keeping the churches alive with their groups and their attendence. Even though the RISSU and PFTS were mainly funded by men it was the women who went out and did something about the problems they saw around them. I was surprised to see women advocating for workers' rights so early on in the industrial age as well. They worked to get Sunday schools and a variety of different things to get the workers educated and they helped the workers' plight against poor conditions and treatment.
   Religion at this time also showed the divisions between the classes with the buying of the pews as well as the different denominations. The richer people were a part of the more traditional groups while the middle to lower classes were apart of the new denominations that had sprung up. It's sad how this developed when at the beginning religion was the one thing that tied everyone together. It also seemed strange that it was the rich who first went out and wanted to help the poorer people in rural Rhode Island find religion but when they did all the rich wanted to do was separate themselves from the poor. It think this shows that Rhode Island was coming into the industrial age and how there was a major split because of the power of the owners over the workers. Like when the owners wanted the universalists running the church and not the methodists.
  This book had so much information in it that I felt like I was forgetting about all the other things that were effecting Providence at this time as well. Shantz seems to focus so much on religion that he credits a lot of changes in RI to it, but I think that it had less of an influence on life there and other factors are not always recognized. Overall this book gave an interesting insight to Providence and how religion effected the lives of the people there.

I, like many others in this class, was apprehensive about a reading a detailed book on religion in antebellum Rhode Island, but the detail is what not only made this book tolerable, but enjoyable. Whether it was through members of a church, like Jane Freeman, being reprimanded for “walking disorderly” or someone like Daniel Hayford valuing his pew more dearly than other worldly possessions, my attention was surprisingly kept throughout the work. This detail that kept my attention also validated Schatnz’s argument on the important role the church played in class formation in Providence. What better way to understand his argument than to be given the church related stories of every social class from the wealthy merchant elites down to the lowly “plebians”? As far as Cal’s argument that Schantz needed to look to other factors outside the church, I would have to side with Lindsay and disagree. In this book, Schantz’s “central argument…is that religious culture played a decisive role in the process of class formation in antebellum Providence” (2). To stray away from that central argument would be detrimental to the point of his book – to explain the major role the church played.

When looking on the effect capitalism had on the traditional religious structures, I think back upon the fear some preachers in Providence had of the emerging capitalistic society. Those preachers wanted the fiscal ambition of individuals to blend “harmoniously with the good of the whole” (37). The whole end of chapter one is filled with comments about how the group should be placed before the individual. Statements like the “happiness of an individual can never be separated from the felicity of the community” (38) and talks of being satisfied with one’s “proper station” (39) in the economics of the community. Jonathan Maxcy, the future president of USC (not the real one…just South Carolina), seemed to see problems on the horizon with the progress of democracy. He, like his colleagues, wanted “all individual industry (to take place) in the context of the community” (40). Jonathan Maxcy said himself that “labour is the only original source of wealth” (41). All this talk about the good of the community, labour as the source of wealth, and the interests of society brought one thought to my head – communism with the church’s male elites being the Communist Party. Obviously, it’s not like these preachers were Communists, considering Marx had not even come out with his manifesto at the time, but the parallels are interesting. Everyone needed to do their part for the good of the community, and these church elites were all but in complete control of the community.

I suppose Mr. Schantz is to be commended for the veritable avalanche of facts, stats, and details that this book is composed of. I cannot imagine how much time and effort it took to not only sift though so much information, but also to present it in a way that seemed sensible. However, unlike most of my classmates, I found the reading of this book to be the equivalent of pulling teeth. I was awed by the detail and structure of the book, but I can't help but feel frustrated that I spent a week of my life reading about a bunch of details that were in reality unneccessary to my understanding of class distinctions in the 19th century. Sure a lot of the pew auctioning details were interesting, and I spent a lot of time looking at the graphs, and the "Taste of Civil War" and "Pleasures and Vices" chapters weren't as bad as the rest, but I have to think that I could have learned much more useful information with the time I've spent on this book. I will give him credit for writing a book about religion that avoids being preachy, because thats what I expected at first. A few of the high points were: learning that women preached and held important positions in the church structures (yet still could not vote politically), the failed "Dorr rebellion" part, and the "tracts" that convinced the poor people that they are supposed to be poor. Sam's point about communism is very interesting, especially with the aversion to the word "Communism" that people in the US have in the present day. I wonder what church leaders would think if they knew that the founders of their churches were essentially communistic.

Edited by author 09-30-2002 09:21 AM
I believe that Mark Schantz did an excellent job of explaining the role of religion in class structure of early nineteenth century society in Providence, Rhode Island. He no doubt worked with a plethera of facts figures, and stories, and had to really cut a good bit of information. I felt that he did do a great job of explaining the situation, however many times I found myself lost in a sea of information that confused me. Though I wouldn't exacly parallel it to "pulling teeth," as Andy said, I did not enjoy this read much at all.

The most interesting part of "Piety in Providence," to me, was the section referring to the auctioning of pews. Many selling for upward of seven hundred dollars, it is a wonder that anyone was able to afford them. It seems absolutely crazy to me that people would feel the need to buy a seat in church for any reason. This certainly set up a church heiarchy, whether intended or not. Though an elitist system seemed in place, I found it interesting that many churches were very passionate about taking care of the poor in their congregation. As Schantz states in the first chapter, "Minutes recording the congregation's dealings with the poor speak of 'our poor' or the 'Indigent members of this Church," showing that the congregation did not reguard them as alien...but as full participants in the life of faith" (9). It certainly seems strange to me that though economics seemed to rule the day, the church was able to keep its eyes focused on those in need.

All in all, I believe this to be a very informative and educational book. It certainly was no fun read, but at the same time it taught me much about a subject I had previously known little about. I believe Schantz does a great job of expressing the relationship between class structure and religion in nineteenth century Rhode Island with many detailed examples.

I would have to say that reading a book on New England Protestant religious practices was a little eerie for someone like me who grew up in a Baptist minister's house in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Even though the climate in our household was not quite like the "piety" that the early churches of Providence portrayed, there were some similarities in the two cultures that made reading this book a little personal. I, like some of the other students, was quite overwhelmed with the amount of detail that Schantz incorporates in this book. The fact that these details are personal accounts of real people and not simply minute and random helps the reader keep the attention on the real people of Providence.

I was quite amazed at the accounts about the practices that the so-called "religious" people of Providence engaged in during the nineteenth century. The practice of pew auctioning brought with it an interesting contradiction. The whole purpose of this auctioning was, as I understood it, to raise money to either build new wings of the church, help pay for the operations of the church, and to help support the poor and unfortunate people of the city. The rich folk of the city were the ones who could afford the pews, giving them a seat upfront and along the floor of the church. The poor people of the city could not afford the seats in the floor and were forced to sit in either the balcony or some other designated section. This scenario made going to church and uncomfortable situation for some of the poor who did not like being singled out and sectioned away from the other members of the congregation. So, by using pew auctioning to raise money for the poor, the people of the churches actually were driving them away. Sounds like religion to me.

These practices seem quite insensitive to us who live in a world where sensitivity is almost a contact sport. However, I do think that some of these people did have good intentions and perhaps a little more thought might have gone into decisions where any separation and segregation occurs.

Edited by author 09-30-2002 09:47 AM
Mark Schantz has completed a deeply researched, primary document-filled work on the religious town of Providence in the early nineteenth century. His indications on the church/state relationship tend to show an embedded correlation between the way things are run in the pulpit and the way things are set in the street. However, his method in making that argument, in my opinion, takes away from the credibility of the conclusion.
 
 I do not conclude that religious experiences in Providence were the major factor in shaping social class during the economic boom of the 1820’s. On page two, in the outlining of his work, Schantz says “The central argument of this book is that religious culture played a decisive role in the process of class formation in antebellum Providence…[serving] simultaneously to bolster the rising power of the American bourgeoisie and to create an alternative religious culture that fueled opposition to that power.” (2) Forgive the long quote, but I believe it is essential to keep Schantz’s goal in mind. What is he trying to say? He is trying to say that formation of class differences at the premier of the Industrial Revolution were shaped and recognized by the common man’s religious background, because man inevitably thinks in religious terms.

 In response to the author’s primary goal, I must say that through his research, he has shown religion to be a factor in some of the population’s power struggle and that religion, as it always does, created and fueled opposition to that struggle. However, I do not conclude that he has shown religion to be the primary factor in that time, mostly through philosophical problems with his prime arguments and conclusions. First of all, in a very diverse congregation, which Schantz explains as present in every Providence church, there is not one set group of people. They may all be Protestant, but they all have different stories, situations, and work lives. This diversity alone is reason enough to shut down any implication that religion can be the sole cause of class distinctions. It may seem that church congregations set a precedent in the division of people, through who sits in what pew, taxes, and reformist policies with lost members, but the social structure of classes in any town or civilization has been long established from Rome, Greece, Inca, etc. Schantz does present the rising bourgeois power and the opposition to that power through church motives in a supportive fashion of his central argument, but the bottom line is that he is simply excluding any other factor. Here’s what we know: Class structure inevitably changed with the oncoming industrial age; the middle class expanded, and naturally grew in power as it grew in number; churches usually bolster opposition to class indifferences, because class distinctions usually result in a decrease of benevolence and charity.

 These previous listings we hold to be “true” in the broadest sense of the dangerous term. To add to religion as a factor of class changes, one mustn’t leave out economic and social terms. For example, Schantz claims that the common person (not “man,” with respects to the women in the congregation, who were shown more equality in Rhode Island churches) related everything to religion. While most of Providence was religious and attended church, it is ludicrous to say that the dollar and bread on the table is not the main factor in determining class growth and divisions. Those divisions were represented in the church pews, but created and realized in the marketplace.

 Religion was a large part of the Providence citizen’s life, but it simply was not the only one. My major problem with Schantz’s argument is that he is too inclusive. He claims that socio-economic interpretations leave out religion as a cause of increasing class divisions in that time, but by excluding social and economic causes from his religious argument, he joins his foes' ranks. I do not bring credit to any one-factor causation, but with a little broadening of his idea, Schantz could improve this work in a more acceptable manner.

Piety in Providence was, as many have stated, a very well-researched book. And it was tedious at times. Nevertheless, I found it rather interesting. The focus on individuals and on things that Schantz probably expected the reader not to know (e.g. the pew auctions) made it quite interesting at times. I thought the idea that was most interesting was that the economy can change the way we see ourselves spiritually. Prior to the market economy and industrialism, equality existed to some extent in churches because they believed they were all equal before God (as their standing was conditioned on Christ, and not on their own merit). As some became more and more successful through capitalism, charity and humility gave way to greed and self-concern. Is capitalism bad for religion-- specifically, for Christianity? I think Piety in Providence answers that question in the affirmative, and I have a tendency to side with Schantz. Materialism doesn't go well with the depravity of man, and it never well. It is sad that America chose personal and temporal gain over the true religion. Reaching this conclusion caused me to question the way I think as well, which is why I'm going to be late to my first class.

     As everyone else has said, the attention to detail in Schantz' book was very impressive. I agree with several other people that the numerous facts, charts, and maps assist Schantz in reassuring us that his theories are correct. So far the issue of pew buying has received the most attention it appears. While this section of the book was helpful in establishing the difference between classes in the church, the information that most interested me were the policies concerning the rights of blacks and women to play a role in the Church's operations. While blacks and women were allowed some say in the Church's practices, they were being denied these basic rights of participation in the workings of government. The overall feel I will take away from the book is even more basic than the argument concerning divisions of class in the Church. I can not help but continue to think of the Church as one big contradiction of itself on multiple issues. As Meghan has said, the Church was at first attempting to unite and bring everyone together. After unsuccessful unions, the wealthier established members of the Church felt a need to drive away the poorer plebeians. The plebeians began establishing there own culture of religions only after they felt they could not practice their faith alongside the richer members of the parishes. The "street preachers" that are described in chapter 5 are nothing more than answers to the status quo. These men spoke to crowds and worshiped any where possible spreading their basic message that Christianity is for the poor. They attempted to do this by pointing out that Jesus was a humble carpenter, and that the Bible points out on several occasions that rich people are often to blame for society's problems. One such orator was Seth Luther. At one speech Luther claimed that "2000 mechanics" were denied the right to use the city meeting house for a service. He states "They refused us liberty to enter the house of God"(193) The argument is that the newer religions are simply the result of the richer members of the Church's denying the poorer class the right to worship in the ways they chose.
     In most societies it is unreasonable to think that class distinctions do not play a major role in the policies of that community. With the evidence and arguments Schantz has used in his book, it is easy to agree that class differences were at the heart of the unrest of the Church in Providence, RI.

Piety in Providence was, as Paul mentioned, quite tedious. It was a very thorough book and it was good that it examined the often overlooked effect of religion on the economic and social structure in a society. The way that Schantz shows the diverging paths that people rooted in the same traditions took are interesting but also discouraging. Some in the churches focused on reform, education, and helping the poor in their churches. Meanwhile others, as many have pointed out in their posts, let their religion be tainted by capitalism to the point where churches auctioned off pews. Church is not a baseball game for which one can get box seats. It is unfortunate to see the seemingly unified churches found earlier in Providence, where women and minorities have a say in church matters, splintered. The church was meant to unite believers not divide them. Schantz does a good job of showing the positive effects of religion on society as well as its underbelly. It makes me wonder whether churches today have the same characteristics as they did then. I think they do which makes me encouraged and concerned at the same time.

Mark S. Schantz's book Piety in Providence was well researched, but I found many of the details to be mind numbing and unnecessary. Three parts of the book I found to be especially fascinating. The first part is the auctioning of pews in the church. The second is the spiritual leadership of women and the voices blacks were given in the church. The third is the relationship between child factory workers and their teachers.
Like so many other people I was suprised by the auctioning of pews at the church. It made what the cover said by the" class dimensions of religious experience" abundantly clear. However, I was more suprised that men (although they bought the pews) were not usually the spiritual leaders of the household.
The Revival of 1820 was at least as dependent on efforts of woman than than their male counterparts. Men bought the pews, but more often it was their wives that occupied them on Sunday. The "pigeon holes" made for blacks to sit was not as suprising, but as Liz mentioned in her post the fact that they were allowed to vote on church issues was shocking to me.
The relationship between students (who were also factory workers) and their relgious teachers was a part of the book that seemed more "real" and relatable to me.Just thinking about those kids working at the factory and trying to study at the same time is kind of interesting.

First of all this book was, as Dr. Benson had said, one of the most meticulously detailed books I have ever read. Schantz pays tremendous attention to all areas of life in Providence, Rhode Island and how they tie into religion or are precipitated by it.

This book not only tells of the religious movements and “piety in Providence” but also how the religion of the area had a hand in the social structure of the society. I thought it was intriguing how profound an impact religion seemed to play in the social upheavel and rising class conflict in the region. Schantz describes the beginnings of religion just after the revolution as being profoundly simpler than they would be some fifty and sixty years later, but more than that, religion was much more inclusive. The mantra of the late 18th and early 19th centuries was: sacrifice of ones own needs for the good of the whole community. There were efforts from the church and its members to help anyone who had debt or any financial problems. I also thought the idea of pew auctioning to be intriguing as well. The idea that buying a pew in the church could have a profound effect on social standing and prominence is a very interesting and idea that obviously reflected the ideas of the time period. In the book it was interesting to see the changes in value and priority as the years passed. With the rising market economy and capitalism beginning to rise in America the attitude toward the church and religion in general began to take a downward turn. A larger split became noticeable between the lower plebian class and the bourgeouisse Protestants. I also thought the discussion of the religious ties of the Dorr rebellion were interesting. The small civil war that almost happened reflected the widening of the divide between social classes and again showed the power of religion.

Another interesting tie in by Schantz was his discussion of religions role in gender and race relations. He makes sure to give attention to the African-American and female roles in the religious movements of Providence. The most interesting character in this realm of discussion was Apes the Native American who preached about the importance of his people and asserted that Native Americans were one of the lost tribes of Israel descended from David.

I also thought that the most interesting character in the book had to be Seth Luther. The extreme, fanatical measure he took in preaching, and his efforts to help in the suffrage and reform movement were very compelling. Luther used the “full force of Christianity to bear on the injustices of his day.” (186)

Overall I thought this book was very thorough and well-written. I can’t say that I wasn’t bored at times because the detail with which this book is composed gets a bit tiresome, but nonetheless it does provide a good portrayal of the changing tides in religion during the antebellum period. Schantz’ argument that religion played a large role in the rise of the market economy is well-supported and after reading this I believe that the ties are there and some correlation most definitely exists.

Mark Schantz account of early-nineteenth century Providence was written to depict the role of religion in New England at the time, which it does well from a purely factual standpoint. An amazing amount of charts, references, quotes and religious accounts were added to each chapter in an attempt to explain the influence religion had on the time and the area. It wasn't uncommon to find up to seven or eight footnotes per page! However, at times it seems that the book gets bogged down by the abundance of these facts. Unlike "1831: Year of Eclipse", Schantz's book relied too much on his facts and not enough on his actual thesis of how religion affected the social and political landscape in the area. That being said, there were some parts of the book that I really found fascinating. In particular, the account Thomas Wilson Dorr's attempted rebellion to protest the many suffrage laws was very good. This mini-Civil War split the city and surrounding areas in numerous ways and Schantz succeeds in describing how many different social, religious and moral divides were formed. I think that this was where the author was at his best. Here he was able to describe how the Bourgeois Whigs were opposed by the Methodists and independent Baptists in such a way that was interesting and, as Andy mentioned earlier, not too preachy. The situation of how both King and Dorr laid claim to the governor position at the same time was explained very well. Being from very close-by Southeastern Connecticut, I was really interested in some of the local references made by Schantz as to where these men were from. Besides "A Taste of Civil War", I also found the chapter on the effect that the various protestants sects had on the commercial and economic status of the nineteenth century to be interesting and informative. Here, Schantz utilized his charts to the best extent because his numbers made the best point on how the pew valuations influenced the social standing of many of the citizens of Providence. All in all, I'd have to say I enjoyed "Year of Eclipse" better mainly because of the way in which these two authors presented their arguments and information.

It seems that most everyone has been very hard on Schantz for his focus on religion as the major factor in the formation class dimensions as well his focus on such a small, secluded subject like Providence. I for one think that Schantz, according to his stated thesis, which is well hidden on the front cover of the book, did an excellent job of conveying to the reader exactly what he advertised. He is biased in that he describes religion as the main factor in class dimensions, but he never claimed he would do otherwise. He doesn't give a wide-ranging survey of religion and its impact on the republic as a whole, but once again, he never claimed he was going to. He simply stated in a very forthcoming manner that he wanted to present the relationship between religion and class dimensions in Providence, Rhode Island. And for that stated purpose, he was very dedicated, detailed, and complete.
 The effectiveness of his argument, however, is very debatable. What exactly does he mean to prove? He admits the uniqueness of the situation in Providence, so it understood that events described in Providence are not necessarily pervasive in that time period. The fact that his scope is limited to such a small area damages the credibility of his argument, especially since it is an admittedly exceptional example. His credibility is also damaged by the fact that so much of his argument hinges on the assumption that religion is the major factor in social and class divisions. I would argue that religion is merely a reflection of the changes caused by economic variations. I agree with Nathan in that class structure evolved with the onset of the industrial age. When the workers stopped living with the owners. So for Schantz, his argument is weak because it doesn’t provide any pervasive themes or ideas that can be effectively applied outside of Providence. Because of that, there seems to be no important purpose other than what he claims on the cover, which makes his work seem very meaningless in a wide-ranging, historical sense.
Schantz is to be commended for his work however. In the description of the effects of religion on Providence his is very accurate, detailed and inclusive. The flaw in my opinion is the grand purpose of his book. Other than the account of one small, unique, New England town, Piety in Providence doesn’t seem to have much effective historical value.

Edited by author 09-30-2002 11:38 AM
I'm sure I am going to sound like I am just repeating what everyone else said, but I found Schantz' attention to detail very intriguing and at times long winded and boring. However the attnention to detail did help to get a greater understanding of life, people and religion in Providence at this time. One thing that I noticed a few people were suprised by was that women were most often the spiritual leaders of the household. I was not suprised by this at all. In my own household it was my mother who we would go to church with and the parent whose religion we followed. I thought that in almost all cases the children followed the religion of the mother. I also agree with a number of my classmates in saying that the fact that church pews were auctioned off made the church seem capitalistic, but at the same time it was raising money that was to go to the church. I don't think that this has changed very much...I'm almost positive that things like auctioning off church pews still goes on today. I do think that Schantz does a good job of showing that the church had a role in dividing the classes, but I don't think he showed that it was the only factor; which it seemed was his goal. I just didn't think his agrument was stong enough to prove that religon was the sole factor in dividing the classes in every aspect of society.

Edited by author 09-30-2002 11:55 AM
As we humans take steps in right directions, almost like clockwork, our next step is to watch how everyone else ISn't doing this good thing. We complain that THEY don't care about the hall, or they need to stop smoking, they need to go to church like I do, or they need to shape up and accept homosexuals for who they are. While these things may be true, our delivery STINKS! We demand (which doesn't elicit much response, think: mom and dad) instead of encourage toward good behavior. And I am the chief offender, let me assure you! If you ever want to distance yourself from someone, just demand that they change their behavior.
   This is none more evident than in Shantz's Piety and Providence. I didn't enjoy the book till...hmm, about p. 165, or maybe the Dorr Rebellion ch. FINALLy, it took shape, and suddenly you remember this nebulous sort of divided, sort of "organic" community of faith that began the book, yeah, THAT community. Well, it actually fractionalized into competing parties. And the documentary turns out to be a story after all! And my mouth hangs on the floor once again at the myriad of footnotes and comments. But what spurred the division? Well the Free Will Folk and Predestination People had some disagreements in theology. As Shantz shows, the "plebeian" industrial, lower-class tended to drift towards free will theology, individualism, anti-Paternalism, and the property-owning, wealthy class drifted towards "decorum and order," sitting back on their belief that God chooses, so we don't have to do anything (except make sure all you workers are behaving). Unfortunately, these two groups weren't seeking God as one unit by the end like they were at the beginning (sorta), hence the violent conclusion. They bickered first over theology then ultimately over suffrage (Dorr Rebllion), losing sight of their common goal: their God.

One thing I noticed is that some of these disputes seem unanswerable. Check out p. 113. Shantz is describing the Free Will theology, that salvation is something a person chooses. yet at the same time, Martin Cheney, a Free Will Baptist, claims "I can sincerely ascribe all the blessings we have received to the unmerited, unbounded goodness of God." He's thanking God. In this case, he's talking about salvation, too. Seems to me that thanking someone means they gave you something. At the same time, I could talk about the Predestination people and baffle that they didn't choose? Well, all I'm saying is that the bickering that went on over theology was over something mysterious and seemingly unanswerable. Thus they contradict their own selves almost unknowingly.

   Pretty cool how these disputes morph into political agendas, though.

Sorry I didn't defend that first point at the top with portions from the book. that would have been cool. But you get the point. There were few meetings of individuals, just a stand-offish debate. Oh, and Andrew C. I like your comments.

Edited by author 10-01-2002 11:20 PM
Brooks Comments, House Debate on the Nebraska Bill, 15 March 1854.
(Source: Congressional Globe, 33d Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, 371-375.)

The operations of a great system are to be learned by an observation of the operation of smaller systems. In every section where there is a scarcity of land its value is increased. The poor, who might desire to enter it, are unable to buy; and those who are there are generally tempted, by an extravagance of price, to seek their fortunes elsewhere. The men of wealth absorb the small farms into large estates, from which they are frequently absent, and the management of which is usually entrusted to agents who have no interest in them beyond their annual wages and a regard for their professional reputation. The character of this reputation is too often determined by no other consideration than the amount of the crops which are annually raised. Large gangs of Negroes are congregated upon large estates, with no social intercourse but with each other.

They are thus denied the watchful providence of the master, and the elevating influences of his association with them. Loyal to their owner, and proud of their relation to him, they are jealous of a substitute. Wanting in mental resources, imitative by nature, and conscious of a natural inferiority and dependence upon a superior race, when left to themselves, they become the prey of the wildest superstitions, and, removed from the example of their superiors, they descend in the scale of creation.
But, on the other hand, where lands are abundant they are also cheap. The poor man, when provided with a home, next looks around for something upon which he shall expand his successive annual gains, and which will bring the greatest amount of comfort and convenience to his family and himself. Should his money be invested in a Negro, he introduces it into his family circle. The same hand that prepares the daily food of the master, prepares that also of the slave. They labor in the same field, drink from the same spring of water, and worship at the same altar. The Negro is enlightened and enobled by the association, and an experienced southern eye can tell a glance, by the shining face, the more athletic form, and jaunty air, that his home is upon a small farm, and that the white man is the companion of his daily toil.

Were Free-Soilers permitted to carry out their plans of restricting slavery to its present limits, the first effect in the South would be to expel our poor white population, who could not resist the temptation of high prices for their lands; and the second would be still lower to degrade the Negro, and more thoroughly to enslave them.

Greenville Slavery Documents Assignment

Please read and be prepared to discuss:

1. Methodist view of slavery and abolition
2. Will of Burwell Chick
3. WPA Narrative: Elmer Turnage
4. Two other documents (remember their names and substance) of your own selection.

NOT FOR EVALUATION
I just wanted to let you know before the showing of Amistad tonight that I have found someone who owns a copy and that I will watch the movie on my own later this evening.

After watching Amistad I was struck at the viciousness with which the
slaves were treated. Obviously I didn’t think they would be treated
kindly, but the brutality haunted me. The image of the blacks being thrown
in the sea to lighten the cargo load is disgusting. Such inhumane action
reinforced my hatred towards slavery. In turn, the attempts the blacks
made at freeing themselves, their persistent struggle for freedom made me
question whether America was truly the land of Freedom. The fact that
court after court case had to occur makes it seem that America is more
about giving freedom to the elect not to everyone. I can empathize with
the abolitionists, such as Adams, that felt that blacks were people and
deserved rights as well.
The movie in particular did a fair job at portraying the story. However I
am not sure how accurate it was to the real story of Amistad. I do think
the point of the movie, perhaps not accurate to this time period, made
slavery out to be an issue of morality as opposed to commerce. The idea of
the slavery dependant South was mentioned but the emphasis was on blacks
as people with their own “story”. Sherman, the blacks’ lawyer, took time
to learn who they were and in the process found them to be people not just
cattle. This transformation of viewing blacks was crucial in the mindset
of abolitionists.
Looking back at the movie, at if it is accurate portrayal, makes me both
frustrated and proud to be an American. Sadly our Constitution was not
being fulfilled to all those within our country- blacks were not given
freedom or rights. However, the fact that the institution of slavery fell
presents the prospect of hope in further dilemmas that we may face.

When considering "Amistad" and its significance/meaning, I find myself not focusing so much on the degree of accuracy that the film exhibited with respect to the actual Amistad story, but more on the messages the film sends about slavery itself. Many times, it is much easier to highlight specific events, or at least bare skeletons of specific happenings, in order to magnify and discuss abstract concepts and ideas. Regardless of whether or not the film stays true enough to the past, it conveys effective characteristics of slaves and slave society.

Anytime I discuss slavery with anyone, I find myself coming back to the same point over and over again--inconsistency. Pro-slavery forces' main arguments were that slavery was an economic necessity and that it was not immoral because it had always existed and the blacks were a lesser race. How, then, did slaveowners juxtapose such views with numerous cases of sexual infidelity? Basically, they asserted that slaves were not people, yet they were good enough to take out back and rape, screw, or whatever term you prefer. In essence, would the slaveowners say they were committing beastiality? Blacks are not people, but we will have sex with them when we need it. Repulsive.

On somewhat the same note, whites often used phrases that contradicted their own claims about slavery. For instance, slaveowners did not like to split slave families up, often making sure to keep mothers and daughter and father and brothers together. Also, they supposedly gave slaves "breathing room" as an exchange in the slave/owner work compact relationship, whatever you want to call it. Thus, it was recognized that slaves needed their own living room, and they needed to live with their families. SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHITE PEOPLE. I guess the "lesser race" argument was the best that owners could come up with to somehow justify their horrid actions.

As I expected, I began with the intention of discussing "Amistad", which is a great film, and I ended up venting on my utter hatred for any excuses that justify slavery or make it seem like anything other than an inhuman act carried out by ignorant, racist, heartless "people". Though my points did not relate directly to the movie, I feel that "Amistad" had a more general message, and it highlighted many of slavery's wrongs. Accordingly, any talk on slavery is essentially a talk about the Amistad.

Post Note: The fact that Sinque (sp.) may have helped sell his own people into slavery after his release is somewhat disturbing. If such is true, it makes me wonder if he ever deserved his own freedom at all. Slavery is such a diverse issue that an entire class could easily be devoted to it. I am sure that our continued discussions will produce at least some understanding or insight into the "why's", "how's", and "how could they's" of the infamously "peculiar" institution.

I, like Brittany, was struck by the cruelty imposed upon the slaves during their voyage to Cuba/America. While I've always been told about the horrors of slavery, actually seeing a visual representation of the suffering made it seem a lot more real. In all honesty, I don't know if Amistad was an accurate representation because I have never specifically studied that case. It doesn't, however, seem like its off by all that much.
The only incidnet in the movie that seemed like it could have been misrepresented was the scene with the bible. We talked about it in class today and I agree with the comments made that it seemed a bit odd/out of place. Yes, it is possible that the prisoners could have "read" the bible while incarcerated, but it doesn't seem likely that they would have figured out the biblical story of Christ by solely viewing the pictures. This scene just seems to play into Spielberg's emphasis on religion a bit too much.
Keeping with the theme of religion, I thought it was interesting that the abolitionists were portrayed as somber and overly religious. I always thought of the abolitionist movement as highly emotional and that most people did more than just pray for abolition.
As Dr. Benson has mentioned in class, slavery is sometimes viewed by people as a paternalistic institution that, while ultimately a flawed system, was not that bad on the slaves. I think, above all, that Amistad goes to show you that no matter what might be said to "justify" or rationalize slavery, it was wrong. By showing such horrific scenes, Spielberg does not let the viewer forget that, ultimately, slaves were people whose natural state was freedom.

I agree with Dr. Benson that the movie is pretty misleading when it comes to time-span. I was pretty amazed to hear today that they were in the US for 24 months. That is one flaw in the telling of the story I think. There are ways of conveying long periods of time without making the movie heinously boring.
However, I still thought this was a great movie. Whether or not the movie was completely accurate or not seems irrelevant to me. The point of making the movie was to capture interest and make money. I am pretty sure that they accomplished both very well. As Meghan said in class today, if Baldwin and JQA were both portrayed as they actually were, then some of the intrigue would have been taken away. Especially in terms of JQA seemingly being the father figure and coming to the aid of the younger and less experienced Baldwin. Were Baldwin shown as propper and self-sufficient and old as he really was in this case, much would have been lost in the sympathy for the characters department.
Speaking of JQA, I thought Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of JQA, especially in the Supreme Court scene, was great. That is one of my favorite scenes of any movie ever. I don't know how accurate his speech in the movie is to the real speech given in the court that day, but the one in the movie sure was intense. When he goes up to the bust of his father, that is just great.
Anyways, I see little importance in what actually happened to the Africans upon returning to Africa. The importance of the story and the case was the American reaction and response to the situation. If they went back and got slaves of their own later, seems to little importance to me, which is why I think they did a good job in the movie of only devoting about 9 seconds to it.
In terms of religion, I agree with what Andrew said in class today, that it really seemed like a stretch on the part of the producers of the movie. The exchange in the church with the two Africans really does not have anything later in the movie that follows it. It seems to just be in the movie to add another facet to the story. However, it does not seem to add anyhing important to the story, in my opinion. I mean, it's not like they went back to Africa and began converting other Africans to Christianity.
As far as the cruelty of the slave ships goes, I think the movie did an excellent job of showing how horrible the conditions really were. From the drowning of slaves to the awful feeding and whipping, etc...the movie hits right at our hearts and really makes this movie emotional. Though it is almost sickening to watch, I believe it is necessary to see, in order for us to understand what really happened during this time.
My mom once told me that she would never watch Amistad because she said that she cannot handle watching the sheer injustice of a movie like that. I agree that it is heartwrenching and disgusting, but I also feel it is important for us to see such things, and experience them, so that we can understand the sufferings of those exposed to these horrors. I liken this movie, in some ways, to Schindler's List. That movie is as intense and sickening as it gets, but at the same time those kind of experiences for us are vital in understanding our world and the sentiments of those around us.
I watching this movie was a great idea, even if the specific historical figures are not entirely accurate. The overall messages and story of the movie are far more important than the accuracy of the characters.

I agree with Mike and Dr. Benson in that I think that one interesting aspect of "Amistad" was how it dealt with the issue of time. THe compression of the events that took place over twenty four months into something that the viewer percieves as a comparativly short period of time is a misrepresentation of the events. What intrests me about this movie is that although the events themselves and even some of the characters made be changes in various ways, both small and large, the key message of the movie and the story the movie is drawn from remains intact. "Amistad" was effective in portraying the evils of slavery in a sometimes graphic manner. This portrayal removes the idea of slavery from the abstract and makes it something that the viewer can truly understand. The concept of killing slaves on the voyage becasue the crew did not have enough food for them is a striking concept on paper, but seeing it happen on the screen makes the event exponentialy more powerfull to the viewer than to someone who had just read an account of "Amistad". This event is a great example of what makes "Amistad" an effective movie.
I found the issue of religion in the film interesting as well. The film seems to focus on it to a degree which does not seem extreamly realisitic or even probable. The portrayal of the abolitionists ties into this with the scenes where they sing and pray for the slaves. This portrayal makes the abolitionists seem ineffective. I also agree with Ashley's statements on the scene in the movie where the Bible is being read by looking at the pictures. This seems to be complete fiction and have no point to the film except to push the theme of religion that runs throughout the film.
Despite its occasional failures in accuracy "Amistad" succedes as a film in that its message is still clear and accurate.

I first saw the movie "Amistad" several years ago and found myself in the minority when I found the movie to be quite interesting and good. Upon seeing it a second time in class, I was more struck by the incongruities that this film presents in comparison to the actual story. After our brief discussion in class today about these incongruities and, on the other side, what the film did well in representing I began to think of one of my favorite shows on the History Channel, History vs. Hollywood, and what they would have thought of this movie.
The incongruities may not be very obvious for the casual viewer, but upon our discussion in class today, they became clear. First of all, as many have mentioned before me, is the critical issue of time. Is it possible to do the story justice when the actual length of 2 years is seemingly crammed into a short time spand of several weeks or months? My answer is no, it is not possible to do the story true justice in a 2 1/2 hour time frame, but what movie can?? Moreover, the seemingly creation and/or recreation of some of the characters in the movie adds some cinematic flare but skews the story and truly complex characters become either a hero or villain. The story as a whole is put into such a black-and-white perspective with little room for interpretation or complexity that the story seems to become one of overcoming adversity and a fight for freedom in a slave-holding country. As anyone could tell another, no one person, alive nor dead, lacks a complex character nor does one story lack space for anything other than the underdog overcoming the all mighty U.S. government.
So then, what do I think that the movie does well? "Amistad" may be two-dimensional, but it's vivid description of the horrid nature of the slave trade will send shivers down even the strongest man's spine. "Amistad" well depicts the horrid conditions and horrid treatment of slaves on a slave trading ship. From the cramped quarters to the loss of "cargo" it depicts a very poignant and terrifying age in world history. I also believe that the movie does justice to politics in the 19th century. Our 8th President, Martin Van Buren, is shown, very well I believe, as the typical politician who is dead-set on re-election and lets nothing interfere with his campaign until some event like the "Amistad" comes into conflict with his bid for re-election.
On a final note, in the last sequence in which the Amistad Africans were on the ship bound home to Africa, I found the wearing of new, clean, white shirts by the Africans to be very poignant and a clear image of their return to freedom. This is the first and only time that we ever see them shone in white and, moreover, I think that it is symbolic of their being touched, and possibly changed, by their time in America as they are now Africans who have been in bondage and have overcome their captors.
So, what is my verdict, is "Amistad" History or Hollywood? Spielburg has taken a wonderful and exciting story and retold it in the 20th century, but he is not a historian. His re-telling of this story has lost the validity and complexity of the original, thus having skewed the actual history in it. What is left, however, is a great "based on actual events" story that in which the audience leaves thinking about the slave trade and it's effects on the human soul and experience. Maybe that was his point. Maybe more than telling a story in all it's accuracy he wanted to tell a great story and to make the audience leave with a new perspective on the slave trade and slavery in the 19th century.

I will have to admit, the thought of sitting in a classroom for three hours on a Wednesday night watching a movie about something that happened almost 200 years ago did not particularly excite the wild spirit inside of me. But, I was surprised at how the movie kept my interest despite the fact that I felt like my rear end was about to fall off.

I was particularly interested in the portrayal of John Q. Adams. I will be the first to admit that my historical knowledge of the man and his presidency is somewhat lacking, and I could not tell you the first thing about his particular politics. But, the portrayal of the man at the very end of not only his career but also his life and the courage he showed to make the type of speech he did at the last major scene was remarkable. I know that Hollywood does much to dramatize and romanticize historical figures, but if the course of events that actually happened was close to the movie's portrayal, then, there are many lessons to be learned by those who had the courage to stand up and say what they believed.

I also thought that the portrayal of the second judge, the second, younger judge who was supposed to throw out the case to further his own career, was particularly interesting. Here was a young man who was at the dawn of a potentially great career as a judge and possibly politician who stood up in front of the most powerful men in the country and ruled his true conscience. The role that his religion played in his decision and the correlation with the beginning knowledge of the slaves about the story of Jesus was certainly moving as well.

Overall, the movie kept me awake. I seriously was quite impressed with both the portrayal of JQA and the second judge, both of whom played very important roles and shaped the most dramatic scenes in the movie.

AMISTAD: many points. read any or all!
LIGHT: Light is always shed on American institution. White clothes of white people (even those Cinque was robed in at the end), white government building. Often a glimmer of light was all that shone in scenes with the Africans, always distant, in the background far off. Like a distant, unreachable hope. The only light that shone on the Amistad itself were terrifying flashes like a thunderstorm, certainly not soft and/or comforting.

theme: COURAGE IN LEADERSHIP. Cinque speaks through the interpreter about killing the mighty lion [which would symbolize the court case at hand] with a rock. "a ROCK." he says [symbolizing his testimony b/f the court]. He adds, "I'm not a big man. Just a lucky one." This theme would return later, when JQAdams said he used to be the president. Cinque then looks him straight in the eyes and bellows, "Once a chief, always a chief." Also, in this scene they revisit the rock and lion story, completing the theme.
 
JODESON: The fabricated Jodeson was the movie's moral wrapped into man! He was the black man who did fight the lion and win. He demonstrated the oneness of humanity, regardless of skin color. This is none more evident than when he was face to face with the slave after the slaves' arrival, and the slaves are all wondering aloud, "Is he one of us?" YES! He's one of all! He's the beacon of light that that declares that blacks don't REQUIRE paternalistic control, but possess the same intelligence and opportunity that whites do.

theme: PLANTS. There were only three notable portrayals of plants that I remember: Vegetation in Africa, JQAdams and his greenhouse, the light shining on that one plant of Adams' study that he moved with his hand, and one at the end with Adams again. oh, silly me, that's four. To me, this also may be an allusion to the oneness of humanity. (this could be overanalyzing, but hear me out). Across the world, despite climate and ORIGIN, plants exist. Some thrive in certain climates and environments, while others can't live, are repressed under the climate of foreign regions; but they all exist, all grow, all die, all need the light of the sun, all need watering. It was concentrating on the light thing that made me wonder about this.

theme: IGNORED ABOLITIONISTS. Perhaps Spielberg was chastising the inactivity or lack of boldness of the abolitionists during this affair?

kudos to ANthony Hopkins and the high pitched Northern accent.

Today in class, Dr. Benson mentioned that the events represented in Amistad actually took place over 24 months. Yet, in Spielberg’s film, the events are compressed into what seems to be a few weeks. I think this compression of time, however, is what makes the film effective. It allows the viewer to follow the trials of Cinque (and the other Mendes) as if they were expedient. This enforces the significance of this whole ordeal; had the film described the drawn out process of the trials, the audience would have lost interest, and the film would have been much less powerful.

The power of the use of light and darkness in Amistad was discrete, yet distinct. Spielberg uses darkness or poor lighting to represent the oppression of the African prisoners, while light is used to portray their freedom. At the end of the film, I kept thinking about the use of this technique and how it really augmented the message of the movie.

Amistad was extremely graphic, but I feel that it was tasteful and very representative of the cruelty to these unsuspecting Africans who were illegally taken into slavery. These scenes were painful and, at times, horrifying to watch, but at the same time necessary to the film.

One part of Amistad that I found a little bit hard to swallow was the scene where the prisoners are basically comparing themselves to Jesus. It seems highly unlikely that they would understand the concept of death and heaven just from a few pictures in a Bible.

Overall, this film affirmed to me that Steven Spielberg is a master director. Although he may not always represent historical events accurately in his movies, he always does it in a moving and thoughtful manner. Amistad is no exception. In addition, this film had an exceptional cast who performed beautifully. I think that Anthony Hopkins did an especially good job in portraying John Quincy Adams.

After viewing "Amistad," and then reading the comments some of my classmates have made concerning the film, I am a little surprised at the reactions of others. It could be that I'm just not the history buff type, but I never once thought about the time period being a crucial factor in the movie. In fact, I still haven't gotten past the gruesome scenes of the women being thrown overboard and the men being beaten until they are barely alive. In my personal opinion, the depth and emotion of this movie could have carried the film to the top, regardless of the accuracy of the characters or the time period. As hard as it was to watch many of the scenes, I agree with Mike in that it is a vital tool to fully understanding what these people must have gone through and realizing the impact that this institution had on the world.
When pondering how to describe this movie, two words come to mind: cruelty and corruption. The cruelty is the easiest to understand, partly, I think, because it is something that we all came to expect before even viewing the film. Everyone has read about the atrocities of the slave trade in textbooks since they were in the 4th grade, so while the information is appalling and, at time, unbelievable, it has become less and less of a shock every time we revisit the material. Still, watching the violence and extreme measures that were taken when dealing with the slaves in a movie with actual characters played by real people is a lot different than reading about it in textbooks. It's simply horrifying. I don't know any other word to describe it.
While the graphic nature of this movie was hard to watch, I found the corruption that the American people, and even people of other countries, were portrayed as having equally revolting. I was aware that slavery was one of the most pressing issues in the world at that time, but I was unaware of the severity of corruption that existed among the government. What hit me hardest was the way in which Van Buren was portrayed. He was viewed as caring less about the issue of slavery, an institution that was on the verge of ripping his country in half, and more about becoming reelected. It was almost as if he only wanted the title so that he could sit at his big desk and stare at his name with the words "President of the United States of America" written under it. Did he not realize that this issue was at a point where he COULDN'T ignore it anymore or side with whoever promised him more votes? I don't know how accurate this portrayal of Van Buren was but I highly doubt it too far fetched. He was a politician. Enough said.
Overall, this movie was incredible. I may not have picked up on every little historical inaccuracy, but the message of freedom definitely got through to me. So I give my two thumbs up to Spielberg and Hollywood for taking such a difficult and controversial topic and creating such a powerful and moving film.

Edited by author 10-04-2002 03:59 AM
I had already seen this movie a few times in the past (and thought it was brilliant each time) so I didn't get the element of shock when viewing it this time (though some of the scenes would be shocking even the 100th time). The issue of 24 months vs. the shortened movie version didn't really strike me as odd until I thought about the correspondence between Spain and the US. Doesn't it take like a month and a half to travel the Atlantic by ship? How did the Spanish government find out so quickly and how were they able to respond with a demand of return so quickly? A minor nuisance in an otherwise seamless presentation...
The visual images of the movie were much more powerful to me than the courtroom dialogue. I guess I've seen enough TV shows involving court cases that I don't feel the tension in them that I used to. First off, the LIGHT use in the movie: the flashes of light in the opening scene fit perfectly with the frenetic, feverish scene of a slave mutiny, and all I could see (and needed to see)was the sweat, blood, lightning, and rain exploding everywhere like fireworks. Very good presentation. Next, did anyone notice that JQ Adams was always shown in bright, soft light in the movie, as if he were some sort of angel or deity? Compared to the dark and dreariness of most of the scenes in the movie, these were very noticeable. And on Jefe's point about the plants in the movie--I found it very symbolic that the African Violet was the only flower in his greenhouse that was "caged" by that glass. By letting Cinque lift the glass off of the violet himself, it foreshadowed Cinque's words being used to free the African slaves.
The religious scenes being spoon fed did seem a bit much, but the unspoken comparison of Cinque and the lion with David and Goliath was more subtle than the rest, as was the birth of the child on the slave ship. The newborn was lifted into the air and somehow light shone upon it despite the darkness of the boat. The sacrifice of the baby during the whipping scene was also poignant.
Was anyone else curious about the scene where Cinque looks around and freaks out before saying "Give us us free"? I was puzzled.
Overall, I was disappointed that the second half of the movie focused more on Van Buren, Calhoun, Adams, and the court deliberations. After their impressive story, the slaves were largely in the background for the latter half of the movie. But I'll have to say, good directing, good acting, good editing, and a few scenes that wet my eyes--not bad for a semi-factual historical movie.

Amistad was a great movie. I'd never seen it before and it was incredibly moving. I cannot imagine how anyone can justify slavery to themselves when people are treated like that. The political scenes in the movie were great to see because they explained what the people with the most power were doing and how it resulted in civil war even though they weren't as dramatic or moving as the rest of the movie. One also got to see that to a lot of politicians this was just another issue. It was like healthcare reform or an issue on paper that does not need to be resolved immediately. It sad to see that VanBuren thought his campaign was more important to deal with that this issue.
   When I found out that this happened over 2 years or so I was surprised. It makes sense but I think that they could have done a better job to show the passage of time more clearly. It seems a little stupid but that factor helps to understand the period and adds a little something to make it that more unfortunate because Cinque and the other slaves waited so long.
   The small part abolitionists had in the movie symbolizes the small role they played in real life. I thought it was weird that they were supposed to be against slavery but they never did anything about it. They just prayed. Their lack of action in this movie makes me curious about how much they did in real life and now it makes sense why slavery lasted as long as it did. I also think that they were portrayed as being kind of stupid and not understanding the situation because a lot of the scenes with them in it seemed to provide comedic relief. It was a surprise to me to see them take such a small part in the trial.
   The part with Cinque and the Bible was interesting. I think it makes sense for him to be interested in it but to follow it automatically was strange. The story of the persecution of Jesus and the Jews that he was shown was a story that the Jews and Christians believed in to give them hope as well. And the faith that he would have in the Bible compared to that of the abolitionists seems more substantial.
  This movie was great and it showed what happened to the slaves and a portion of the slavery well

Edited by author 10-04-2002 09:30 AM
Wow, what an intense movie. I thought I had seen this movie in high school, but it must have been
something else...I would have remembered this. I really got wrapped up into this movie, something
that rarely happens to me. Talk about some powerful scenes...the beatings on the ship, the throwing
overboard of up to fifty people, and the death of a new mother. Amistad, though wonderfully done,
was often hard for me to watch.

Light, or I should say Spielberg's use of it, plays a large role in the movie. As Andy pointed out, the
flashing of light really conveighs the feelings of panic aboard the ship as the slave revolt is about
to take place. Also, religious imagery seems to play a large role as well, especially David and
Goliath parallelled with Cinque and the Lion. It was also brought out in the scene in which the one
man in explaining the Bible to another man. Though he cannot read, he seems to have a better
understanding of the Bible than some literate Americans I know. I found it interesting that in the
next scene, as the "slaves" are walking to court, he looks up and sees three crosses on the ship.
It doesn't seem to scare him, but rather assure him that his soul will be sent to heaven after his
death.

I felt that for me the emotional climax of the movie occurs in court when Cinque stands up and
demands "Give us free!" I don't know how he learned it or why he learned it, but he certainly
gets his point accross. I think his "freak out" as Andy phrased it, occurs to make the point that
Cinche and his people feel helpless, something he obviously is not used to. When the pressure
gets to be too much, he attempts to communicate on the most basic level.

As for my overall critique of the movie, I felt that is was very good. Though historical
inaccuracies lace Amistad, it none-the-less tells a wonderful story in an exteremely powerful
way. I did feel that some characters were presented with a spin to make the movie more
interesting (ex: Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and certainly President Van Buren), but of
course, this is almost expected. Overall I enjoyed the movie, and found it educational and
entertaining.

Edited by author 10-04-2002 09:54 AM
Spielberg’s production of the Amistad story was brilliant and moving, supported by an excellent cast. The overall feelings evoked from such scenes as tossing “cargo” overboard, whippings, and imprisonment, along with the portrayed hard hearts of slave traders and district attorneys, combine to show slavery at its worst from both sides, the intimidated African captive viewpoint as well as the eyes of white, aristocratic leaders that support the “peculiar institution.” The film is both empathetic and sympathetic in an effective manner.
 
The use of lighting to show a theme of bondage vs. freedom, the characterization of key figures such as John Quincy Adams, and the representation of diverse tribal groups confined together are several key elements that make this film so monumental.

Spielberg used the light and dark contrast in a simple yet subtle way to showcase Cinque and other prisoners at various points of the movie and compare their “lightness” (freedom) to the other courthouse citizens, which became more similar as the movie progressed. It is also interesting to ponder the more obvious characteristic of this light vs. dark tool. African slaves had dark skin and the free whites had light skin. It doesn’t take a true historian to figure this out. By using dark focus on the African characters, the movie added to their already set tone and portrayed them as most of the antebellum freemen saw them, one entire group of dark, inferior half-people, not worthy to show their face in full daylight. On the contrast, white characters were tied with bright light to show their superior role in matters as well as their “purity and goodness.” I don’t believe the moviemakers feel this way, but their use of lighting represents the public opinion of the 19th century population well. This can be seen as a tie, although not purely, with the freedom vs. bondage image as well.

The characterization of John Quincy Adams is perhaps the most positive role given to a white free man in the film, and his abolitionist tact is representative of the small but overall effective group of slavery opponents. His courtroom arguments are shown to appeal to forefather ideals, of which he is directly linked, and virtuous morals that judges and case viewers can’t deny, helping the Africans to regain their freedom. However, had he not been a former president or held such a high position, he would not have been very effective. The abolitionist, religious-type group of people that followed the scenes discreetly in the back corner are ineffective and barely heard, but when a spokesman of high esteem and power makes the same argument, the population listens. This is an important realization in the fight against slavery – abolitionists of all types helped to create a large group of slavery opponents, but without key leaders of ranked position and regarded highly on a national basis, their fight would be weaker and much less efficient. Political backing was essential.

When viewing slavery as an overall institution, it is important to keep in mind that not all slaves were the same. In history books and lectures, we tend to group “slaves” into one, homogenous group of Africans, with the same religion, language, and emotions. The movie did a decent job of showing the different tribal groups and language barriers present even among the same type of prisoners. The dispute over where to put the lawyer’s table in the holding cell illustrates this well. Not all slaves were the same; they all came from different places with distinctive cultures. In realizing this, we see the broader implication of the institution – it affects many groups of people in the same, torturous way and categorizes dark and light as automatic stereotypes of cattle vs. human. In other words, slavery was a widespread phenomenon and not limited to one group of the same mistreated people.

In praising the movie, I must admit that I have a problem with one of its elements, but it’s less with the portrayal and more with the true storyline. Captives traveling on Amistad were set free because of certain circumstances and technicalities, and solidly based on the idea that slaves equaled property. No other slaves were legally set free in that broad a manner until January of 1863. It is happy to note that one group of Africans benefited from virtuous “radical” opinion of abolitionists, but it is sad to note that every other slave was still considered property and not allowed to come close to a courthouse. It would take some 20 years to change the politics of the institution, and Amistad was a stepping stone toward that, but overall, I feel immense disappointment in the “logic” of former judges and attorneys and common folk and merchants and others over the basic treatment of another human, which they viewed as “livestock” and which we now know as each other.

I thought that Spielburgs Amistad was an excellent movie. Ive seen the thing about 5 times now but each time i see it i grab hold of another concept that i didnt understand quite as well at first. The journey made by the Tequora and the scenes in the movie depicting that journey were extremely moving. its hard to imagine how we can treat other human beings like that.

For the first time i payed attention to the religion in the movie. it told the story of Christ and sort of made a comparison to the slaves' lives. The slaves went through enormous suffering, all that they did not deserve. Jesus went through suffering as well, all that he didnt deserve. However, the analogy runs out because Jesus was sent to save the people who put him through suffering. And the suffering that the slaves went through doesnt even hold a candle to the sufferings of Christ. I felt like those scenes made Christ's sufferings look similar to those of the slaves. The slaves were beaten, starved and what not. so what? Christ took on the whole wrath of God on the cross. but i really do wonder if the slaves were really captured by the Bible.

i really enjoyed the portrayal of JQ Adams in the movie and thought that anthony hopkins did a great job. his character provided some comic relief and the speeches made were very well thought.

overall i think the movie is great. yes, there are inaccuraces but i dont think it tells the story pretty well for a movie. the acting was superb and the accent given to calhoun was pretty humurous. good movie

Amistad packed many feverish emotions into two and a half short hours. The slaves alone had to portray numerous different sides and I'm sure their acting skills were pushed to the limits. They ran the gamut from being enslaved captives, fearsome rebels, discriminated against inferiors and prisoners, and finally, liberated free men. Im sure it must have been extremely difficult for the African-American men to play the role of slaves. Though it was alomost 150 years ago, the topic of slavery is still very fresh on people's minds.

I thought many of the true to life characters presented here were extremely fascinating, if not 100 percent accurate. I particularly liked John Calhoun's character. He was played in much the same manner that I could imagine the man being: A rich, influential, stubborn yet very influential Southern politician. Van Buren in turn comes across as a president with a very weak stomach who has no intereest in conflict at all. However, I wonder the extent to which Calhoun actually wanted a civil war to break out. He seems to threaten the possibility here with almost too much enthusiasm. Obviously, neither side would have wanted to if they had known the atrocities of the ensuing war.

Also, I thought John Quincy Adams' character was done in an amazingly well done manner. I'm sure that some of it had to be Anthony Hopkins' unmatched acting skills, but I thought his lines and personality traits were very well written. Some other minor points: Cinque, in his rage of thinking he would be set free but in fact wasn't by the court of Connecticut, brought up a very interesting point. He says something along the lines of, "What kind of country is this where a law is a law, but not always?!" I never had thought of it before, but in our political system of numerous appeals and mistrials, its a sad fact that some people who thought that they were proven not guilty can be taken back to a different level of the courts. Here, Cinque was just another man who experienced this depressing paradox.

Edited by author 10-04-2002 10:47 AM
Amistad is a great film that uses some artistic licenses (all these licenses have a purpose) but generally gives an intense and vivid portrayal of the struggles of slaves at this time. Some of the scenes that I found particularly moving, intense, or disturbing included Cinque yelling let us free (or something like that), the throwing of slaves off the ship, and the imagery of the crosses after Cinque and another man go through the Bible.
Cinque yelling in court was incredibly moving to me. His passion and ignorance of the conventions of the courtroom made this scene particularly powerful. Its just refreshing to see someone who is completely real because they don't have the ability to put up a front.
The scene where slaves are being thrown off the boat was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in a movie. Yet the most sad part of this description of the boat by Cinque was the suicide of the woman and her daughter. To see a mother decide to jump overboard and kill herself and her baby is chilling.
Cinque going through the Bible and having his fellow African describe it to him was fascinating to me. The imagery when he got out with the masts on the boat looking like three crosses was very timely and well done. Although I'll agree with the comment made in class a yesterday that it seemed a little random.

     I can not recall a movie that has grabbed my attention and held it for the duration of the rest of the film like Amistad did the other night. Despite the technical difficulties, I found it to be a visual movie. What I mean by this is that the film's most powerful moments were the scenes that were able to leave an image in my mind that I will remember forever. I agree with most people that the transportation scenes on the boats were the most disturbing/important. In addition to those scenes, I was very interested in the moments dealing with the slave trading fortress. I had no comprehension of how organized and large the operation was prior to viewing this film.
     Once I learned in class on Thursday that some of the characters and events had been exaggerated or manipulated to "improve" the film for the audience, I still felt that the movie was an outstanding film that needs to be recognized more so for its' emotional impact, than for its' factual accountability. Aside from the slavery issue of the movie, I also enjoyed getting a glimpse into what life was like in the 1840's. I can not think of another movie I have seen based in this exact time period. I was most interested in our nation's relationships with other foreign powers was particularly revealing. (England, Spain) Overall I agree with what everyone has previously stated; the movie has some factual errors as a result of the storytelling, but the movie's emotional impact remains as the most important aspect of the movie to remember. Spielberg gives us a close up view of some aspects of the slave trade, and I personally will never forget some of the incredible moments in this movie.

Amistad was a great movie even with the problems of the projector. I realize that the movie was done in such a way to evoke emotions, but it is nearly impossible to deal with slavery and be completely free of emotion. One of the things I noticed from the start was the duality of the way that Americans thought about slavery. I thought the shot of the New Haven Press with the headline "Massacre at Sea" replaced with a copy of the Emancipator with the headline "Freedom Fight at Sea". I thought that did a good job of simply expressing how the two sides saw the issue in very different ways.

I wonder whether the threat of Civil War was as big a threat as it seemed in the movie. I think that this movie may have played the Civil War card too much just because we know what happened down the road. The war may have been a threat, but I have doubts of whether it was as big a threat as it seemed here.

I think it was interesting how the movie portrays the church. Some seemed to be supporting abolition for abolition's sake, not seeming to care about the people who were in slavery. Others, religious and non-religious alike, seemed to have had a sincere concern for the slaves. Some may think the scene with Cinque and the other man looking through Bible may have been forced, but I disagree. True, as Ian points out, the analogy between Christ's suffering and slaves is not exact. However, I am not completely sure if that was the point. There was a powerful statement about suffering and redemption. It explains why many African slaves turned to a religion that promises freedom when they were in chains.

Ultimately, Amistad was an excellent movie. It showed how horrifying slavery was and celebrated those who fought it. Exagerrations and alterations aside, it made me think about our nation's past. That's a good thing.

     Speilburg's Amistad captivates the viewer through it's appeal to the senses and it's symbolisms.
     The opening scene aboard the ship was so raw and graphic I had to turn my head, but I feel it had to be that harsh for anything less would not be down playing the actual conditions. Viewing this movie, I was forced to think again about the abomination of slavery and what a dark area it is of the history of the "civilized" world. Speaking of dark things, like the rest of the class I saw the parallels between bondage and slavery being represented in shadowed gloom while the sun always seemed to cast it's beams onto the figures who showed a future hope of abolition: John Q. Adams, the baby born aboard the Amistad, and Cinque.

To start with, I don’t think I can recall a Steven Speilburg movie that was actually bad. The only movies that come to my mind when I think of his work are ones like Indiana Jones, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan. I think Amistad ranks right up there with those pieces of work. Speilburg successfully portrayed the harsh realities of the slave trade as well as capture the political feelings of the time.

As a South Carolinian, naturally I would be intrigued by the portrayal of John C. Calhoun. Jake mentioned earlier about how Calhoun was everything he imagined him to be. I would have to say I agree. With everything from the high hair to his stubbornness, Calhoun was accurately portrayed. However, being that Calhoun was a southern, rich, dignified man, would anyone believe that he would talk to the representative of Spain with a mouth full of food? Did anyone else catch that? I believe that’s a little bit more of the History vs. Hollywood stuff that Lindsay referred to earlier. I think Speilburg was trying to show Southerners as more rural and less refined than their northern colleagues. Thus, Southerners would be less inclined to see the brutality in the slave trade. Lastly on Calhoun, Jake stated that he believed Calhoun did want a civil war to take place. I will have to disagree with Jake on that one. The South was pretty dependent on Northern industry around the time this movie’s setting took place. Calhoun never wanted a civil war, but just protection for the “minority” South. The only way he saw to protect this minority sometimes was to threaten secession. Just as he did with Andrew Jackson, I could definitely see Calhoun hinting toward a conflict between North and South to Martin Van Buren. I could also see Martin Van Buren reacting the way he did at the table, with a shocked – I don’t know what to do expression on his face. However, I imagine the position he was in would be pretty tough, being a New York president trying to keep some electoral votes from the South and having that effected by the outcome of a court case.

The last thing that really stood out to me, as well as many of my classmates, was the scene where the slaves were being thrown off the ship to lighten the load. It was quite a terrifying scene, and I believe it really took the audience’s hatred of slavery to a high point in the movie. I was watching the History Channel a couple of weeks ago, and they were showing the final days of Vietnam. During those days, U.S. seamen were throwing helicopters, which cost millions, overboard to make more room for more Vietnamese trying to flee their country. It’s amazing how far we have come as a society in just 100 years. Could you imagine the men that were sailing the Amistad, dropping millions of dollars into the ocean as compared to Africans to lighten the ship? Unfortunately, one hundred years ago, it would have been a no brainer for most people to throw off the slaves. Our society truly has come a long way, when in only 100 years, the no brainer is to preserve human life at any cost.

Okay, so I don't really understand how this editing of your entry works- so instead of having an edit I'm going to add on to the first one that got submitted- I hope that is alright!
     In addition to symbolic lighting, there is obvious religious symbolism included, which I think is pertinent to the film's message stressing the moral problem with slavery and the Christian argument for abolition, and it serves to create an emotional response in the viewer by showing that the slaves were humans and not just hethens doomed on earth to servitude and doomed in death to damnation. The crosses, David and Goliath analogy, and juxtaposition of Christian hymns with African chants - both forms of sacred music to their respective cultures - are other examples, as has been stated by my classmates, of the religious connection included in Amistad.
     I also appreciated how Speilburg films his movies with the ability to activate all human senses and not just sight and sound. He accomplishes this through graphic details so that, when the slaves are on the Amistad for instance, the claustraphic, dank feeling of the hull; the searing pain of the whip; the foul smell of pestilence; and the stomache-churning taste of slop (I am sure I do not want to know what that was) become real and bring physical discomfort to the viewer. The issue of slavery is self is one that continues to make people uncomfortable, and so I applaud Speilburg's techniques. I also liked the greenhouse scene with Adams and Cinque where Cinque smells the African Violet and one can tell he is recalling memories of his home, because that fragrance has stirred something in his memory; I expected there to be a flashback to his wife or Africa, but there was one and now I think that having one was not neccessary, because one still knows what is going through Cinques mind. I became completely engaged in the film as a result of these inclusions.
     My main criticism of the film are the attempts at humor which, to me, just seem out of place in a historical film about the horrors of slavery. I can see where the filmmakers would want to lighten the mood at times to keep the audience from becomming entirely depressed, but this is a depressing issue so maybe we should just be left with that. I do think the end of the movie was appropriate and poingnant, though. Although there was cause to celebrate the triumph in the Supreme Court, it is important not to get too excited about that, because, as we all know, that was not the end of bondage and inequality, but in a way it was the beginning of the end as Calhoun's character is credited for asserting. The movie begins and ends on the sea, which I believe shows how, eventhough two years had passed, everyone was still essentially back where they began and poses the question of whether the slaves of the Amistad's struggle really made a significant difference in the whole scheme of things and if the Civil War and it's aftermath would have occurred with or without this incident. I think it did make a difference, though, and I enjoyed this movie not because it was "the feel good hit of the semester" by any means, but because it made me think more closely about how I should watch historical movies in the future- by not accepting all the portrayals and information as absolute truth- and it made me reflect again on the tragic history of slavery in our free country.

Yeah, so I thought the "discussion due by classtime" thing meant by class on Monday, since we're having class. Maybe not. I enjoyed the movie, though I must echo the responses of everyone else (mostly) by wondering what from the movie was historically accurate. Did John Quincy Adams really give that speech in front of the Supreme Court? One thing I bet really did happen was the message the British commander sent to America about there not being a slave fortress. That sounds like the sort of jerk thing a British commander would really have done. I would like to comment on the lighting, but I can't because I don't really know what the lighting is really like on that movie.

The staging was discernable, though, and many of the scenes were staged beautifully. For example, the scene that transitions between the judge in prayer and the two prisoners discussing the pictures in the Gospel one of them had received, or the scene were the lawyer and Cinque try to communicate the distance the distance the Africans had to travel.

What was Spielberg trying to communicate in the end? Cinque wins the case and goes home to find a wasteland--where does that leave us? Why tell the story at that point? The entire movie moves us to despise slavery (especially the slave trade) and at the end we find his capture is the only reason he survives. Cinque and the others travel home, clothed in white, symbols of redemption, but the redemption they won in the US leads them back to an Africa that hardly sounds worth returning to. Why include it? Other details were cut and added throughout the movie to aim toward one goal, and those final captions seemed to me to dash it all against the rocks.

The test will be in Garrison, not FH 204. Sorry for the inconvenience.

In reading the speeches from Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas, I was somewhat hoping to encounter some sort of new insights into the 19th century slavery argument. In hindsight, however, I fear that my hopes were grossly naive. All 3 speeches were engrossed--nay, saturated--in conventional rhetoric. The continual usage of phrases such as "holy", "divine", etc. taints the entire slavery debate with a false sense of adherence to natural law. Upon further inspection, however, it is entirely evident that each speech was rooted in political goals and strategies. Jeff Davis, for instance, tried to drench his words with notions of majority government, property rights, blah blah blah. Intially, these sound like legitimately principled arguments. However, when translated into practical language, his speech could be summed up as such: "We (the South) will not accept any goddamned governmental attempt to limit slavery. These monkeys make our money, and any efforts to limit the spread of our economic system is a direct slap in our face and an indication that we are somehow ignorant or less qualified than Northerners to run things". As far as Seward's speech is concerned, the brunt of it seemed to hinge on the issue of Southern/slave-state resistance to abolition or limitations of slavery. His main point was this: "Why try to resist the limiting or banning of slavery in territories? Abolition is coming, and liberty follows the sword. Keep your slaves where you have them, if you want, but do not try to impose your peculiar institution on new territories in which the people have spoken." Stephen Douglas (who happens to be one of my favorite historical figures of any era) had the most...hard to dissect...speech of the 3. I am not sure that I fully understood the crux of his argument, but I took it to be, essentially, popular sovereignty. Douglas, in later years, proves to be uncompromising in this view, practically (I would argue) costing himself the presidency. Anywho, though Douglas the racist of racists, he held true to the belief that functional governments in territories and new states could decide on slavery for themselves. Thus, his speech seems to be the most...what is the word?..."genuine" (I hesitate to use this work when speaking of a 19th century politician who had huge aspirations, but hey...once will not kill me).

Looking from a different angle, I would just like to say that the fact that these long pieces were speeches in incredible. The fact that one person could deliver such a grammatically sound, passionate oration in one standing is amazing (regardless of motives). Politics during the era of the slavery dispute were undeniably more passionate, fiery, and loud than the media-guided, money-driven banter we play witness to today. Despite who I agree with principly or morally, I respect each of these 3 men for their fervor and unwielding confidence in their own interpretations of the Truth.

A nugget for thought: If at least one state generally recognizes slaves as "property", then is not the banning of slavery in any state essentially the restriction of owning certain types of property (like guns or crackpipes), and thus, would not antislavery legislation have to address the issue in a property sense? Or, was legislation simply carrying out a shift in the status of slaves from "property" to "person"? Essentially, what I am saying is that, it seems to me as long as slaves were "property", then the practice was not ever justifiably banned anywhere. Accordingly, its restriction implied "human being status" to slaves, very much killing a large part of the pro-slavery argument. I guess the opposing sides could never even agree on what slaves were. Reminds me of the abortion debate, and when "life" begins. Underlying premises or principles can definitely determine substantive debates...hmm.....

Goodnight.

I found it interesting that, while these speeches technically were about the Wilmot Proviso, they always ended up being a discussion about the moral/political issues surrounding slavery in general. That just goes to show that Seward was correct in his assesment that every issue was somehow related to slavery(the Wilmot Proviso was obviously pretty directly connected to slavery).
 
Jefferson Davis' arguments in favor of slavery in the areas ceded to the US by Mexico actually made sense to me in a way. I didn't really follow his idea that Mexico wasn't a conquered nation seeing as how there was a war and all, but the fact that the US bought land from the Mexican government(versus just claiming it as a spoil of war)does create some ambiguity as to the actual nature of the relationship between the US and Mexico at the end of the war. With a conquered nation, it might be understandable that some of the laws of the previous government would remain in effect, but if one country pays for land, then they should have absolute jurisdiction. It is in this way that Davis' argument seems somewhat reasonable to me. He loses me, however, when he begins "preaching" about the benefits of slavery in paragraph 70. To me, he just sounds like he is rationalizing slavery to himself-moralizing it. But I suppose this was the typical southern slaveowner argument.

What I liked most about Seward's arguments was his point about the southerners' fear of a slave uprising(p30). If they were so scared of this happening, it makes absolutley no sense for them to want to spread slavery, thus increasing the chance of a slave revolt. I also liked how he systematically reviewd the Southerners' arguments and logically proved them wrong. I suppose this is fairly standard in politics, but it is effective nonetheless.

Douglas also made some good points regarding slavery, my favorite being the fact that prohibiting slavery in new territories was not an act of northern aggression since the people in those areas freely chose to not institute slavery.
 
More than anything else, these three arguments foreshadowed the coming war. While Seward didn't see war as a necessity, or even as a likely occurence, he still recognized the tension created between the regions over this issue. This tension had been rising since the beginning of abolitionism, but it is easy to recognize that the civil war was more of a reality as opposed to a threat at this point.
     
Rusty pointed out in his post that the views expressed by Davis, Seward, and Douglas were "saturated--in conventional rhetoric". What else would they be? The arguments reflect the nature of society and the fact that religion reigned supreme and it is only natural that politicians made reference to religion during their speeches. It is easy for us in the 21st century to look back and find faults with their 19th century logic , but that is a luxury only granted in hindsight. The references to what was considered "holy" and "divine" do not taint their arguments, but rather makes them more authentic.

I agree with Rusty that it is amazing that these men were able to speak in such an eloquent and intelligent manner for such a long period of time. Even calling out other members of Congress along the way, simply to further prove their points is to me, astounding. However, as material with which to try and understand better the political and social conditions of the age, I found these very difficult. All three speeches touched on many subjects, and often times I fould myself confused as to what exactly the speaker was getting to. I cannot even imagine sitting in the room with these men, trying to comprehend what they were saying. Without having it written in front of me to continually reread and go back over, I would have been utterly lost. That being said, I think each man makes very interesting cases for the arguments they give...

I, like Ashley, found some interesting passages in Davis' speech that almost lead me to sympathize with his argument. The most notable example of this is where Davis claims that if slavery is not to be allowed in the former Mexican land because of the laws previously governing Mexico, then the same must be said for all other property. Of course he is arguing with the presupposition that slaves rightfully should be property, and is not even arguing that point. However, it is interesting to think of the country overlooking some potential barriers, while attempting to strictly adhere to others from the same source. He does an excellent job of making those in favor of denying the new territory slavery seem hypocritical and nonsensical.

I find it interesting that Seward claims that Southerns have no "adequate cause" in threatening revolution. He simply rebukes the idea that the South losing influence is reason for revolution, because, he says, "the slave states have always been losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to lose." Though this is a very small portion of Seward's speech, I find it remarkable. Here Seward is standing in front of some of the most respected men in the nation, and really in the nation's history, and bluntly says their claim is not grounded in anything substantial. Overall Seward seems to be the least aggressive of the three, but I find this particular part very pointed.

Douglas, to me, seems all across the board. His speech is so long, that I just got lost time and time again. I thought it was funny, though, how he seemed to go after anyone he could find. Every time he directed his speech at another member of Congress, they always had a short answer, and he immediately turned what they said around on them, and often even used previous statements of theirs to refute what they'd just said. In other words, Douglas just made everyone he talked to look terrible and contradictory, and made himself look far superior to anyone else in the room. One of the more interesting instances of this is where Douglas calls out Daniel Webster. Douglas basically shows Webster to be a confused idiot, when he explains his own prediction of the result of the opportunity of slavery in California, compared to that of Webster's. He is essentially showing off his idea of popular sovereignty. In this case he is showing other northerners that given the choice of slavery, the new territories will not always pick slavery. In fact, he even points out that the climate and landscape of most of this area is not even conducive to the institution of slavery at all. And, the only area in California that could support slavery, he claims, rejected the idea unanimously. So basically, Douglas just uses California, his guinea pig, as an example to show that the new states should be given the choice, and will most likely make the "right" decision.

Although it was tough to pull out what exactly was going on in these speeches, I think they give a great outline of what thinking and arguments were flying around in 1850.

First of all I would just like to say that all three of these speeches were well thought out and extremely passionate. I’m with Rusty; it is amazing to me that that these speeches were made so eloquently and with such great grammar in such a large-scale setting. Aside from just the pure exceptional deliver of the speeches I did find them all interesting in their own way.

Douglas’ speech I thought was a little long winded, seeing how it was 34 pages of oratory. Douglas also re-emphasized himself a ton in his argument. It just seemed a little redundant, but perhaps that was the purpose of his speech. Douglas pounds into congress as to the evils of the Wilmot Proviso, and he tries to show over and over again how inconceivable it is to have voted for such a proposal. He also wants to show the “impractical” proposal of Calhoun towards the annexation of Texas. Douglas also tries to defeat the idea of a “north” and “south.” He wants to show just the strong Union of America and avoid any divisions that might arise from the situation at hand. Toward the idea of keeping the slave and free states equal Douglas contends that this is a “moral and physical impossibility.” In his opinion America has always leaned toward liberty, and freedom has steadily advanced in the Union.

Sewards’ speech was a little different. He too tried to de-emphasize the idea of a sectional war and instead of focusing on diplomacy he focused more on God and the “higher law.” Seward says that he sees no animosity or conflict between the two sections; he says that all are focused on the “fortunes of the Union.” In my opinion this is a little ridiculous and shortsighted by Seward. He seems to attempt to ignore the very real disputes between the regions and legitimize his claims using God’s “higher law.”

Jefferson Davis’ speech is probably the most interesting because he is openly attacking the north as aggressors in the conflicts of the north and the south. Davis, since he is going to be the leader for the Confederacy, feels strongly about the subject of states’ rights. As he calls it the “prompting of one portion of the Union to war upon the domestic rights and peace of another.” Davis does not skirt around the issue and attempt to find a common ground that does not involve slavery, he dives right in and lets the North have it, “although it seems through his words to be very gentlemanly and respectful, with all his sirs and gentlemen, and his thanking of the president for the time to speak.

First off, I'm just going to echo the rest of the class in commenting on how incredibly eloquent and powerful these speeches were. It might have taken me half the day to get through them, but they definitely made a lasting impression in my mind of how different it must have been back then as a politician. Sure, there was the same old mudslinging that we see today, but I was really impressed at how the speeches were so complex, yet flowed together so perfectly. I mean, look at politics today. Can you really see our current President standing up in front all those important people and rattling off a speech that well spoken (and actually pronouncing all those words correctly)?
As far as the actual documents are concerned, I felt that each was constructed with excellent ideas, all of which made me stop and think at one point while reading. Surprisingly, the document I enjoyed the most was the one by Jefferson Davis. Like Ashley, I felt that his arguments for slavery were concise, to the point, and extremely convincing. Davis was obviously an advocate for slavery and states rights, and therefore felt that the newly purchased territory from Mexico should allow slavery, as it's citizens desired. In his speech, he incorporated various reasons as to why the white man had the right to continue this horrid institution, economic reasons being most important, second to controlling African population and uprisings. But the point that stood out the most to me was his accusations that it was the North that was creating all the problems in the Union, and if they would just mind their own business, everyone could be happy (can't we all just get along?). The North, of course, would have fought back to say that it was the South that was creating all the commotion by enslaving human beings in a cruel institution. The more I read about this topic, the more I see that both sides were extremely stubborn and wore thick blinders, that let them only see within their own opinions. If only both sides had taken the time to look outside the box for a moment, a lot more could have been accomplished, a lot faster.
Neither of the other two documents made a huge impression on me. Seward's speech was incredibly long and repetitive- but like someone commented before me, it probably was key to his tactic. He did make an interesting correlation, though, with America and freedom. He commented that America has always stood for freedom and independence, so therefore things would work themselves out to support that ideal (a.k.a. abolition). I disagree with this comment, maybe because I have the advantage of hindsight, or maybe because considering the times and the situation that was occurring it's just a stupid idea, but obviously the issue wasn't working itself out on its own, or everyone wouldn't be so up in arms about it…literally.
I don't have much to say about Douglas, really. It's apparent that he was all for letting the states decide on slavery themselves. But besides that, I had a hard time understanding his true feelings on the matter. He sure found a lot of ways to belittle every politician in the room, but I felt like he went back and forth on the issue a lot and never really found a point of his own to stick behind.
Overall, the speeches proved to be fairly interesting, even if they were extremely long and often drawn out. And sorry if I offended anyone with the Bush comment…I just couldn't help myself.

I too was impressed first by the length of the speeches, especially Douglas' speech. I would like to know how long such a speech would have taken. I was also impressed by the eloquence and good grammar used in the speeches--Congress today isn't as much fun (but at least we have the Brits on CSPAN!). Jefferson Davis' argument was interesting. Others commented on this, too, I think, but Davis not only defended slavery, but went on the offensive as well. Ashley pointed to the defensive and offensive sides as being indicative of an attempt at self-justification. I think he, like John Calhoun in his letter to the British Ambassador, was acting more from arrogance than from a need to feel better about himself. The language in his argument led me to think that he felt no need to justify himself. Perhaps I read it wrongly, but I doubt very much Jerfferson Davis was the humblest man to grace the steps of the Capitol building. His argument for slavery in the territories was convincing to an extent, but I am convinced that a good orator can make any side of most issues at least marginally appealing.
On Seward--oh wow, the quotation from page 3 was tight. I think I found his oration most impressive, and his argument most persuasive. His appeals to empirical evidence (e.g., the relationship between slave and free states when the nation was first founded), intellectual argument (whether his own, or the arguments of Enlightenment thinkers), and a Higher power give a depth to his argumentation. The logic, the catchy phrases, the parallel structure and masterful diction--these things made Seward's argument all the more impressive to me.
Finally, Douglas was long. Very long. I did a lot of skimming. He, like Seward, emphasized the metaphysical aspects of the Constitution. He argued that freedom and liberty outweiged complaints from the south concerning slavery and the annexation of texas, and the admission to the union for republicans/whigs. He did an excellent job of answering the arguments coming from liberal Whigs and abolitionists, whic makes me wonder how and when he wrote the speech we read.

Paul--I just had to commend you on the Brit/CSPAN comment. I love Tony Blair, and I love watching British men laugh at ideas. And then there is the Will Ferrell/Teletubby skit...classic...

After reading the three speeches by Douglas, Davis, and Seward, the first thing that came to my mind is we have finally hit true sectionalism in our course. Lindsay Keaton and I were sitting around discussing the speeches, and we looked back upon the notes we so thoroughly learned for last Tuesday’s exam. When we were talking about why there was no civil war over the Missouri Compromise in 1820, we talked about four specific reasons.

One was the lack of popularity in political parties. “Without political parties you can not play the sectional card” are the words I believe Dr. Benson used. Now look at our three speakers. We have W.H. Seward; a pro abolition Whig from Auburn New York. We have Stephen Douglas; a Northern Democrat from Illinois, and finally Jefferson Davis; a Southern Democrat. These three men represent three very different views on whether slavery should be expanded into the territories, and I find it interesting that Dr. Benson gaves us speakers from the three different regions of the U.S.. Why? Because the sectional card is finally being played in politics. Jefferson Davis said himself that the reason for the new concern “is for the purpose of political power”, and by the mid 1800’s we have the popular party system for these sections to voice their opinions through with the Whigs and Democrats. All three of these men are voicing the opinions of their own section of the country. Seward is voicing the growing abolitionist feelings in the North. Jefferson Davis is voicing the growing concerns about the end of slavery and submission to the North politically. Lastly, you have Douglas from out there on the frontier saying that the individual states should have the choice of whether or not they want slavery; thus exhibiting the West feelings of wanting to be independent, and having the power to do what they see fit to do in their own homelands. Kind of reminds me of the booster speculators in the fact that boys from the east are effecting the frontier and don’t even live there.

Also, another reason there was no civil war in 1820 was due to the fact that slavery was still able to expand west. These new resolutions would end that possibility, and thus drive a bigger wedge between the North and the South. It was inevitable with the end of “property” rights in the new frontier that the end of “property rights” would extend South. The South indeed was seeing this as “the non - slaveholding states declaring war against the institution of slavery”. Jefferson was voicing the concerns of most slave holding southerners, as Seward was representing Northerners.

It just amazes me how in 25 years this sectionalism developed, and was getting to be pretty intense.

 After finishing the reading for tomorrow, Sam and I soon found us engaged in a discussion over the essence of the material. As we discussed the three different speeches, we were reminded of a discussion that we had in class several weeks ago. Following our discussion of the Missouri Compromise, the question was raised as to why there was no Civil War in 1821. One of the reasons was the lack of political parties and party advantage. As Dr. Benson stated, it takes party politics to have secession.
 Upon reliving this statement, Sam and I found ourselves placing this same question into the context of the three speeches that we read for today. The overall theme of each of the speeches was the rise of sectionalism in the United States and the rise of the different parties across the nation. Sam and I concluded that these speeches symbolized the party politics and party advantage that was necessary for secession.
 To explain, an examination of the three different speeches and their sectional differences is necessary. To begin, William Henry Seward is the Senator from New York. In addition to being from the Northeast, Seward is also a Whig. His speech shows very clearly his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories and his want for the abolition or emancipation of slavery. From the South, Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi is a Southern Democrat and his stance on the expansion of slavery is the opposite of that of Seward as he is for the expansion of slavery. Finally, Stephen A. Douglas from Illinois represents the Northern Democrat piece of the political spectrum. From his speech, I have found that Douglas is neither for nor against the expansion of slavery. In fact, he seems to be questioning as to why this argument is taking place at all. From his perspective, he sees the acts that abolish slavery in the territories (like the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise) as only signed pieces of paper. He noted that even with these documents, the expansion of slavery still took place with the emigration of men and their slaves into the territories. He goes on to say that it is the territory’s right to choose whether or not to abolish slavery when forming a Constitution and applying for statehood. He notes territories like California, Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the like, all of which chose to abolish slavery in that particular state. Therefore, Douglas has taken the position that the state has the right to choose whether or not to abolish slavery and that the South had just as much a chance at expanding slavery into the territories as the North did in abolishing it.
 This then brings me to the issue of the appearance of sectionalism in the United States. It is clear from these speeches that each section has it’s own specific perspective on the expansion of slavery into the territories. The North (represented by Seward) is clearly opposed to the expansion of slavery, while the South (represented by Davis) is for the expansion. In the middle of this coalition stands Douglas in Illinois who is for the state’s choice as to whether or not to allow slavery. I also find it interesting that Douglas from Illinois is also representing a former territory. Unlike the spokesmen from the North and the South, Illinois faced the question in the 1820s of whether or not to abolish slavery, and the fact that the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had a direct impact on the state of Illinois. On a final note, the two party system is very apparent in the speeches as we have representatives from both the Whig and the Democratic parties. However, I believe that it is possible that a three party system may be in the playing cards. Although, both Davis and Douglas are both Democrats, Davis is a Southern Democrat and Douglas a Northern and there are vast differences between these two areas of the same party over the issue of slavery. In fact, in the late 1850s the Democratic ticket will split along these lines, which helps to give rise to a new party whose platform is abolition, the Republican Party.
 I have found that my conversations with Sam over these speeches has led both of us to a great deal more insight into the character of these speeches and the rising sectionalism that surrounds them. As Sam too stated at the end of his post, it is amazing how the outlook of politics in American history can change so dramatically in a mere 25 years.

The first thing that I noticed after reading these speeches was how defiantly politicians of the day stood behind their positions. I almost respect more the congressmen from the 1850s who had views that I don't agree with than congressmen today who will not take a stance on anything. I also like how the issues taken by the conflicting parties are so opposite, compared with the modern system where the line between Republican and Democrat is extremely blurry. That being said, it's important to realize how extreme some of these men were in their views. Another aspect that I found to be interesting was the almost eeriely correct references that the politicians made regarding the secession and a possible Civil War. I also wonder how slavery made other foreign governments regard the United States in 1850. I remember in Amistad when the British Naval officer was called as a witness, he made a distinct point to remind everyone watching that slavery was outlawed in Britain or any of its colonies, and made a not-so-vague reference that he thoguht slavery in the U.S. was a ridiculous concept for the time.
Jefferson Davis made an extremely interesting comment by refering to the South as a Confederacy, at a time well before anyone was certain of where the road to war was heading. I fully agree with Paul's statement that many of these slave-holding southern politicians could have been extremely difficult to bargain with due to their unwavering stances on slavery. Seward's abolitionist speech on slavery was written to be extremely strong and, not surprisingly, the most interesting because of his many references to historical events and quotes that he segued so smoothly. Also helping his argument was the concise manner in which he presented it (especially when compared with Douglass). Furthermore, I found it particularly interesting how he distinguished between African slaves and slaves of other countries of the time, such as the peasants enslaved in Russia. I don't fully understand how this can be such a large difference in his mind, but the only thing I can think of is by enslaving a entire race specifically, you in turn limit the amount of freedom possessed by those of the race that are in fact free. Obviously, he is very conscious of being politically correct. He addresses each of the Senators in very formal tones and is not out to offend anyone. As has already been mentioned by a couple people on the board earlier, because of his long winded points, Douglass' argument was not presented in as strongly a manner as Davis' and Seward's. It appeared that he possessed many of the same political ideals as Seward and beleived that ending slavery was the political issue of the day that needed resolution, not annexation or tariffs as his rivals argued.

If these are their speeches, I'd hate to sit through one of their filibusters...But seriously, the eloquence of the three speeches, duly commented on by everyone else, reminds me that even though they were debating the most heated and important issue of their day, these men present themselves with dignity and honor and a respect for even their bitter political rivals (not so much Douglas, but Seward and Davis.) With the kind of language and diction they were using, I'd imagine that delivering a speech like this would take much much longer than it would take to read (or skim over). Maintaining composure in a speech like that is quite impressive as well. Though I can't really say they stayed on topic the whole time, for the most part I understood where they were headed. I'm not going to comment on every detail of each speech because theres been a lot of details already mentioned in the previous posts, but I'll share what I thought were the highlights or lowlights of each.
   For Davis, I thought he presented an argument that, though I do not agree with, I found to be well thought out and delivered with moderation. He seems quite conciliatory and non-confrontational, which surprises me coming from the future president of the Confederacy. For me, the most shocking part of his speech came in part 107 when he said "slave labor is a wasteful labor" and then stated that paid labor is more productive. WOW ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you know that slave labor is not only dangerous to your society, morally wrong, and wasteful in production, then why is it being defended as a life or death issue? I also liked his case for slave labor in Washington DC and the fact that southerners would feel its not shared properly if they are limited in their nations capital. Not right, but a good point.
   The Seward speech, to me, made the other two quite boring in comparison. I could almost picture this man standing before his fellow legislators, knowing that he fights for a morally and democratically superior cause, spewing forth history, philosophy, religion, and blatant challenges to the legitimacy of the South. Paul's comments about Seward were just about the exact way I felt about it, so I guess, way to go Paul. Most impressive in Seward's speech to me was the implication that we might turn out like Russia with its obscene serfdom rate. The numbers themselves were just staggering. The best line of Seward's speech would have to be the challenge to the South: "Can you propigate slavery then, by the sword?" He basically says 'screw you, you dont have the cojones to do anything about it, so put up or shut up'-- I loved it. I'll have to disagree with what Mike said about the aggressiveness of Seward...does it get more aggressive than that?
   I was not too fond of Douglas' speech, personally. First he claims that the frontier northwest is more powerful than either the north or the south, then he proceeds to make a number of self-aggrandizing moves in conversation with the other members of Congress. He just seems like a conniver to me whenever I was reading his long statements, even though they were quite well written.
  Did anyone else find it funny that Davis used passages from the Constitution and other nitpicky wordings of laws more than anyone else, while Seward makes a number of statements saying that the Constitution is flawed in several ways? Davis is the one who vaguely threatens to secede from the Union established by the Constitution. So why cite something so frequently that you will probably have to disown in the future? Its 6:00am, I'm going to bed.

The Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas helped to give me a glimpse into the thought of 19th century politics. As Ashley notes, the writings all are supposed to be about the Wilmot Proviso, yet they all come back in the end to salvery. Of the 3 arguements the one I found to be most strinking was William Henery Sewards's speech on higher law. His arguements in regard to the Constitution were very clear and well thought out. He makes a good point when he disusses the three fifths clause of the Constitution. His point that the Constitution mentions slaves not as slaves but as persons is a very strong point. Also, his use of John Jay's arguement fits in well with the rest of his message.

Jefferson Davis' speech is almost shocking in it's blatent racism. His remarks on page 70 about how the slave trade was a blessing to the African people stunned me. I find it hard to accept that people believed that they were helping people get closer to GOd by chaining them up on ships, sailing them across the ocean, and working them brutally. Davis argues that the British attempts to stop the slave trade are resulting in an increase in the slave trade because their attempt has been partially a success, and that in order to transport the previous amount of slaves that were being moved before the ban was instituted more people must be enslaved. Davis describes this as odious to him and decrys the African slave trade after these statements, but I get the sense that he feels that the slave trade is not actually that bad because he is such as strong supporter of slavery in America.

Davis and Seward both make points regarding slaves and climate. I found that Seward's point was much more astute. Davis discusses on p70 the the introduction of slaves to a new territory and he says, "... but if it prove to be one in which the climate and soil are opposed to their [slaves] use." This statement rests on the idea that slaves are not capable of working in certain climates, and is blatently untrue. Seward points out how the line drawn in the NW Ordinance of 1787 is an arbatrary line and that not having slaves above that line has not basis in the slaves themselves.

I argee with Rusty and his point about the politics of the 1800s. The amount of time that it must have taken to stand before a group of people and issues addresses such as these must have been immense. This granted me an insight into the importance of politics during this time and allows me to gain a better understanding of the weight of these issues for the people of the time.

There’s no real point in saying what everyone else in this discussion has already said, but I am going to add my two cents in about how wonderfully eloquent and succinct these speeches were. It is no mystery why these men were such great leaders and inspired such support and loyalty. The arguments themselves were very well organized and communicated, even if some of their points turned out to be wrong.

I, like Ashley, found it interesting that in Jefferson Davis’ speech, he almost seemed like he was trying to rationalize slavery, not only to a country, but also to himself. He took the stereotypical slave owner’s argument about detrimental effects of abolition and how the south would suffer. The argument probably made a whole lot more sense in his day than it does in ours.

Seward definitely seems to be the optimist in the group. His ideas about how the two divisions of the country, we’ll call them the north and the south, will not have to go to any violent means to solve their problems. Seward, however, does not give any concrete means to solve the problems of the American people. His argument is certainly a little “pie in the sky, by and by.”

Douglas definitely seemed to be the most confident one of the group, even if he had to justify his confidence by belittling every politician he could think of. In the arena of slavery he did make in interesting point about the new territories and their decisions about slavery. He points out that it was their decision not to have slavery as opposed to northern influence. Douglas, like Seward, is trying to lean away from the division of the country into its two main regions. In hindsight, though, he is “polishing the brass on the Titanic, it’s all going down.”

The length of these speeches made me wonder what it would have been like to hear them delivered. They were eloquent, as many have already commented, and showed that these guys knew what they were talking about and actually cared about the issue at hand – slavery. The passionate arguments put forth by these men were impressive, to say the least.

One point that struck me in Jefferson Davis’s speech was the fact that while he was very much in favor of preserving slavery, he also presented arguments against it. I have to agree with Paul that this was more a measure of vanity than of justification. Davis knew he was a powerful and convincing speaker and probably caused some wavering congressmen to seriously question where they stood on this issue.

William Henry Seward was trying to focus on a “higher law” than the Constitution, which Davis had quoted in his effort to support slavery. Southerners had no sufficient reason to threaten revolution, said Seward. What stood out to me is how he downplayed sectional disputes. Was the man living in a dream world? Did he really believe they weren’t an issue?

Now, Stephen Douglas was an interesting character. It was unclear what his true feelings were on this issue, except that he wanted the States to be able to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery. I thought the way that Douglas sneered at his colleagues took away much of his credibility.

Overall, I was impressed by the eloquence and thought put into these speeches. These were passionate men to be sure. Their speeches foreshadowed future conflict.

    Wow...how about Catherine just going after George W? Anyway...I think it is safe to say that I gained much from reading these three incredibly long speeches. As Andy pointed out, it must have been horrible to sit through their filibusters. Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas taught me something that I had never realized before: In the 1800s, politicians were much more passionate, or so it seems, than most of those today. It is quite apparent that, though slavery in the territories most likely would not have directly affected the lives of any of these three men (other than keeping slavery alive in the United States) all three are quite passionate about the issue.

Basically the issue is divided two ways: person vs. property. Jefferson Davis's speech was laced with racism as he defended the rights of Southerners to "enjoy" slavery anywhere they so pleased, other than in states in which the state government had outlawed it. His basis for making these claims is that the Constitution protects personal property to the highest degree. He considers slaves property and therefore the practice of owning them is protected by the United States federal government. I think Rusty summed up Davis's point well with a modern adaptation (which I won't repeat). William Henry Seward spoke of slaves quite differently. He states that the Constitution refers to slaves as people. Therefore, slavery is an illegal practice because the rights of people are being compromised (to say the very least). Seward makes a point that it doesn't really matter what is decided on this issue, because abolition will eventually occur. He claims that the southern slaveholding states should keep their institution of slavery if they so desire, but should not push it on any territory. He invokes God's "Higher Law" to give his points legitimacy.

Finally we come to the fun part...Stephen Douglas...how funny is this little guy! As perhaps one of the most long-winded characters in American History, Douglas does not disappoint as he delivers 34 straight pages of oration. After publically blasting every politician known to man in the 1800s, he finally makes a case for popular sovereignty. States should choose individually on the issue of slavery...and leave the federal government out of it, according to Douglas.

Though this assignment was long and tedious, I feel that I now understand the mentality of politicians of the 1850's much better. I found it shocking how incredibly passionate they were compared to those of today, though we have had our fair share of great orators in the not so distant past. George W. may have stumbled on a few pronunciations, but Ronald Reagan would have taken all of these politicians to school in his prime.

I don't think that I have anything of value to add to this conversation, but since I am required to try...

The eloquence of Jefferson Davis surprised. It shouldn't have because it makes sense that one of the reasons he was elected President of the Confederate States was his diplomatic skill. But it did, surprise me because I always saw Jeff Davis as your stereotypical southern gentleman from Gone With the Wind, a movie of which I am not a fan. I believe that the reason that Davis gave arguments against slavery was so he would be able to counter them. Many people make arguments by pointing out negative aspects and then try to crush them with positive aspects. A good move by a good, but very misguided, politician.

W.H. Seward was optimistic in his belief that the Southerners would not revolt. Today, we look back incredulously and wonder what he was thinking. However, it is understandable how someone like Seward could not see a violent settlement. The country, thought to have the greatest system of government, was not yet 100 years old. Grandfathers and fathers of Southerners and Northerners had fought side by side in several wars. He may have been overly optimistic, but who can blame him?

Stephen Douglas has always fascinated me as the guy who beat Lincoln (and later lost to Lincoln). He was a shrewd politician. His unclear stance on slavery proves that as it seems he may have been trying to play to both sides. But, man, was his speech long.

I wish sometimes that we could experience history as it happened with no preconceived ideas. If many thought that these speeches were eloquent from reading them off a computer, I wonder what we would think if we were Congressmen of the day hearing them.

It is interesting to see how politicians, both during antebellum sessions of Congress as well as in today’s debates, use the same elements of society and culture to support their differing arguments. They merely present contrasting interpretations and opinions of those elements to propel their own ideas and philosophies. We constantly see this in the Supreme Court, the classroom, and the daily news.

Douglass, Seward, and Douglas show this element of debate to be so in their bickering over the issue of slavery being admitted into the territory of the newly-formed Texas, using both the Constitution and geography as their supportive statements. The future president of the Confederate States argues that the Constitution specifically endorses and encourages slavery, while Seward and Douglas, using the same quotations, argue that it does not. They even go further to imply that the absence of mentioning the peculiar institution in the supreme document meant the founding fathers were against it and its implications against liberty. The Constitution is vague in many areas, and it seems as though slavery is one of those areas. I don’t endorse slavery, but I also don’t endorse the pure acceptance of the Constitution’s pro or con support on the issue, as it is non-specific and open to interpretation. I realize that denouncing some uses of interpretation may threaten the very essence of our justice and legislative system, and I’m not trying to get ultra-philosophical in a simply online discussion. However, I think that in dealing with primary documents that are open to interpretation, the decisions that are made in regards to using that document for support are not based primarily on the work, as they can’t be, and are strictly “interpreted” according to personal opinion and selfish motives.

The second element these three Congressmen point to is physical geography. In mentioning of the Missouri Compromise and the 36° 30’ mark of division in free and slave states, all three argue that geographical provisions define the existence of slavery in Texas. Douglass slants that the direct division implies that slavery should be permissible in any territory below the Missouri line and should therefore be allowed in Texas. On the other hand, Seward argues against the generalized, blindly-accepted terms of “north and south,” stating that the overall grouping of states is ignorant and that Missouri provisions do not exclude westward states, even if it implies northern and southern boundaries.

The ethics of slavery are heavily debated in these arguments, pointing to rights of transporting property, degradation of humans, and profit vs. true liberty. However, I chose not to go into this issue, because I feel it is overemphasized, not in the sense of unimportance, but in the sense that I am increasingly developing a personal problem with stubborn pro-slavery arguments with little basis. It gets old hearing irrational statements over and over. I am not ashamed of my Southern heritage, but I find it more and more disappointing to realize the non-validity of the past’s so-called great arguments.

These three speeches are an intriguing look into the oratory of the 19th century, especially that which deals with slavery. I was amazed at the length of these speeches, to be able to stand and deliver speeches of this length took great skill, and I can only imagine what it was like to actually sit down and listen to them. Is there anyone who could speak like this today?

Although Davis' speech did have some good points, like the laws of Mexico. Not only was the war won by the US, the land was also paid for, and therefore the laws of Mexico would have no power. I agree with Ashley on the subject of paragraph 70 in Davis' speech. Saying that by bringing slaves to a more civilized and Christian land "would elevate and diginify his nature" is just so ridiculous.

I found Sewards speech on higher law to be interesting. Like Mike, I found Seward's point that the south had "no adequate cause" for revolution ridiculous. The people of the southern states believed that their power was being taken away, and thats all they needed.

Douglas' speech was unclear to me, he seemed to keep going and going, just finishing it took some real concentration. The point of his speech was mostly on how the states should decide on the issue of having slavery.

As i was reading Douglas's speech and came across his line that says, "Was there ever such a torturing of language-- such a perversion of meaning?" I had to give him a hearty amen. Seeing as I had previously been reading the other two articles before I got to his and had an earfull of three different views on slavery, I was amazed at how whole documents and words can be twisted and bended to make them mean whatever you darn right want them to believe. It's interesting to have opposing sides both citing the same Constitution to make their case (something that we saw in the debates in class the other day- how opposing sides both sited scripture to makes their case). I can easily see how a powerful speaker can draw in supporters by "torturing" his words. Like Ashley and Chris, I found Jeffersons words convincing. While reading his article, there were several times when Jefferson was talking about the role of the government and governing in the interests of the people that I found myself thinking that he had made a good point for slavery, and then I would catch myself and be surprised that I had thought that. But I guess Chris is right- Jefferson was obviously a powerful speaker seeing as he was the president of the confederacy!
Going along with what Lindsey said about the fact that civil war didnt break out in the 1820s because there was no large movement to the west, I liked what Douglas had to say about sectionalism. On page 4 he says,"...but there is a power in this nation greater than either the North or the South-- a growing, increasing, swelling power, that will be able to speak the law to this nation, and to execute the law as spoken. That power is the country known as the great West." He goes on to say that the US fully intends to follow, navigate, and use the West. These articles made me realize how many political steps had to be made before the US could fully take advantage of the West, by showing the disagreements and arguments and personalities behind the different beliefs that had to be worked through.
I liked how Seward pitied the institution of slavery against the institution of freedom. He says that while slavery is "temporary, accidental, partial, and incongruous", freedom is "perpetual, organic, universal, and in harmony with the Constitution" (4-5). I liked his point that South Carolina would continue to exist even if slavery ended, but that SC would fail to exist if freedom ended. When put so generally and basic like that, it just makes a whole lot fo sense to me...

Edited by author 10-11-2002 11:07 AM
Clay's proposed compromise on the Texas issue was controversial! We see that in the speeches here, Jefferson gettin' all fired up about the 'high and holy purpose of the preserving the union,' and well, I mean Douglas and Jefferson and Seward, fighting Texas, Slavery, Texas, states rights, Texas, texas, slavery slavery...

Check out some of the other issues going on in the background of Clay's Compromise, feeding this controversy: "According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery....Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html) Here, we see this Fugitive SLave Act as a means to pacify the slaveholding RIGHT that the South purports.

 But Wm. Seward isn't a fan of slavery, and it's pretty cool how he shows it, he uses what sounds like Calhounite reasoning for states' rights boldly to defy slavery: "But assuming the same premises," he proclaims, talking about regarding states as coequal just as MEN ARE EQUAL under law, "that all men are equal by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the ground." SLAM! What a smack. Anyway, that was the coolest thing I ran into in the reading. HOpe that historical stuff above is helpful. Hey, when was this Seward speech written? Same time as Douglass and Davis's?

     These three speeches by the politicians of the 1850's have already been analyzed quite accurately by the other members of the class. Jefferson Davis, the future leader of the Confederacy, defends the southern states that still practice slavery. As David has said, Jefferson Davis recognized that it was vital for his argument to associate slaves as the private property of the southern owners. Davis hoped to take some of the emotional and moral questions out of the argument by dehumanizing the slaves. Davis felt that he could prove slavery was beneficial to the slaves, while at the same time making the non slave holding members of Congress think of the institution as a fair practice for all parties involved. For the time, Jefferson Davis' strategy was well thought out. Only in retrospect do we find it impossible to agree with his remarks.
     Seward was probably the most realistic and accurate in terms of recognizing the coming events in the near future. Seward attempted to do the exact opposite of Davis; he wanted to appeal to the emotions of the members of Congress. As several other people have already said, Seward also recognized the coming war and end of slavery.
     The most interesting and outspoken of these men was Stephen Douglas. I am still trying to figure out how this man had any political friends after some of his speeches. After blasting his opposition, Douglas then attempted to prove that the decision of slavery should be left up to the individual states. Once again as many other people have noted, Douglas' own personal stance on slavery remained a bit ambiguous. These three men were all very animated and passionate about this subject. When studying these works it is important to attempt to read them in the proper context. The question when looking at these speeches is not how we would react today to hearing such remarks, but rather how the voting members of congress reacted to these particular arguments that represented both sides of this heated debate.

   Along with the rest of my classmates, I was also amazed with the length and passion of these important men's arguments. And while I agree with Catherine that Dubya may not be up to a speech this long and involved and with so many multi-syllabic words, I daresay that, in his day (about 1200 years ago!!), our own Strom Thurmond could have knocked these guys flat on their tails.
   I also found it interesting that these men like Seward, for example, making their arguments so many generations ago, used some of the same techniques used by politicians today. Anyone following the senatorial and gubernatorial races in South Carolina right now would realize that mudslinging, personal attacks, and name-calling do nothing more than distract the public from your original message. I think politicians today are just as passionate as those before them, but they're just passionate about the wrong things. Instead of being impassioned about the issues facing our country today, and I think that the issue before us of war with Iraq is just as important as the issue of slavery was to these speakers, politicians today would rather smear their opponents and distract us from their stances on the issues and their past voting record.
   Stepping off my soapbox now: I also think that it sounds as if Jefferson Davis is trying to justify slavery as much to himself as he is to others, and I have to agree with Cal at the shock of Davis' language and attitude towards the slaves. With his views, as they were expressed here, it's no wonder that people thought of the South as a land of ignorant, racist bastards who brutally enslaved and demoralized an inferior race. While not all Southerners shared Davis' exact mentality, it's still shameful that they would have placed so much trust and faith in a person like that to lead the new Confederacy.
   I also think that it’s interesting that all political issues of the day, regardless of their relevance to slavery, somehow ended up being about slavery.
   Although it took several hours to read all these pages, I’m glad they were assigned because I think their reading offers a better understanding of the stands people were taking on these issues.

Having read the three speaches, I like many, are impressed with the passion that they contain. Each individual speaker was encompassed in his viewpoint, sharing it with excitement and vigor. However, they were not simply emotional but factual. Many times they quoted statistics, various authors or personal cases. This coupled with their deep conviction made each argument convincing and interesting.
Douglas, I feel, was the hardest to grasp. After making one point he would then contradict himself. His desire to abolish slavery and then the statement that states have sovereignty were hard to reconcile. Throughout his argument though, he made various points worth noting, such as North and South differences were being exaggerated in order to form parties according geographical lines (36). Although this may not be the only reason for this debate, I do agree with him that politicians did use certain issues to promote their ideology.
Seward I thought was the most interesting to read. His higher law argued that slaves were indeed people. By quoting founding fathers, debates at conventions, philosophers and the Bible he establishes a case that is convincing. He states that "no other Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery" (5). This statement struck at the heart of some listeners calling into question their religious committment. This illustrates the breadth of the slavery debate. The whole person was determined and catagorized by their stance on this one issue.
Jefferson Davis saw the "gatehring storm which threatens to break upon us" on its way. He called the government to action in directing territorial establishment. He wants to the government to be familiar with who and what is occuring in a territory before it is "conceded to them to determine the fundamental law of the country" (30). This is in direct conflict to Douglas' statements made earlier and thus continued to storm that was raging.
Off to class!

 These three speeches were very impressive and the politicians articulated their points eloquently. They backed up their arguments well with ample evidence and they were not going to be proven wrong.
 William Seward seems to be the most extreme of the two anti-slavery people. He staunchly believes that slavery is wrong, but he is very unwilling to compromise. His stubborn stand seems to aggrevate the southerners as well as the northern democrats. He says that slavery should be abolished entirely and that below the 36th parallel all the newly aquired states will be slave states because people have the choice. Giving a choice to the people and allowing southern states to have their rights will preserve the union and Seward doesn't seem so concerned with that. He believes that war is eminent and shows a lack of concern because of this. It also seems that the northerners and southerners are on the same side but the party lines in the north divide along the ideas of how to go about changing slavery. Seward is a Whig who offends the Democrats and creates more enemies with his words than friends. He does have very good points and he's committed to doing the right thing, but when it comes to politics and getting something done it seems he has placed barriers in his own path.
   Douglas on the other hand is a norhtern Democrat who is taking a position of states rights. He believes that since slavery has always been a state issue it should continue to be one. Douglas seems to be more concerned with preserving the union and coming to a better decision than to go to war over it all. Douglas also shows the party divisions when he criticizes Seward for attacking the Northern Democrats. I agree with Douglas that it is low to attack someone in their speech and be as partisan as Seward was. It is completely in appropriate and not necessary. Douglas also makes good points he not only says that slavery should be abolished but he also talks about the right the states should have to make this decision on their own. This way the southerners can't argue as much about not getting their rights because they use that arguement to take attention away from the immorality of slavery.
   Jefferson Davis' speech for slavery is very interesting. He makes a lot of points but he doesn't back them up with valid evidence. He just makes assumptions about slaves' behavior and how they lived in Africa. It is the bias and descrimination towards blacks in all of America at this time that allow for these incorrect facts to be used as evidence. When speaking about states' rights to deflect from slavery he discusses morality and asks Congress to be moral in thinking about southern states and how they should be able to make their own decisions. He also believes it takes morality to recongnize that there are numerous wrongs heaped upon the south that if the northerners understood them there would be peace and harmony once again. He has many more ideas similar to this one taking terms in the constitution and Bible and twisting them to support what he believes is right. His arguments tend to progress this way and they are completely invalid. They don't count because they are absurd.
  These three orations show the way that people were thinking in the 1850's about slavery and how different party and regional lines can divide a group of people.

I thought one of the most interesting aspects of these arguements, something that was very evident in interaction between so many politicians of the day, was the politeness and the deference that these men seemed to have for one another while essentially mocking the other mens arguements. It is so hard to tell that they are actually belittling each other because of the verbosity of their speech. Even when Davis misrepresents Doulgas' beliefs on the wilmot proviso, the politeness in which they argue over it is almost laughable. It is so different than how we are today.
   Another thing I thought was interesting about their arguements is how they all tie their beliefs about the conflict into some kind of patriotism. They all claim that the arguement they are making shows their dedication to the union and the best interests of the nation.

I thought that the three speeches were very good and very well said. Once again it seemed that the main issue was slavery which makes very good sense. It was the driving force in the southern economy and the possibility of the freedom of slaves struck fear into many southerners.
Seward takes the most radical side for antislavery. He uncompromising ways express his belief. He believes that war will happen. This whig doesnt make many happy and creates some enemies in his speech. Douglas's speech was, well, very long and he said the same stuff over and over again. I admire him trying to take away the notion of a 'north' and a 'south' and trying to preserve the union namesake. I enjoyed Davis's speech the most. I liked the way he turned the tide and made the claim that the north was the agressor. Overall these speeches were interesting but i dont think i would like to be in attendance when they were given. due to the length, i would probably kick back and nap. but i do find it interesting how different views are taken on these subjects and how they back themselves up very well.

Dusty has brown hair and brown eyes

William Henry Seward, Stephen Douglas, and Jefferson Davis' speeches on slavery were tedious to read, but provided a good insight into how different arguements were formed from different politicians at this time. Two things that struck me (and have already been mentioned) are the eloquence with which Jefferson Davis speaks, and how each man is portraying themselves as patriotic.
Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederate States speaks with an eloquence that I was taken aback by. Many people in this time period claimed that Southerners were characterized by emotion and did not rationally think arguements out. This is clearly not the case with Jefferson Davis.
As Andrew also said earlier in his post I too found it interesting that all of these men try to portray themselves as patriotic. It is also thought provoking to think about the fact that these men where relatively moderate in their views and in no way extremists.

I found these reading particularly disturbing. Seeing the personal side of slavery in Uncle Tom's Cabin coupled with the legislative aspect was concerning. Uncle Tom's Cabin displays slaves treated well by their owners but owner's that were not person enough to stand for what they believe. For example, the senator aides a slave which is in direct violation to laws that he voted for. He even admits that helping a fugitive is Christian life but laws must be set against such acts for the good of the country.
I would have to agree with Douglas that law makers hate their platform in their hearts but not in their votes (3). This seems that slavery was maintained for the sheer joy of bringing political parties closer together. This inhumane act of party-indulgence violates all that our country stands for and should rightly be argued against.
However I don't think Douglas is faultless. He descibes slavery as "barbarous, monstrous, and bloody". No doubt that was the case in certain circumstances, but in our reading that has not been a constant theme. We have seen instances such as Uncle Tom's Cabin where slaves have been treated and fed well. In turn they interacted with their owners in kindness and loyalty. This is a far cry from the words that found their way out of Douglas' mouth.

Fugitive Slave Law: It greatly annoys me that slaveowners fought so ardently for their cause, yet cannot seem to use the word "slave" in a legal document. Quite an interesting paradox...they passionately defend such an inhumane institution, but they feel the need to cloud all legislation with terms such as "fugitive". Also, it is always fascinating how people on all sides of every argument always find a way to use the Constitution to justify their opinion. If one can pull the Ole' U.S. Constitution into is corner, he is destined to prevail. Right?

Douglas Speech: While reading the first few paragraphs, I thought that Frederick Douglas' entire speech might actually be about political platforms. However, I was glad to see that he eventually fell into his old, trusty Mr. Fiery Abolitionist character. F.D. is one of my favorite historical figures, and I love reading his blazing oratories concerning the many evils of slavery. Along with Martin Luther King Jr. and Harriet Tubman, one could argue that Douglas was one of the most important black Americans who ever lived, as far as rights, freedom, and general human progress are concerned. Moreover, his hair kicks ass.

Uncle Tom's Cabin: I find myself caught in an odd dilemma concerning the book. I find myself wanting to read the entire thing, but I know my only reason in doing so is for the sentimental, soap-opera value. Harriet Beecher Stowe most likely never saw a slave plantation. She may never have even been into the "hardcore" slave states like Georgia and South Carolina. I have to disagree a little with Brittany. I think that slavery was a little more brutal and monstrous than we have deemed it in class. Such fictional novels as Uncle Tom's Cabin--single tales about people who never existed--tend to cloud us into forming rosy notions about human bondage. A bit of caution is required.
I very much enjoyed the character of Tom's former owner's wife in chapter 5. She is unabashedly portrayed as the prototypical 19th-century Christian woman. Moreover, she calls her husband "Mr." So different from today. This book is definitely saturated with several stereotypical drama-situations that persist even today...the aforementioned woman, the dramatic slave escape over ice, the noble Tom deciding to be sold and not risk his family's harm...
I will probably read this novel just to see if I get a different picture of the whole.

Doesn't the name Simon Legree just sound inherently evil?

Yikes.

Goodnight all.

I think the dominant theme throughout these readings was hypocrisy. It seems to me that there were a lot of people saying one thing and then acting in a completely contradictory manner.
  
As Rusty pointed out, the word "slave" is not used in the Fugitive Slave Act, but they are instead referred to as a "person held to service or labor". If the politicians agreed enough with the idea of slavery to pass the fugitive slave act, they might as well call it by what it really is.
  
Then, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, not only is the slaveowner hypocritical, but so is the senator. Even though the senator helps Eliza and her son escape, he votes in favor of the fugitive slave act. I know that Senator Bird is a fictitious character, but apparently this was not unusual for people in power, as Frederick Douglass points out in his speech. Sticking with Uncle Tom's Cabin, just from the two chapters we read(and I don't know if this is an adequate representation of the rest of the book) I don't understand how it helped spark much with the abolitionist movement. Perhaps in later chapters, Stowe discusses the evils of slavery. I can also see how the teachings of her sister and the idea of the domestic sphere played into the characters of Emily and Mrs. Bird. They definitely represented what was considered to be "proper" women in that they were even tempered, Christian, morally conscious, etc..

Overall, I found the readings to be informative, if a bit disturbing due to the levels of hypocrisy.

I found the Fugitive Slave Law pretty interesting. It basically just says that whatever you have to do, as a white in a free state, to get that slave back, you are allowed by law to do. I find it amazing that laws this blatantly absurd were passed. Granted, the views of the day were very warped, but still, where were the Northern naysayers to at least make the laws a little more fair. Of course, it could never be fair, but the law, as passed, is rediculous. I mean, allowing use of unlimited force for the capture of these fugitives blows my mind. Also, I wonder if local officers would simply find local blacks and turn them in to federal authorities, and in doing so get the 5 dollar reward for finding a black, but not the right one......who knows if that actually happened, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyways, in terms of Frederick Douglas, I think he is amazing. For a black man to say the things he does, attacking both political parties, in the era in which he lived, was really a gutsy move. A great line, which I'll paraphrase, is there's never been a time where justice, liberty, and humanity were in more imminent peril than his present time. That idea not only defines the struggle of slaves against their white owners, but also of the nation as a whole, especially the South's constant argument that their rights were being trampeled upon. I can easily see many of the great Southern leaders of the day using the same language to describe the conditions on the national political scene.
As for Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was very disappointed. All I've ever heard is that this is a very important book with important effects on the people of the United States at that time. However, I can't get past the rediculous sexism that Harriet Beecher Stowe fills her story with. For every white male discussed, save the dude at the end of Ch. 9, they are at least once described in horrible ways. She makes the white male seem the enemy of all humanity, even white women. The white women are shown to be goddesses of mercy. Like Rusty I can't help but wonder if the author carried this rediculous stereotype throughout the entire book, or if it is just evident in these two chapters. Anyways, in general this book is clearly fiction. I mean, I've never been to a plantation either, but I just don't think that the conditions in which the author seemed to describe were at all accurate. I mean, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that this book alerted everyone to the horrors of slavery, yet in these passages at least, all the slaves encounter are white folks who aren't trying to do them harm. I'm not arguing the affect of this book, because clearly it did wonders for a lot of people, but I wonder if that is simply because no books before it had ever even tried to see things in terms of the slave as opposed to the master. I guess, even though I don't think it's very good, it served it's purpose well.

In closing, I agree with Rusty that the Don King look is a classic

   After years of hearing about the widely hated and burned in the South abolitionist work "Uncle Tom's Cabin," this was the first I had ever read of what was actually in the book. Chapter 5 made me want to read more to find out what happened to Eliza and little Harry and whether they escaped to freedom. Then, after reading chapter 9, I still wanted to keep reading to find out whether they ever made it to Canada, and I also wanted to read the chapters in between to get the details of their journey from Kentucky. I agree with Rusty that this impulse is most likely a purely emotional, sentimental reaction, but it is my reaction nonetheless. I also found it interesting that Uncle Tom held his master in such high regard that he would not break the rules even in the face of being torn away from his family and being sold. Tom said that he had never abused his master’s trust and was not about to start now, and that he’d rather be sold himself if it would save the rest of the slaves from being split up and the whole place being sold off.
   Mrs. Shelby's distraught exclamation, "Abolitionist! if they knew all I know about slavery, they might talk!" is very telling, to me at least, of Southern opinion of Harriet Beecher Stowe herself. When the book was first published, many in the South claimed that Stowe knew nothing of slavery because she had never spent time in the Deep South slave states and seen the real treatment of slaves on a plantation. They refuted Stowe's work as make-believe, slanderous fiction, leading her to publish "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin" a year later. "A Key" explains her background with and knowledge of slavery, drawn mostly from her childhood experiences in Cincinnati, across the river from slave-state Kentucky. She was familiar with freed slaves and the Underground Railroad and formed some of her ideas about slave life from these people she encountered in her own hometown. In "A Key," she supposedly proves many of her earlier claims, which Southerners had tried to dismiss as melodramatic and categorically false. I personally haven’t read this book, so I’m not saying that it proves every one of her opinions; I just came across it while checking into Ms. Stowe’s background and thought it might lend some authority to her position.
   Overall, I enjoyed finally getting to read parts of the book, and it was definitely easier to read than the speeches!

Abraham Lincoln once commented to Harriet Beecher Stowe that her book started the Civil War. The book evoked emotions in many people and led them to take up the abolitionist cause. Although, I am not doubting the cruelty of slavery and the pain that separation caused, I wonder how much Stowe researched the topic of slavery. What Becky said about "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin" is interesting. But I still wonder if a New Englander could really know that much about the lives of Southern slaves. Obviously the book is propaganda. It is propaganda for a good cause, but propaganda nonetheless.
I was amazed by the eloquence of Frederick Douglass. His speech, again full of emotion, was still very thought out and logical. His point about "final" human enactments tying the hands of politicians in his day hit the nail on the head. Sometimes we give so much credit to our forefathers that we don't stop and think whether those decisions were or are still for the best. Just a thought. Also, I wonder in an age dominated by two party politics if a third party is the wisest way to get your platform across. Obviously Douglass felt that way, when he railed against those like Horace Greeley who had anti-slavery views but supported pro-slavery views with their Whig votes. But history mainly tells the story of third parties taking votes away from the party they have most in common with, like Perot and Nader have demonstrated recently.
Finally, how on earth can these people memorize such long speeches?

I found the fugitive slave law interesting to some degree. I believe that i could have said what they did using about a 1000 less words. but i guess it is good that all the right wording was used to include all of the specifics. i also found interesting the politically correct term for slave which was a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States. i suppose thats a nice way to put it. it makes sense that such a law would be enforced. it seems to me that if this law would not have come to pass and not have been enforced, then civil war could have happened a lot sooner. honestly, i think that these laws are a good thing. even though the views are distorted, slaves are property. i compare it, using the distorted view, to a pet that ran away. if it runs away, that person is gonna want it returned and is going to offer a reward for the return for the pet. same thing with slaves, if one runsaway, the master wants it returned. why? first off because slaves aren't a dime a dozen. they cost lots. second, they work in fields and pretty much keep the white owners going. (note: i, in no way, shape, or form, believe slaves are the same as a pet dog).

as for uncle tom's cabin, i was a bit disappointed. i agree with rusty that it is a little soap opera like. unlike rusty, however, i did not find myself wanting to read the rest of the thing. i just really doubt stowe ever went to a plantation. i dont know how this aided the spark of the abolitionist movement. perhaps it gets a little more intense later in the book.

Out of all the readings we've had to do in this class, I definitely found this group the most interesting. I'll admit that most of that interest is due to the high level of dramatics portrayed throughout the tales, but I think, in a way, that was the point of writings. Everyone keeps complaining about the historical correctness and the over dramatization of the characters and the issues, but think about it. How many people actually read every single word of these documents instead of skimming through some parts? It wasn't the historical accuracy that caught your attention! It was the drama…what was going to happen to the run away slave and her son? Would they make it to freedom? Would the senator be punished for his hypocrisy and blatant disregard of his own law? Books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and even the movie "Amistad" that we watched in class catch our attention and make us want to know. They get us interested in the idea and force us to dig deeper. Back when this book was released it was huge and so controversial because many people didn't know the atrocities of slavery unless it was happening in their own backyard. "Uncle Tom's Cabin," whether it be historically accurate or not, is important because it opened people's eyes to issues that they may not have previously seen. I think the point was not to give all the boring details that people had heard over and over and not paid attention to, but maybe to make them realize that the issue of slavery wasn't as cut and dry as they had once thought.
In terms of the documents, though, I found it really curious that the women in both parts of the story were portrayed as the Christian abolitionist figures, and the men, both strong leaders of their families, knew what was "right" but went against it anyways. They never wanted to rid of their slaves because they were "coldhearted" or "evil", but instead because they had tried everything but were left with no choice in the matter. Douglass' speech fits perfectly into these excerpts. In paragraph #24, Douglass reprimands politicians for feeling one way and voting another: "We know you hate your platform in your hearts; but we complain that you do not in your votes," argues Douglass. "You love liberty and vote against it. You hate slavery and the fugitive slave act, and then vote for the twin abominations." This was the case in chapter 9 of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" when Mr. Bird had voted for the Fugitive Slave Law, yet was morally against it himself. I can't help but wonder if the representatives had all voted they way they believed, and not the way their party believed how much of a conflict this act would have been.
Oh, and did anyone else find it funny that Mr. Bird continuously addressed Mrs. Bird with the exclamation, "I say, wife!"? It definitely got a laugh out of me.

Rusty made an interesting comment about Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin." He said that he wanted to continue to read it solely for it's soap opera value. As a first time reader of this novel, I was drawn into the drama of Eliza's escape from the South and the finding of the Bird Family home at such a key moment just following their conversation about the newly enacted Fugitive Slave Act. Of the three different articles I found this one to be the most appealing to my tastes. However, returning to Rusty's point of it's soap opera value, I must agree. Although, as Rusty further points out, that Harriet Beecher Stowe probably never saw a plantation in her life, I don't believe that the true meaning behind her novel was to accurately convey the true story of plantation life. All of we readers found her story moving and were conveyed to sympathize with Eliza and her plight and the abolitionist/slave helping movement. Was this not her point in writing ther novel? What I gained most from this short excerpt was the powerful influence that this novel must have had on the nation as a whole, both North and South. Never before had I read something that had such an appeal to the masses, not just to the political arena and the educated elite. Every man, woman, and child, whether white or black, must have been profoundly impacted by this story.
Now having spent much of my time reflecting on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" I have a few insights and comments in reference to the other two documents. First of all, I found the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 to be very interesting. I believe that it stands in stark contrast to the words of Frederick Douglass in that the Fugitive Slave Act was an effort to compromise or even give into Southern threats and/or desires. On the other side stands Frederick Douglass. As I previously stated, his stump speech in 1852 stands in contrast with the Fugitive Slave Act. Reading Douglass' words, one finds an entusiasm and fiery attitude toward abolition. Of the readings that we have had so far in class, I believe that Douglass' speech is the first to convey a radical desire for abolition (especially in comparison to Seward and S.A. Douglas). Overall, I found the documents to be enticing and enlightening as to the mindsets apparent in the 1850s.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 12:17 AM
I agree with those before me that have said that Uncle Tom's Cabin is heart-wrenching propoganda that no doubt had a huge impact on people of the North and South. The christian characters of Mrs. Shelby and Mrs. Bird intrigue me, because they make all those against slavery appear to be christian saints. Mrs. Shelby bears with the institution of slavery in her household by caring for, instructing, watching over, and sharing her faith with her slaves. She treats them as if they were her own children. She loves her slaves to the point that she says, "If I could only at least save Eliza's child, I would sacrifice anything I have" (4). The timid Mrs. Bird goes as far to argue with her husband that slavery is wrong because it goes against the Bible and is unchristian. She says that she will follow the Bible, meaning that she will not follow the fugitive slave law. Even Eliza is seen as God-fearing and saintly as she askes God to bless and reward her missis for all the kindness she's given to Eliza. Eliza claims that God is on her side and the only reason why she has made it to the Birds house. Uncle Tom's Cabin suggests that all christians should be against slavery.
Frederick Douglass continues this line of thinking by claiming that God is against slavery. He says that America, because of slavery, will be "liable to the judgements of a righteous God" (5). He referes to the slaves as "God's children bound in chains" (12) and says that the "guilty slaveholder could have no pease bubbling up from the depths of his sin-darkened soul" (13). He claims that the fugitive slave law tells Americans that their "religion is a sham; your faith in God, and love of Christ are things having no connection with your daily practices" (16). Douglas seems to want to rile up christians so that they will back him in his fight for abolition.
It seems to be that much of the propoganda we read tonight was targetted specifically to christians, calling America unchristian if they did not support the abolition of slavery.

First off, what is it with all the newspaper editors having slimeball names? If a guy's born and he has a slimebucket name, does he inherently decide to become a newspaper editor? Probably.

I thought Douglass' speech was interesting, mostly because of the way he manipulated the thoughts of the audience. He tries very hard--and succeeds for the most part, I should think--to make Northerners feel tricked and betrayed, by their party and by the South. He tries to make it sound like the parties have agreed to not bother with slavery at all, struggling only with governmental authority over port renovations--an issue his listeners would likely have thought of little import, in comparison to the issue of slavery. He uses Christian appeals to support his side. It seems like the "higher law" argument is seeing more and more use as we get closer to Civil War.

I, too, have not read "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Well, with the exception of the bits we read tonight. I don't think there is much left to add to what my classmates have already said concerning the emotion and Stowe's knowledge of slavery. The one thing I can add is that Stowe seems to esteem the frontier--and frontier-people--greatly. The backwoods frontiersman is represented by the six foot some-odd inches Van Trompe, with his red flannel shirt, fierce independence, and plenitude of able-bodied sons. She creates in Van Trompe not the noble, if flawed, character of the Senator, but a brave and sovereign man. Why does she do this? I think it has to do with providing alternatives. Aside from the personal struggles of slaves, Stowe argues against the corruption of the political system, and a man like Van Trompe, with his hard to reach home, abolitionist tendencies, and arsenal of weapons, provides an excellent alternative--an embodiment of an ideal that Stowe promotes.

The three readings were fairly interesting. I definitely have liked these the best so far!
    Uncle Tom's Cabin was a great story that helped to show people's thoughts on what was going on all over the country. Everyone who could read in America bought this book and a southerner could read about the issues a northerner had with slavery and see the emotions behind it and vice versa. This book told an important story in such a way that everyone would read it through and think about the issue a little more, as well as she definitely placed anti-slavery propaganda in it. She also appealed to the Christian in everyone by having characters admonish slavery by saying it was unchristian like and using words like heathen for the slave trader. It also may be dramatic but there's a reason for it. The story raises important questions and no one's going to read it if it's boring.
  The speech that Douglas delivered was impressive because it asked for honesty from the candidates and the people voting in the government. It asked them to think about what they were doing when they were playing politics. They were not voting to achieve the greatest good for the nation but to achieve political success. Too many politicians of this era said they were voting for the candidate and not the policies but it doesn't quite work when after the party elections the candidate must adhere to a certain platform. It's truly unfortunate that the politicians don't spend more time thinking about what they're doing to affect the country and less time thinking about their political career. Then he appeals to their christian values and tries to guilt them into the right decision as Harriet Beecher Stowe did to the readers of her book.

As Megan mentioned in her post, Frederick Douglass spends a good deal of time talking about party platforms and the voting process in his speech. The other readings for today were interesting and not very hard to get through, but this focus on the political structure of America in the middle of a speech against slavery really caught my attention. He asserts that people vote for a candidate not because of his popularity (like high school student council elections), but instead for the opinions he represents and the platform upon which he was nominated. I had never really thought about this exclusively, but for a candidate to make decisions strictly based on personal preference seems to be a real violation of the trust of the citizens who form his constituency. This creates a conundrum for Douglass, who talks to people who call themselves Free Soil Whigs, yet they still vote for the Whig candidates who support slavery just for lack of a better option. I won't say that a creation of a 3rd party candidate, as Chris was discussing with Nader and Perot, is a viable alternative, but something should be done, as Douglass realized, about the lack of consistency from the ballot box to the political offices.
The fugitive slave laws seem like some sort of Greek/Pig Latin hybrid language, but the idea I got from them was that EVERY person who encountered a fugitive slave was compelled by law (and perhaps punishment by law) to either assist in their capture or notify authorities. In the back of my mind I couldnt shake the image of the final Seinfeld episode, where they were thrown in jail for not helping someone. Anyway, something like this sounds good on paper to the slaveholders, but enforcing this law is an entirely different story, as shown by Mr. Bird in Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I was a little taken back by the readings that were assigned for this discussion. I must say that not drudging through two or three hundred pages of speeches was quite refreshing. The speech by Douglass was the least interesting of the three pieces and was not particularly easy to follow.
I did, however, enjoy the pieces from Uncle Tom’s Cabin I had never read that book before and was quite intrigued by it. I was particularly interested in the way in which Stowe communicated to the reader. It almost seemed like she would show the scenario of a particular slave and then would almost step outside of the story and talk to the reader, as if to say, “what would you do?” or “what do you think of this?” A certain part in particular when the senator is debating whether or not to take in the slave, Stowe almost is asking the reader to question him/herself about the action that should be taken. I just thought that it was an interesting point of view to take.

     These works represent a clear contrast in beliefs. Both Frederick Douglass' speech, and Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" are efforts to promote the abolition of the slaves, and refute such policies as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. I find it interesting that the Fugitive Slave law was passed so near to the Civil War. When examining the chronology of events that occurred leading up to the Civil War, it makes perfect sense that both pro slavery individuals and abolitionists would be making more extreme decisions in favor of their causes as the war approaches. It is these escalating debates that will fuel the beginning of the Civil War in a little more than a decade.
     The speech and the novel are both emotional pleas to our conscience. Douglass as was strongly in favor of abolishing slavery as early as possible. I agree with what Liz said about how Douglass tried to make the issue of slavery a religious one that would appeal to the noble Christian people of America. Appealing to the Christian people was exactly what Stowe attempted to do in her novel. Most of my classmates have liked the passages so far, yet some have pointed out that at times the book resembles a Soap Opera. My feeling is so what. Stowe's main goal was to appeal to our emotions. The emotions are intended to inspire a more concentrated effort to abolish slavery, much in the same way Spielberg appealed to our feelings with his film "Amistad." My only problem with the book is the feeling of self righteousness that several of the characters posses. Mrs. Shelby refers to the slaves as being "good faithful creatures" at one point, much like a noble pet. And Mrs. Bird seems to have an attitude that says If I don't help the slaves as a good Christian woman, than who will? In conclusion though, I find it very hard to criticize the book and speech a lot since they do appeal to our emotions, and most likely inspired increased efforts to abolish slavery.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 09:54 AM
 The Fugitive Slave Act – add it to the list of Civil War causes. The more I study and the more I research, I discover there are countless causes for the war between the states. The Fugitive Slave Act, with its immense implications and sparks of controversy, belongs near the top of that list.

 Douglass’s speech in Ithica centered around this document, rallying cries for a truly united fight against corrupt government and ignorant voters. The power of the ballot and the office is key in 1852, and Douglass, realizing this, brings out the many flaws of voter behavior (voting for candidates who don’t agree with one’s platform) and government positions (For example, South Carolina’s ten-slave requirement to hold state legislature position). His appeal to the personal emotions of his audience is the central method he uses to convey his point. By making it known that Ithica’s citizens’ voices are not truly heard through the current “democratic” party elections, he invokes a feeling of misguidance and anger in the hearts of those men. By convincing them they have been coerced into supporting slavery, the very thing they hate, through their ballot, and further pointing out that the current law is aiding in the “damning of souls,” Douglass immediately invokes negative feelings over the Fugitive Slave Law. “3,000,000 of God's children are bound in chains and are murderously robbed of all their dearest rights,” and by centering his thoughts on that statement, he leads freemen to an overall opinion that something is not right and should be done. When a man feels tricked, he is automatically ready to win back in his pride – in this case, Ithica men can find it in abolition.

 In a similar way, Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, takes the personal account of runaway slaves to appeal to the emotion and heart of her readers. Hitting someone’s key emotions is an effective tactic in invoking support for a cause, and by displaying the horrors of selling friends, Stowe “aids and abets” the abolitionist cause, especially in her attacks against The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Popular prose is an excellent marketing strategy of these ideas, and by appealing to a common reader, combined with Douglass’s appeal to the common voter, mass audiences are better reached.

 By the way, did anyone notice that the name “Van Trompe” is the name of both the abolitionist supporter in Stowe’s story as well as the name of the family in “The Sound of Music” who fled Nazi totalitarianism. I’ve never thought of it in those terms, but fighting against totalitarianism and supporting slavery is perhaps the major paradox of our “nation”’s history. I guess that’s why that whole conflict in the mid-1800’s started.

I would have to agree with Andy, and say that Douglas’s speech was much easier to read than the other two readings. With the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, I would start a sentence and within a half a dozen words I would be lost. However, I was able to pick up a couple things. I think this law opened the door to a lot of criminal activity in the way of picking up free men and acting as if they were fugitive slaves. Section 10 dealt with the legal matters involving reporting a slave missing, but it seems as if it really didn’t take much, therefore it would be easy for some fraud. The incentive for fraud is there, considering you will get twice as much money if the you bring in a person that turns out to be a slave (ten dollars as opposed to five). Frederick Douglas is concerned about the possibilities of this, and also finds it dreadful that men of color are going to have to hunt down men of their own race if the government tells them so. I have to agree with Douglas when he says that to make men of honest jobs leave to go out and hunt down fugitive slaves is wrong. I also found it interesting how Douglas referred to slavery as “national” instead of “sectional”. He talked about wherever a flag flew, slavery would be legal underneath it, and bashed Northerners for giving into the South. Douglas says himself that the only issue dividing the country seemed not to be there anymore, so was sectionalism not a factor when dealing with slavery anymore? Obviously with what was coming in ten years, there still had to be at least hints of sectionalism. He also bashed Whigs and Democrats alike, but why would he want to alienate all the bases of politics? Did he truly believe this to be a “final” solution, and was he just saying his peace? I don’t necessarily think so, because I just think he is showing the frustration of coming closer to abolition, then having a law like the Fugitive Slave Law go into effect. More and more people were calling for abolition, but it didn’t seem as if it was coming any time soon, and I think that just added fuel to Douglas’s fire on the issue.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 10:30 AM
I wanted to say words about the articles on women's rights. What a bold move. Elizabeth Cady Stanton's address to the NY govenment is bold and biting and the response she received was something else. The honesty of the legislature's response was notable but amazing. Did you all see that? They said, "Well Ms. Stanton, we all laughed at you!" Who says that?! But the line following that claim was most notable and prophetic: "" well, something to the effect of, the things we laugh at today could well be regarded as fact in many years, and we understand that. (I can't find the article at this moment). I don't know if I've ever heard about a statement like that before, acknowledging the possibility of being completely wrong in the future. These days we'd barely admit to even possibilities of falsehood.

Also, these ladies appealed to higher law. Like Seward, they appealed to a law that governs mankind, beyond the constitution. Using this, they stormed for women's equality with men, that the current place for women was subversive and "arrogant."

E.C. Stanton was not afraid, saying things both boldly and respectfully (for the most part). And to me, even though they included the bit about laughing at Stanton and the women's address and they didn't support many or none of the women's measures, I thought the govt's response was professional and rather curteous through disagreement.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 10:40 AM
I agree with a couple of other people who said that this set of reading was the most interesting that we have yet read. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a book I have never read, but these selections were quite interesting and they had some well written sections. One of the best parts about Stowe's work was the excellent job she did in creating and bringing life to her characters. In the two brief sections, the reader can quickly begin to empathize with the fugative slaves and see the pain in their owners who are forced to sell them. Stowe is writing an emotional plee to her readers regarding slavery and she does a good job at tugging at peoples heartstrings.
The Fugative Slave Law of 1850, as Sam remarked, was very hard to read. The section that dealt with the penalities for helping a fugative slave was interesting in that the penalities of up to one thousand dollars in fines is quite harsh for the times. To put this in perspective the reward for bringing in a slave was only 10 dollars. This shows how much the lawmakers were trying to dissuade people from offering assistence to fugative slaves. Someone remarked in their discussion how the slaves were never refered to slaves in the law itself but only as fugatives. This can provide a unique insight to the time period.
Douglas made an good point in his speech when he discusses the difference between voting for the canidate and voting for the platform. This is an issue that is still important in modern American politics, and Douglas makes some good points when he talks about how people are rationalizing their votes, something that still occurs today.

   Wow. I had never read _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ before, but these two excerpts were so full of emotion, which I can see especially appealing to women, that I would have to agree with Lindsey and say that I would want to read the entire novel for it's "soap opera" like drama. My eyes especially filled with tears when the noble senator's wife sacrificed her poor, dead son Henry's clothes for the comfort of little Harry, but explained to her other sons that Henry would be looking down on them from Heaven and smiling at their good deed. This novel comes very much from the perspective of a "Christian woman" appealing to other such women who would consider themselves Christian before they would consider themselves abolitionists I think to erase the stigma that would be attached to that word. By pointing out what a Christian duty it is NOT to support the Fugitive Slave Act - in which I saw great room for false accusations and unsubstantiated evidence to be used to the detriment of all African Americans, even those who were free. I particularly responded also to this reading, because Stowe portrayed the "fugitive slave" not only as those which the senator associated the term with, the runaway male, but as women and children, too, who escape not because they despise and want to confound their masters, but because they are left with no choice, because otherwise they would be sold separately due to their good master being in debt. I also did not think about the Fugitive Slave Act affecting this type of person, and I think that using a woman and child was the best way to appeal to readers and show them that just as the women and children of both races need to be protected African Americans need to be protected, too, from the wrongs of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 11:02 AM
Frederick Douglass' speech in Ithaca, the Fugitive Slave Law, and the chapters from Uncle Tom's Cabin all helped me to understand the struggles of this time in different ways. Frederick Douglass' speech gave me a better understanding of what was going on politically. The Fugitive Slave Law showed the reasons why their was some tension between the law of the nation and personal morals, and the chapters from Uncle Tom's Cabin did an interesting job of showing the struggles and relationships of not only the slaves, but also their masters.
I found Frederick Douglass' discussion of the Whigs and Democrats to be fascinating. On pg. 14 he mentions that the parties tried to nominate canidates before principles. "But the South scouted this as a cowardly principle, and it failed. They cried principles and not men and that ultimately prevailed." Then on pg. 14 "The canidates are therefore, subject, not superior to the platforms." This was interesting to me because their are still issues that people try to stay away from in modern times.
The Fugitive Slave Laws gave a glimpse into the moral dilemma that many people of this time faced. They didn't agree with slavery, but they were obligated by the law to report runaways (with the risk of a 1000 dollar fine if they broke this law). This law not only applied to the lawmakers, but to citizens as well who only knew about slaves who had escaped.
The fifth chapter from Uncle Tom's Cabin displays how emotions and financial issues often had to be worked out in regards to the selling of slaves. The slave owner has just decided to sell a slave named Tom (much to the dismay of his wife). This chapter was good to read because I felt that it helped to get a more balanced represenation of slave owners. It showed that they did have feelings for their slaves and it was a hard decision for them to make. This chaper also displays that financial issues often seemed to take precedent over feelings .

It seems as though I am going against popular opinion here somewhat, but from my perspective I found the Fugitive Slave Act to be the easiest work to read and also the most interesting. As Nathan just said, this should definitely be attributed to being one of the leading causes of the Civil War. I can easily see how many Northerners would be outraged at this: Common men and women were expected to aid in the capture of any and all fugitives (interesting that the word slave was in fact never used), an institution that much of the North disagreed with. Furthermore, they could have been subjected to large fines and even jail time if they refused to cooperate. Another interesting point I found though, local law enforcement could be rewarded five dollars for "capturing" a person who they thought was a "fugitive". With the value of five dollars being what it was then, I can see how this could easily have lead to a conflict of interests....

Wow...what a heart-wrenching tale the passages form Uncle Tom's Cabin turned out to be. After the first time reading through it I was initially amazed and shocked at the seemingly thoughtless sale of Mr. Shelby's slaves to the trader. However, as much as I felt for the slave families in getting broken up, I unfortunately realize how necessary the sale was for the family. Though the character Haley was never really personally introduced, I'm sure everyone who read the passage comes away with an immediate hatred of him. To me, he personified everything that was horrible about slavery: A man who was purely out to make a profit by ruling, buying and selling of humans. It was also interesting, but not altogether surprising, the role the wives played in the story. Both Senator Bird's wife and Mrs. Shelby come across as the benevolent characters appealing to their husband's compassionate sides.

Although I said that the slave law and passages from the novel were the easiest to read, Frederick Douglass's speech was equally powerful. Written in a more basic English than any of the three we read last week, Douglass gets his point across well without saying anything that is unnecessary, which I felt at times that Davis and Seward fell victim to. His first hand account of slavery tells of what the "peculiar institution" was truly like, instead of the sugar-coated versions that Jefferson Davis and John Calhoun spoke of in their speeches to Congress.

I found the excerpts from Uncle Tom's Cabin to be very interesting. It was amazing to see the different view points that the families had. I found it interesting that Mrs. Shelby cared so much for Eliza and her little boy, while Mr. Shelby sort of took it as no big deal and all part of business. I, like Leanna, found it very touching that the senator's wife so cared to help the slaves that she was willing to give up the clothes of her dead son to cloth them.
I also would have to agree with some of my other classmates in saying that the fugative slave law was hard to read. I did find that I would lose my place alot and have to start over because the sentances were so long. I think the part that I found most interesting was that there was such a high penalty for helping a slave escape, but the reward for returning one was so low. I think it shows that maybe peoples reliance on slaves wasn't as great as their desire to keep others down.
Finally, I found Frederick Douglass' very passionate and inspiring. He called on both parties, Whigs and Democarats, to stop naminating candidates before they figure out which issues are really the important ones. Its like Cal said, he pointed out the difference between voting for a candidate and voting for a platform. He discussed that the parties need to take a hard look and change the platform that they are running on to focus on the issue of slavery.

First, sorry about the double post.
    I, like everyone else, was impressed by the perspective that the experpts from Uncle Tom's Cabin displayed. It is very different than a text or reading arguements by rich, white politicians.
I was also amazed by the fugitive slave slaw and the stiff requirements it placed on the marshalls. It doesnt seem to give any incentive at all to want to perform this task for the government. If a marshall succesfully returns 100 slaves but one slave escapes the marshall's custody, then the marshall is back where he started. That seems very unfair and the southern influence shows through fugitive slave law.
The most interesting part of Fredrick Douglass' speech in my opinion is his criticism of the government for separating church and state, whether it was on purpose is another question. He seems to expect and demand the government to create laws that appeal to Christian morals. His arguement is so different from the arguement that someone today might make. He thinks it should be understood for the government to be protective of Christian interests. This was interesting because it made me think of how long our modern ideas about separation of church and state have actually been around.

I believe I gained much from reading the Fugitive Slave Law, chapters five and nine from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Fredrick Douglass' Stump Speech. The ideas concerning the returning of slaves and assisting in their escape were passionate issues of the day, as was indicated in all four documents, especially the Fugitive Slave Law. The Law laid down harsh penalities for assisting a slave in escaping, however it gave little reward for assisting in returing a runaway slave. I, like many of my classmates had a hard time reading the document. It seemed to be tied down in so much legal jargon that I believe the typical US citizen at the time would have had a terrible time trying to interpret the law. Chapters five and nine from Uncle Tom's Cabin shine a personal light on the happenings of the day. I felt that chapter five was particularly moving as it told the agonizing story of a master "forced" to sell his slaves. The value of human life seems to mean little to those involved in the slave trade, especially Mr. Shelby. Finally, I was touched by the speech delivered by Fredrick Douglass. He, in an extremely passionate speech, calls on the major political parties to examine the issues of day, especially slavery. He is disgusted that political nominations are made by parties who don't even know what their candidate stands for. He believes that much reform is needed in party platforms, especially concerning the practice of slavery.

Edited by author 10-16-2002 01:50 PM
Consecutive days with "Trading Places" and Mark Brunell references were classic. WHOA!

In Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the female characters are portrayed to be compassionate driving forces behind opposition to slavery and the sale of humans on a personal level. They are, as has been stated in class, the spiritual heads of the household, seeking to purify unrighteousness and uphold true Christian ideals, of which slavery has no part. However, I feel that in our initial responses to the excerpts of this society-changing work, we are too harsh on our judgment of Mr. Shelby. In agreement with Jake’s comments, the sale of his slaves was necessary at that time to keep the family above starving. It is not the character of Mr. Shelby that is the antagonist of the story, but rather the peculiar institution itself. He was forced to make the sale because of financial reasons, the economic situation of his nation, and not those to strictly make a profit off of human lives (like Haley, the real bad guy). The institution of slavery was so interwoven with the society of that time that it was simply impossible to avoid, for both good and bad, for both those who agree with a ranked society and those who do not, and for both slaveholders and abolitionists.

Mr. Shelby did not make this decision without much thought, stress, or heart. He made it because he had to, and because slavery was such a legal part of life, HIS life depended on it. When it comes down to the core root of things, one’s own life is what dictates any practice, even if they don’t agree with every part of society that affects that issue of survival. I don’t like pollution, but I live in a section of a country where it is necessary to burn gasoline to travel and make a living. I don’t like ranked systems either, but I attend a university with strict admissions criteria and one that also gives out grades that dictates some stupid thing called a GPA. Sometimes systems contain things we don’t like, but in one way or another, we’re forced to deal with them, and most of the time, we can’t avoid supporting it in at least a minute way.

The link for this week's presentation is located at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/pivot50.htm)

man, what happened to the view all option?

I have a couple comments more, now that I've read some more material, whether anyone cares to read or not and whether I get graded on it or not, I'd like to still add to discussion.

A couple things with Uncle Tom. First, we notice at the end of page 88 that the slaves were given some considerable breathing space, offered them by the masters. And totally, I was thinking the same thing, Nathan: The female character had the moral driving force, a voice of conscience. Were Stowe's female characters conformed to her sister Catherine Beecher's model? Sounds so! Third, LUXURY the shackle. P. 89: MASTER GOT INTO DEBT, and did he stand up for his political platforms? No, he couldn't, b/c he'd lost the independence of the yeoman farmer (he likely never had it) that would allow him to resort to subsistence if he didn't agree with what was going on. Instead, he had to break his bond with Tom and Harry in saying he would set them free one day (100 times over, it appears) b/c in his quest for luxury he had fallen into debt. I also was intrigued by Tom's willingness to "lay down his life" for Mr. Shelby, later shown when he was willing to be sold in the place of all the rest of the slaves. Christlike.

Fugitive Slave Law: I can only agree with what someone said a while back that man, what a load of words for something that could be said in a sentence.

Fred Douglass: We had the opportunity of reading his autobiography in HST 21, and it's a delight to read such well-written material from an ex-slave, to know how he started and grew up, and to see him taking political action in these debates. And he always puts forth a modesty characteristic of his talent: "I am not sensible of possessing any special aptitude or qualification..." This attitude was put forth in his autobiography as well. He is verily flustered by the state of slavery in the US and the resolutions of the 1850 compromise.

A really late posting...
As I think back on Amistad and look over my notes that I took during the movie, I can't help but think about the articles I read earlier this afternoon dealing with the canning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. The images from Amistad of hundreds of black bodies cramped into a slave ship come to mind, as does the image of live bodies being drowned in the ocean all tied together. When comparing those images to the picture we looked at of Sumner being canned, I almost want to laugh. I do realize that Sumner was beaten pretty badly, but the pain that he felt from a cane is nothing when compared to the torture that men and women went through as they were taken forcefully from their homes and sent in horrible quarters to America (the land of the free!) to be owned unfairly by strangers who often abused them. It just seems odd to me- a white girl living in the 21st century- that the torture of one man brought about so much attention (I mean, look at all those articles that we read dealing with incident!) while the torture of many slaves went unnoticed, or at least unspoken about, by so many.
I really enjoyed watching the movie Amistad, and there are a few lines that really stuck out to me, such as "give us us free," "this is where we're going when they kill us," "what kind of place is this? Where things about work?" However, I would have to say that the part of the movie that got to me the most was at the end when Cinque gives Jodson (was that his name?) his lions tooth and tells him that it is "to keep you safe." Cinque knew that the black Americans, his "brethren," were going to have to fight a hard, long battle to achieve freedom. I liked that part of the movie because it admitted that even though this one situation had turned out well, the long road of abolition wasnt going to be so pretty.

Edited by author 10-21-2002 02:29 PM
Fugitive Slave Law, Stump Speech and Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I found the fugitive slave law to be interesting in that it was pretty tough on the marshals. If they refused a warrant, or if a fugitive escaped from them, they could be arrested and fined. The wording of the law seemed to just drag on and on, all of the sections were confusing in a way.
The fifth chapter of Uncle Tom's Cabin showed a dilemma between the male slave owner and his wife. The financial problems of the home were put ahead of the relationships developed with the slaves. The book showed the female to be the moral voice, the voice of reason, much like what we have discussed in class many times.
I really liked Douglass's speech. I was interested in reading his thought on politics. His idea was slavery was being essentially pushed aside, or being avoided. This reminds me of some politics today, and how candidates seem to focus on a certain topic, and tend to shy away from hotter debates.

Amistad:
One of the scenes in Amistad that I thought were definitive to the movie was the very first scene. In the belly of the ship, we see darkness, and the occasional lightning flash illuminating Cinque's face. He is prying out a nail from the ship to pick his lock. After this the Africans take over the ship. This signifies the lengths to which people must go in order to preserve their freedom. To be willing to die, and to kill for it.
I think that the portrayal of Calhoun probably wasnt too fair.
Another scene is the one from the Spanish slave ship- ?taccora? The whipping of the slaves, with the blood hitting Cinque in the face, and the dropping of the slaved into the water, all chained together, and to a load of rocks. This entire sequence on the slave ship was the most powerful and raw of all. It had to be this way in order to show the horror of the slave trade.
As far as Spielberg emitting certain events, and placing the abolitionist Jodson into the film, this was necessary I belive for the sake of the viewer. Jodson wa