Friday, September 14, 2012

Class Discussion for September 13, 2012

     In our last class session, we began discussing the onslaught of slave rebellions that took place in the years prior to the Civil War.  Upon looking at these various instances, a common theme begins to emerge: in the cases of Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner, a plot in which to overthrow the white oppressors is quickly extinguished before the plan can be carried out.  Ironically, all of these men had religious sentiments and revolutionary ideals.  The idea of being sacrificed or "crucified" for one's beliefs and the value of a revolutionary rhetoric all resonated with these men.  In terms of a religious standpoint, the story of the Exodus out of Egypt served as a deep connection among many in the African American community during this period.  Slaves, under the yoke of white oppression, saw themselves as the Israelites, or God's chosen people.  In contrast, the white slave holders were the Egyptians keeping them in bondage. 

     In the 1830s and the 1840s, an expansion of the rhetoric of equality began to develop across America.  With the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828, this notion of equality strengthened, and the idea of the "common man" became an important symbol by a nationalistic standpoint.  In reality, this notion of equality and equal rights was severely limited, and was restricted based on race and gender.  During this time, the rights for the black population of the United States, in particular those in the deep South, became more and more marginalized within society.  Although the Atlantic slave trade ended in 1808, the institution of slavery grew and became more profitable as more states entered the Union.  Within this domestic slave trade, over one million slaves were bought and sold.  The domestic slave trade also brought greater economic value to the slave industry.  For example, a young, fit field hand cost around $500 in 1800.  By 1837, the price of a healthy worker cost around $1200.  The areas that profited most during this time were the states found in the cotton belt of America: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, east Texas, and the Florida panhandle.  All the while, Africans Americans were subject to a government constantly reaffirming the institution of slavery.  For example, the 1857 decision in the case of Dred Scott deemed that African Americans did not have American citizenship.  As Chief Justice Taney stated, "Blacks have no rights which a white man is bound to respect."  Not only was the government reaffirming slavery, but also infringing on the personal liberty laws of many "free" states in the North.  This infringement of state's rights for the benefit of slave holding states became an important fuse in the start of the Civil War. 

     Predominately, the focus of this class session was on the beginning of black nationalism.  To overcome this feeling of inferiority, a convention movement began to arise in the late 1830s.  Two of the predominate themes of these movements were the topics of national identity and racial ideology: How should the black population perceive race?  As Mallory pointed out in her report on the book The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the triumph of antislavery politics, the key to a sense of black nationalism lay in the ability of African Americans to construct their own freedom.  This nationalism could be achieved in a variety of different ways.  As a nation, we are a mix of various cultures.  One way of constructing nationalism could be through hearkening back to one's roots.  During the onset of the Civil War, slaves also had the opportunity to drastically change the outcome of the war in favor of the Union.  As thousands of slaves willingly went toward Union lines, they were actively fighting for their freedom.  By joining the army, many black communities believed the war could end the institution of slavery in the United States, and destroy the barriers of difference in terms of racial inferiority.  The movement of blacks making their way into Union lines also drastically impacted the view of slavery on the minds of white Northern soldiers.  Having seen the horror of slavery up close in the Southern states, the policy towards allowing slaves to fight began to change.

    Overall, this class helped to construct a rounder, multi-dimensional persona of the people we are discussing.  I certainly believe that one of the main goals of this class is to realize the humanity of the people we are discussing.  Because of little circumstantial evidence from that period, it is difficult to understand the thinking of a 19th century African American.  However, evidence, such as the friendship and views on war between Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln found in James Oakes' book, helps us to understand the thinking and natural tendencies of the black population during this time.   

6 comments:

  1. I really enjoyed this week's reading because I liked how it showed a more radical form of rebellion. Opposition does not just have to be in the form of violence, it can be in many embodiments, through many different voices and perspectives. Blacks were able to combat their feeling of inferiority because there were many avenues open to them to get their voices heard.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad Alex points out the rebellion element of the Civil War. I still don't know where I stand on the rebellion scale for Blacks' involvement in the war. I'll agree it was direct opposition to leave the plantations, side with Union lines, and be physically involved in the war, but comparing those actions to what all happened in Haiti, I'm still wondering was it really a rebellion? Maybe it's the word rebellion itself that throws me off. Rebellion immediately puts gory pictures in my head, maybe that's just me.
    Going along with the Haiti theme, I was completely surprised when I read about the formation of the country. To be quite honest, and to show my ignorance, I didn't even know the country existed until the hurricane. I know the US geography portion in public schools SUCKS, but cummon! I'd never HEARD of this country!
    So, I think to myself after reading the week's lessons as well as Oakes' biography, maybe there's some secret governmental conspiracy for me not being taught about Haiti. I'm joking, but in all seriousness, I really do think there is something going on. To preface this next argument, I'd like to say I'm not a paranoid anarchist who believes "The Man" is constantly out to get me. However, I do believe we have a long road ahead before social justice is achieved. That being said, my argument is this: We, as in the dominant culture, the intrusive market system, and global power we are as "American" are constantly setting social standards, directly and indirectly. Where Haiti comes into play, I wonder if Haiti's history is kept out of our History texts to keep our Black and Brown folks in place. What do I mean? Constantly, the media sends the message that "white is right" and that the lighter, more westernized a person looks, the more beautiful they are. As Haiti could at one point be perceived as a Black HQ, if you will, and a point of reference to social and political upheaval in which Black folks come on top, we (the government) decided to keep that tid bit out of circulation. We don't want any of our socially inferior bodies getting any ideas, now, do we?
    Yeah, so I do sound paranoid at the end of the day. All I'm saying is, reading Oakes book, Lincoln REALLY tried to make amends with Haiti. Our countries send ambassadors and the like to resolve our countries' issues. Then Lincoln was shot, Andrew Johnson swooped in in 1808, and he tried to annex Haiti (fell through) to keep European dominance over them. Since then, the US directly had its hand in Haitian politics, trying to keep them down until they all but threw us out of their country. We supported some dictators in Haiti until they stopped being a lucrative foothold, and by Bush's term, we completely broke away, sending only "humanitarian aid". *Thank you, Wikipedia.
    So I just can't reconcile what we're not being taught *for a purpose* as opposed to what we're not taught out of necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Much like what Anna says about our discussions constructing a rounder, multi-dimensional persona of African American at different times period of American history, I think our class does well to combat the master narrative of slave life. In particular I liked how our readings for today helped us understand what their role in the Civil War was. In particular, it shows how slaves were not merely waiting to be saved by Abraham Lincoln and the Union but helped to take up arms to fight for their own freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haha Mallory, I enjoyed reading your comment.

    I was glad that our readings clarified the roles that the black people...who were slaves had in the Civil War. Mainly because I'm tired of hearing 'Lincoln freed the slaves.' I'm tired of hearing all the praise that he receives and how little, if any, recognition black people receive in bringing about the whole emancipation ordeal. We of course have the lovely master narrative to thank for that.

    Furthermore, I know they say Lincoln was not in favor of slavery and sure him and Douglass were "friends," but if you can't be friends with me in public, then are we really friends? Sure you're anti-slavery behind closed doors, but in the public eye you're not so much. I understand he was trying to be strategic in not outwardly condemning slavery, if you will, but if you actually feel something is wrong, I can't see you not showing that simply to save face. I won't go too hard on Lincoln though...his assassination leads me to believe that he was up to something the powers that be didn't like...so I guess I'm with Mallory on sounding paranoid haha.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have read many different accounts regarding the role of slaves in the Civil War, and exposed to a wide spectrum of analysis. Until reading Hahn, I was never quite satisfied with any historian's ability to reconcile Lincoln's role with that of slaves in achieving Emancipation. Oftentimes the query is conveyed as a case of "either-or," leaving little room for nuanced interpretation of what was, in reality, a far more complex phenomenon than we tend to retrospectively asses it.

    Renowned historian James McPherson, for instance, concedes the importance of African-American agency, but maintainins that without Lincoln, emancipation could not have taken hold. McPherson bases the aforementioned contention on his belief that war was a necessary condition for the abolition of slavery in the United States, and by extension, that without Lincoln, there would have been no Civil War. Simple enough.

    Conversely, there exists a school of historians who seek to minimize Lincoln's role in the ultimate abolition of the "peculiar institution" while promoting the case of African-American agency. Barbara J. Fields, for instance, decries the political basis for Lincoln's Emancipation in espousing the centrality of African-American action. Fields claim is, to put it simply, the slaves freed themselves.

    I take issue with the arguments of both McPherson and Fields (though I tend towards McPherson due, in small part, to the fact that he at least acknowledges the legitmacy of African-American agency in abolition). Hahn impartially and effectively balanced the two aforementioned seemingly antagonistic schools of historical thought, revealing, as we touched on in class, the injustice represented by such simple, polarized interpretations of an incredibly complex chain of resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey everyone! So I found something very interesting while I was doing my internship at the Hope House this past week. I was sitting in one on of the classes that is taught to adults who suffer from HIV or AIDS and come from extreme poverty. The class teaches those who attend what resources they need to enhance their lives. Interestingly enough, one of the resources is the Knowledge of Hidden Secrets. The Knowledge of Hidden Secrets is defined as the understanding of the unspoken habits of the middle class. This completely shocked me. This is obviously an example of the Politics of Respectability at work. This class teaches that in order to enhance their lives, the lower class must practice the habits and culture of the middle and upper classes. I find this very interesting, especially since the class has a large majority of African Americans. I do not agree that the Knowledge of Hidden Secrets is a resource those who are poor need to practice in order to better their lives, but this is surprisingly still practiced today.

    ReplyDelete