After reading this chapter, if you were asked to describe the "early republic" what would that description look like? What elements of Wilentz's, Rossiter's, Pasley's, Perkins's interpretations and points of emphasis would you include or exclude? Why?
If I were to describe the “early republic” I would have to begin with the impact the Market Revolution had on the economic lifestyles of the citizens living during said period. Sean Wilentz notes that although industrial growth was impressive during the time of the early republic, most people still lived in rural areas and worked in agriculture; only a mere 14 percent worked in manufacturing. This minority of workers however, was the heartbeat of the country and soon they and the market revolution dominated the economy. Areas such as the northeast became dependent on what the market revolution entailed, which brought along consequences such as “overstocked labor markets and competition among employers that kept wages and earnings near or below subsistent levels,” according to Wilentz. The market revolution also produced a need for more land and inevitably the “road always led west”. This expansion meant conflict with the natives who inhabited the territories desired. The policy of Indian removal was one teeming with fraud, resulting in the state and federal authorities use violence against the natives. The new crop of cotton and the “Cotton Kingdom” also spread west, along with its partner the slave, reaching areas in Alabama and Mississippi. The yeoman farmers inhabiting these areas at the time were “deeply suspicious” of the planters power and their possible attempts to develop policies in the backcountry. The market revolution during the early republic completely turned the American economy on its side and facilitated both economic along with social change.
ReplyDeleteThe ideology of the early republic centered around the sense of nationalism and pride resulting from the recent victory over Britain. Clinton Rossiter believes that the American identity was formulated with the help of, ironically, Great Britain. I agree with him on this statement, for what better way to create a country of hope and freedoms, than to look at the oppressor and enact the opposite. The extent in which this ideology was carried out is debatable however. Americans prided themselves as citizens of a nation in which “membership bestowed a range of rights, privileges, immunities, opportunities, and protections,” according to Rossiter. I disagree with Rossiter however, because not all “Americans” had such rights and opportunities. Women and slaves alike were restricted to the confines of the home and plantations respectively. Neither group could vote nor have any say in the public sphere; the early republic was a time dominated by the white man. Nonetheless voter turnout was high and the men were enthusiastic about their newly found freedom. According to Rossiter, “voter turnout approached 70 percent in Pennsylvania during the 1799 and 1800 elections.” The early republic was a time of great chauvinism for Americans and all eligible flocked to vote.
Socially speaking, the early republic was not a time for prohibition in regards to alcohol. Rum was the drink of choice and many parties and parades centered around this liquor. According to Jeffrey Pasley the highlights of such parties were the toasts, where drunken guests would commemorate their leaders and if possible such toasts were followed by cannon blasts. The early republic was defiantly a time for celebration, but also a time for formulating the young countries identity. When the bottles dried up it was time to get down to business on how to run such as massive area, which consisted of many separate spheres (states). Early foreign policy consisted mainly of the idea of isolationism. America did not want to get involved in aligning with foreign nations; they simply wanted to exchange goods for the sake of economics. This would allow America to grow as a country and avoid wars or conflict that may weaken the country’s already meager piggy bank. Overall during this period of the early republic America was a place of great change and few knew exactly what would come of the changes, they could only speculate and push forward.
After reading the first chapter of “Problems in the Early Republic” I would say that the change that took place was inevitable. The Market Revolution was unprecedented and citizens in the early republic would follow this. Although one would think during this time the citizens of the early republic would become more urbanized, eighty six percent of the population still lived on rural areas. However, Sean Wilentz comments that the industrial growth was remarkable especially that of in the northeast. These outstanding economic growths also came with a price when seaboard cites and newer inland cites relied on underpaid workers such as deprived immigrants, women and children. The market revolution created an abundance of wealth that was not in any sort distributed equally. According to Wilentz, “A tiny portion of the northeastern population came to command the bulk of the newly created wealth.” The market revolution also benefitted the successful farmers who could uphold sufficient acreage and understand and the concept of credit and competition (capitalists agriculture competition) and as more time went on during the early republic the further west it’s citizens would travel for new opportunities in agriculture. The Indians that inhabited the lands were forced out because of the overwhelming greed the market revolution had caused. The white settlers who could not get adequate credit often had to settle for inadequate land. Some where able to purchase new land but often it was lost. The South experienced the blessings of god with the start of the “Cotton Kingdom” which up until the civil war provided 70 percent of the worlds cotton supply. The South’s goal was to expand west, not only the production of cotton but also their investment with the crop, slaves. In my opinion, the market revolution during the early republic set in the capitalism views that still exist today. American Nationalism was extremely high during the early republic and had every right to be after defeating one of the most dominant nations at that time, Great Britain. According to Rossitier, “Most Americans were dedicated in common beauties of personal liberty, the security of constitutionalism, the rightness of democracy, the wrongness of class distinctions.” I disagree with his statement because the Market revolution caused the differences in class and also the unprecedented use of slavery. The liberties for the slaves were non existent. America’s identity was not exactly American because our neo nation was comprised of many immigrants such as Scots, Irishmen and Germans. The voter turn out in the early republic was great because any white male of age could vote with or without owning land. The time of the early republic was not one without parties that consisted of an abundance of alcohol. The Americans at this time still though of their new nation as John Winthrop proclaimed, “A city upon the hill.” They felt like they were the chosen ones and after being the “underdog” and gaining their independence twice, who were to blame them? The identity of our nation was taking root during this time both economically and socially.
ReplyDeleteIf I were asked to describe the early republic, I would argue that it was a period of great change. The early republic underwent a market revolution that transformed America into a capitalist society. The rise of American nationalism and a crude form of party politics were beginning to take shape. Historian Sean Wilentz stresses the importance of the market revolution, "which in one way or another touched the lives of all Americans." I believe that Wilentzs' argument in vital to understanding the nature of the change in the early republic. The new social classes that were created out of this market revolution are important because they helped to define certain sections of the country. The rise of a manufacturing based north, and a cash crop based south gave each section its own "distinctiveness." The market revolution also drove the need for land and led to Americans moving west for better opportunities. The market revolution that Wilentz discusses created new class distinctions and "social interactions, and political parties emerged to fight out the course of this new market revolution."
ReplyDeleteThe early republic also was the beginning of American nationalism. According to Rossiter, the early republic was the beginning of what some historians describe as American exceptionalism. In other words, that America was a country where its citizens were "different and better and rejoiced in this fact." Perkins argues correctly that the rise in American nationalism helped inform foreign policy decisions. As Perkins displays when he states, "Time and again, Americans demanded that they be respected as a model for the world," and their belief in republican traditions. Rossiter too agrees that American nationalism was not boastful or chauvinist but it should stand as a beacon for the whole world.
Related to the rise of American nationalism was the foreign policy of the early republic. Perkins argues that America’s commerce was different from other countries, and they sought to expand commerce by "unshackling it rather than directing it." According to Perkins America distrusted monarchical regimes and supported revolutions so as long they did not become too radical.
In describing the early republic I would include the market revolution, the rise of American nationalism, and the interests of American foreign policy. You also would have to include the rise of party and popular politics, but i would disagree with Pasley's assumption that partisan political culture faded in the 1830's after the parties became more organized. I do however agree that this popular political culture was important in getting Jefferson elected and could trace its roots back to Washington. I also believe that Pasley is right in saying that this political culture was imbedded in everyday life. He does an excellent job of displaying this by providing musical and social evidence.
In describing the early republic I would stress the market revolution and the rise of American nationalism, and briefly mention popular politics and foreign policy, but the first two I believe had a much greater impact on the "deep change" that occurred during the early republic.
If I were asked to describe the ‘early republic,’ I would first have to start with the Market Revolution and how it changed the economic and social aspects of the newly created America. The Market Revolution brought about a lot of technological advances including transportation such as railroads, canals, and improved roads. Along with the technological advances, which dominated, the Market Revolution was the fact that many northeastern farmers began to move westward into the newly acquired lands. This is important because it signals a shift to cash crops for these farmers because they would be unable to purchase the land without money. Historian Sean Wilentz notes that it were the merchant capitalists who “were at the forefront of transportation improvements” and helped make the shift from “the old artisan handicraft system” to the “rise of new manufacturing enterprises.” Wilentz’s emphasis on the Market Revolution and how it shaped the ‘early republic’ can be seen through the new social classes created during this economic shift, especially in the northeast, which in turn led to new political views and parties, along with the scarcity of land on the east coast leading to a nationwide shift westward thanks to the transportation improvements which made it possible. The ‘early republic’ signaled the start of a new nation so naturally change was inevitable. America’s foreign policy also gave shape to the future of the new country. Bradford Perkins argues that Americans were always expansionists even before they won independence from Britain. During this time many ‘Americans’ saw themselves as better or more worthy than those people of ‘lesser’ nations, including the savage natives. Indian tribes and Mexico had to bend to the power of America when the new nation expanded westward in search of new lands. Perkins notes that even before the Revolutionary war, the American colonies dissented from the mercantilism of the British Navigation Acts, which largely limited who the colonies could trade with. The colonies wished to trade with whichever nation it wished to, whether inside or outside of the British domains. Perkins also argues that during this time there was a commitment to republicanism. Shortly after independence, Americans worried about the fate of their popular government; worried it would be destroyed by demagoguery or transform into an aristocratic Caesarism, but no American believed the concept of republicanism should be abandoned because they saw republicanism and the United States as “the hope of the present and future.” America and its leaders stood against monarchical, statist regimes for obvious reasons (Great Britain) and they would often welcome and support revolutions. Washington even spoke of his excitement whenever an oppressed nation would “unfurl the banners of freedom.” The ‘early republic’ signaled the birth of our country and it is riddled with change, whether political, social, economic, or demographic. It would be impossible for any real historian to argue the insignificance of the ‘early republic’ without lying to oneself about the period and its true extent on all spheres of America and its people.
ReplyDeleteThe early republic can be seen as a union of the four key themes of business, nationalism, politics, and foreign policy that have all undergone profound change. Therefore, the depiction of the early republic can be described best by the terms of this transformation in the way people think. A commonality helps to form all of these changes, and therefore, the early republic can best be described when understanding better the connections behind all of these changes. This driving force that was behind all four of these major movements is the firm belief in divine providence in that America would be somehow be guided, protected, and blessed by God.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that America was somehow destined to be great helped to turn the once rural nation at its founding to a more industrialized, mercantilistic nation as shown by Wilentz in his essay concerning the market revolution. Key to the rise of this industrialization was the capability of expansion thanks to the growth of transportation such as in the railway industry, without which, the early republic could not have formed the way in which it did. Yet, as America aspired to be supreme in the eyes of God, the evils of slavery lurked in the minds of the Southern planters, and a morality issue arose, helping to further define the social struggles of the period. When concerning the markets, it is important to remember that without the transportation revolution, we may not have even experienced the market revolution mentioned by Wilentz. Unfortunately, with this expansion of the markets, slavery also grew.
Rossiter’s vision of interpreting the early republic in terms of American nationalism provides possibly the best examples of how the nation’s belief system helped make the nation strive to succeed. This idea that America was somehow better in comparison to the rest of the world was preached to the far reaches of the land. Such instances even called America some kind of new Jerusalem that was created by the hands of God. Rossiter explains how the winning of the revolution helped to cement into the minds of the citizenry that they were their as a different race of people separate from the European counterparts that were sent to fulfill some kind of destiny. This type of belief system helped to bring about a type of national devotion that helped to establish certain political, economic, and social principles.
Furthermore, Pasley explains politics in his interpretation of the early republic, and throughout his essay, one can again see the characterization of faith. As campaigning grew fierce, newspapers would exclaim doubt on the religious qualifications of candidates. After all, this would have a powerful effect on people who have been shaped by an American nationalism built on the faith in God. Politicians played on the nationalistic fervor of the people while making toasts during dining. Speeches had been made revolving around a strong sense of patriotism. Songs declared the greatness of the nation and attempted to inspire even more nationalist pride than what was already shown in the people. Pasley shows the reader that in the case of the early republic, politics and nationalism go hand in hand.
Yet, just as politics can be defined by the faith-destined nationalism, Perkins explains how nationalism has even shaped foreign policy. Americans expansion was justified during the time period largely by want to force to conquer what was considered savage nations. The expansionists encountered Indian tribes even in Mexico while looking at them through the prism of Christianity, seeing the need to rid the God-given nation of the barbaric uncivilized. Similarly, as America was considered completely different and blessed in comparison to the European nations, the early republic wanted to form a trade agreement not with just a few countries throughout the world, but with everyone.
If I were to describe the Early Republic after reading I would have described it as a changing world with many uncertainties. Four things stood out to me after the reading. The Four things were a new found nationalism, the market revolution, the building of slavery in the south, and western expansion and the removal of native Indians. One can’t describe the Early Republic without first starting talking about the market revolution. The market revolution was huge for both the south and the north. With mass improvements in transportation and communication which brought back strong ideas of mercantilism. The market revolution is what began to separate the North in South, in the north it led to a huge rise of new manufacturing enterprises as well as huge economic development. Surprisingly even with all the growth the majority of the population still lived in rural areas as “only 14 percent of the labor forced worked in manufacturing.” Wilentz . For the South it brought on the huge explosion of cotton with Eli Whitneys invention of the Cotton Gin. Slave plantations began to expand westardly as cotton grew. Up until the Civil War the south provided upwards of 70 percent of the world’s cotton supplies. One thing that the market revolution brought to both the South as well as the North was an newly found comptetive nature if you weren’t keeping up you were being passed. Although the market revolution substantial benefits with it these benefits were far from distributed equally especially in the Northeast. As farmers battled for bigger farms and more land to gain more capital the land they were coming across was already inhabited by Native Americans. Federal and state authorties took it upon themselves to remove the native inhabitants by ways such as fraud and even violence if necessary. This new land was quickly ceased by capitalist farmers. These farmers gathered their land by taking out mortgages or borrowing money all to keep up with the ever growing capitalist times. Other than the market revolution I saw the biggest theme of this time after reading was the newly developed since of Nationalism. This new pride had been established during and after the Revolutionary War. America was searching to figure out who they were as Rossiter states “ the people of the United States found an identity that permitted the Union to develop and expand in unprecedented ways. Perhaps more important, this sense of identity then encouraged it to stand up successfully to the most severe test a nation can ever meet.” Talking about the eventual civil war and forging together to move on afterwards. One thing I guess I never thought about until reading this chapter was how America was kind of put up on the spotlight “standing as a model republic to the rest of the world” Rossiter. I had never really thought about that… how during this time of nationalism and growth the world was watching our every movement. Overall it was a period of growth and expansion with huge communication and technological breakthroughs that paved the way for what America would grow in to.
ReplyDeleteThe largest attribution I can give to the early republic is utmost anxiety. Before the war, the country was faced with its dilemma of how to deal with a foreign overlord. Taxation and commerce were crippling the colonies to the point of self-realization and actualizing self-governance. I’d like to say that the sole driving factor of the early republic was how to govern itself but I have to say that the sole factor in the turmoil of this era was simply money. Wilentz’s account of the market revolution displays the differences in such a geographically diverse “nation” and the consequences for indulgences based on their own geographical needs. Once the nation had taken on its own identity away from Britain, it was faced with far more financial problems than when under the umbrella of the crown. In the hands of a few men was the fate of the rest of the world. When delegating of the Constitution, it was made apparent by all that they were taking on the responsibility of the entire world. As much as I want to say the founding fathers and “Framers” of the Constitution were out to establish a sovereign nation, ALL of the writings conclude that a few were looking out for themselves while the others either managed or suffered tremendously. Although nationalism was fresh and new to the people of the new nation, I feel it was used against the people in order for the elites to find and maintain some sort of financial order as well as superiority. Rossiter says that there “was one new nation, it would seem, that had a special talent for creating and exploiting instant history, and also for believing in it.” And why wouldn’t the people feel the nationalism of their new land? They had just fought off a global empire in order to find their own destiny, something that takes great leaps and bounds to accomplish in history. At the same time, there was a distinct agenda to those with any sort of control to maintain it. Suggestions of a loose monarchy by Jefferson are somewhat astonishing to me because I naively had assumed that this era wasn’t focused solely on money but of independence. Much like how most Americans believe the Civil War was fought solely on slavery. Although I had inclinations of my own that would lead me to believe that wasn’t the case because history is exactly that his-story. Instead what we have are an attempt by a few banksters to seize control of a country whose debt and inflation was running wild. Their only solution to the problem was to find a way to receive their payments, even if it was to establish a government to do just that. Those pushing this nationalism I feel were exploiting the people to mislead them into submitting to a fiat currency. It was Husband’s idea of letting money become invaluable that was most interesting to me. I had never heard of this plan before reading Holton. To go back to the idea of anxiety, the deliberators of the constitution were of high anxiety as to what to do about the growing financial crisis, the tax-gatherers and creditors were feeling the possibility of losing their investments, government officials were worried whether democracy would destroy itself, state officials were worried that a national government would manifest and states would lose its rights, northerners were afraid of slavery, wages and salary, and finding a work force to make a profit, southerners were worried they would lose their rights and their ability to maintain a patriarchal system, the old were worried about the younger generation submitting to the current crisis and not looking ahead, and the young were worried they were getting themselves and the nation into a situation that was unfathomable and were seeking a way to heal the financial wound. Overall, each class, race, and demographic of people were faced with intense anxiety as to what the future beheld. The outcomes and consequences to this era are directly related to how all of these people responded to the anxiety they dealt with both as a nation and individuals.
ReplyDeleteAfter the War for Independence, the European powers left our portion of the New World; our fledgling nation was left to its own devices. A Confederation of loosely organized independent states was struggling for survival. I enjoyed analyzing Rossiter's introduction section explaining about the organization of the new nation. Our ancestors believed in Providence, and it may be necessary for us to do the same in the modern world, for it seems nearly impossible that our country survived the years of the early republic. The expanding ideals of liberalism drove the northeast to be overcrowded with labor and the South the hunger for more capital producing cotton soil. The result was a people on the move. Settling on dangerous land that was recently acquired thanks to TJ, American migration quickly resulted in the annexation of new states. However, problems with this expansion quickly arose. Regional and class differences became ever more apparent not just between North and South, but also the West. How did America emerge out of this time a country of the verge of empire? Was it Providence? Well, maybe, but I believe it was this sense of nationalism and of an almost mythological reverence for our founders. Every American looked to the virtue of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and so on, as the perfect example of republicanism. This is what carried the weight and made it possible for no national bloodshed of significant proportions to arise until the 1850s. Maybe our United States was a gift from God that was given a Manifest Destiny. But my opinion is that the collective mindset of all Americans knew that we were the first and possibly last place for self government, if America failed, then this new liberal, radical, free market, capitalist system will never exist again.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the essays in chapter one, I would describe the early republic by taking a look at the effects of the Market Revolution, the sentiment of American identity, trends in politics, and attitudes toward foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteAlthough relatively small when compared to other historical time periods, the Northeast experienced impressive growth in industrial manufacturing. Eastern merchants began to divide artisan/craft skills among unskilled, uneducated workers as a source of cheap labor. In doing so, the early republic saw an increase in output, an increase in quality of consumer goods, and a decrease in sale price. However, these material benefits were not spread equally. Merchants, manufacturers, commercial cash crop growers, and professionals were of the vast majority of those to enjoy these new benefits. Immigrants, unskilled workers, and the poor struggled to adapt to the demands of the market revolution, consequently leading to tensions between the wealthy and poor.
An increase in population lead to the shift from “quasi-self sufficiency” farming to commercial cash crop farming. The increase of commercial farming in turn increased the demand for new land. The demand for new land coupled with the new construction of roads, canals, and railroads made moving west inevitable. Those who moved west and conformed to the new rules of competition set by the east profited greatly. Those who did not became poor wage workers, again creating a gap between social classes.
In the South, wealthy land owning individuals used slaves to operate their lucrative plantations. The life of a southerner and northerner were far from similar, and the issue of slavery definitely created tension between the two. In short, Wilentz believed (and I agree) that the market revolution resulted in the creation of varying social classes in distinct regions of the nation.
According to Rossiter, the American identity had taken shape by the mid 1800’s. American’s viewed history in an almost uniform, nostalgic way. The early republic was a proud nation that boasted “the beauties of personal liberty, the security of constitutionalism, the rightness of democracy, the wrongness of class distinctions, the virtue of private property… .” If something was anti-European, it was American.
Political culture of the day was “built out of everyday life.” Early parties developed from the ideals of local activists. Public gatherings, such as parades and taverns, served as political platforms for early partisan leaders. However, newspapers were the main source for parties to express their opinions. Newspapers allowed parties to reach the ears of many far and wide. Pasley mentions there was increased voting during these years in his essay, yet women, slaves were still not allowed to vote. However, this did not stop women and others not allowed to vote to develop their own political opinions.
Attitudes of early republicans definitely had an expansionist mindset. The goal of expansion was to acquire new land and resources. Americans viewed themselves as “models for the world, and hope for the present and future.” The early republic was all for foreign revolution, but failed to consider the circumstances when revolution failed. Instead, the people blamed such counties’ failures on their inferiority.
Upon reading this chapter it became clear that the Market Revolution was a major catalyst for change. The rapid progress America made in transportation and communications industries facilitated sweeping changes to the labor and production markets, and the enormous pressure that vast changes in these facets of life in turn impacted social relations between Americans both within the family and between newly minted haves and have-nots. The pressure of population growth on available farm land eventually drove Northeastern farmers to seek opportunity to the West, and the rise of transport like rail facilitated their migration. This in turn led to a demand for cash to pay for more land, and the once self-sufficient country farmers now produced cash crops for new markets while becoming dependent on merchants for their own household items. Similar effects were felt in the Northwest of the country, as the market revolution uprooted the old economic and social order.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone was a major beneficiary from this revolution, as the drive for land and the changes associated with the Market Revolution had a decidedly human cost. For one the majority of the benefits from the commercial expansion accrued to a relatively small minority, and the creation of these elites came at a cost. The land that commercial farmers sought to the West was Indian land, and to settle it of course the Indians had to be removed, actions encompassing fraud and outright violence that caused a great deal of hardship and suffering for those populations. Marginal farmers and producers too fell victim to the changes, losing their land and being forced into tenant farming or some form of wage labor.
The market revolution had a divisive impact on the various winners and losers from the revolution itself, but in time those differences were subsumed by the gaping contrasts between the slave-holding South and wage-labor North. These differences were exacerbated by the westward expansion of slavery and the rapid pace of that expansion aided by the very market revolution that opened that movement, through rail and particularly the opportunity to dominate Cotton markets globally. Despite the tensions surrounding the numerous winners and losers of the market revolution, none were as divisive as the issue of slavery. This was divisive for not only economic and social reasons but because of the damage the institution seemingly did to the national mission, as a beacon for humanity.
Rossiter’s emphasis on the idea of America as a guiding beacon is also important when trying to understand what the Early Republic was. The American experiment was the only chance that humanity might have to prove the efficacy of republican government. Joseph Story is quoted as saying that “We stand the latest, and if we fail, probably the last experiment in self-government by the people”. The Early Republic was an experiment that could not afford to fail, yet was inherently different from the anything preceding it and vastly superior morally to the old European powers. These ideas combined to form a unique sense of national mission, providing a moral force behind morally reprehensible acts like the removal of the Indians while being espoused after the Mexican-American War in which America purchased largely unpopulated lands for the republican experiment. Amidst the chaos and energy of the market revolution, Rossiter suggests that Americans viewed their actions as serving the good of the country and thus humanity as a whole, a force that conveniently allowed for moral justification of Indian removals and war against Mexico.
Overall, the Early Republic was a time of great change, great polarization, and ironically great optimism. The beacon narrative and political writings and excerpts from Pasley and Perkins attest to this, which is curious because the rapid changes that occurred at the time were dividing Americans. No one seemed to know what the future held, yet were at the same time confident that a great destiny awaited America.
Perhaps the most defining ideal of the early American republic could be summed up as the fostering of an economy, political system, and culture that was profoundly different from what the colonists had experienced under British rule and unique amongst the great powers of the world. Particularly, the development of a market economy was especially significant for the new nation, as it was a sharp break from the mercantilism practiced by the European powers. As Perkins points out, the early Americans opened themselves up to trade with any power in an effort to boost their newly minted economy. However, Perkins also argues that the fledgling nation’s efforts to expand its trade were rooted in a desire to expand its borders immediately after its founding, which he argues was no different from the rest of the world’s powers. However, Rossiter writes that even the early Americans defined themselves as being different from the Europeans; this idea of developing a nation in sharp contrast to the powers of Europe translated into a growing emphasis on the individual. Because of the success of the Revolution and the simple fact of America’s isolation from the great powers, citizens of the United States began to see themselves as superior and a paragon of democracy and freedom for the world. This sense of superiority began to develop into an awakening of the individual; just as Americans felt unique and superior because of their rights and liberties in their identity as Americans, Rossiter writes that Americans began to embrace this individuality both in relation to their contemporaries in Europe and in their dealings at home. Americans felt intensely loyal both to their nation and to their region, a phenomenon that remained fairly stable until the onset of the Civil War. This loyalty spurred Americans to develop their own unique system of governance. Domestically, the United States learned very quickly that it needed to develop an economic system that worked so that it wouldn’t fail and subsequently subjugated by one of the European powers. As Wilentz writes, the development of a market economy and the expansion of American transportation went hand-in-hand. Because of the United States’ swift construction of an advanced transportation system that consisted of canals, railroads, and even national roads, the parts of the nation that were not immediately accessible by water were able to participate in trade. As travel became easier and cities, especially those in the northeast, became larger, the home ceased to be the epicenter of commerce; this phenomenon caused a sharp divide between what Wilentz calls the “independents” and the “dependents,” as many rural farmers were lost in the shuffle. More importantly, the changes in the economy intensified changes between the North and the South that would only worsen in the decades leading up to the Civil War. In fact, Wilentz argues that the South developed into a distinctly non-capitalist economy that more closely resembled the European feudal societies than the market economy of the northeast. In short, the early republic can be characterized by the young nation’s struggle to make an identity for itself by contrasting sharply with the nation from which it came and developing a market economy through increased transportation and communication capabilities.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this chapter my description on the early republic is going to look like chaos pretty much like the early republic was. After reading this, the first thoughts that came to me were overwhelming because of the mass amounts of change that took place in this period. I knew before reading that there was definitely a lot of change in this time but did not realize to what extent until reading this. The change moved fast and literally swept through the newly free and born nation of America. There were new politics, new technology, new ways of transportation, new society, new ways of learning, basically a clutter of newness in the early republic. That is my simple description, a clutter of fast moving newness in a new nation. Jefferson and Jackson had mass amounts of responsibility thrust upon them to keep this nation stable and together amongst these changes. Many failures and trials took place while discovering how to make a nation function. A clutter of fast moving newness seems like an actuate way to describe the early republic.
ReplyDeleteWilentz made many points I felt were necessary to include to set the stage for this time. His point starting with the economic changes and the market revolution was absolutely necessary to begin to explain this period. The market revolution and the new economy were the reasons that most of these changes took place. They were also the beginnings of the economy we see today. His emphases on the changes in transportation are without a doubt crucial to this time. The railroads, canals, and roads that were built during this time helped begin the westward movement in America and expand the growing nation. He mentioned the industrial growth and the new factories that allowed for people to get jobs and produce the amount of materials this new nation needed to expand. Wilentz also mentioned the crisis in the rural life of the northeast and how the farmers there had to shift their productions to cash crops to accommodate the new economy. I think this is a very vital part of the early republic because that began the modernization of farming and mass production of products. He also mentions how the south experienced the market revolution differently than the rest of the nation which he explained sets up the stage for the coming Civil War with the increase in slavery and the rise of the cotton kingdom. Starting with this author was a good way to give an outline of the early republic. I would have excluded the part on family life because I feel as if it was not as important as the other information in there and could have been saved for later when discussing social changes to a greater depth.
Rossiter’s main points I took from his section were those of nationhood and individualism. He needed to make the point of nationhood to help explain why the north did not just let the south secede from the Union without consequence. The people had become very pro nation and with out the concept of nationhood that had developed the nation could have just crumbled with the south leaving. The concept of individualism was basically that as a person you could be yourself and still belong because you were a free American. It was a huge part of the early republic and how society changed. I would have excluded the part on the “American Mission” and saved it for later because I feel like it deserved a whole section by itself. There was so much information in the different points and it could have been further explained.
ReplyDeletePaisely’s section on American culture could have been better by just briefly explaining the celebrations that took place instead of going in depth of the parting and how they toasted and sang and such. It would have been better if had just focused on the influence of the newspaper and printing press and able distribution of news and information. The newspaper had an enormous impact on this period in all aspects but most importantly politics. It was necessary to help explain how the political side of the early republic gained so much more support than previously.
Perkins’s most crucial points in his discussion of foreign policy was how America interacted with Brittan during this time and how the nation began to expand its trade. Trade during this time expanded by mass amounts helping this new economy boom even more. It was important to cover that. He also did a good job summing up the chapter and giving a short explanation how the nation began on the path to republicanism and how that helped the nation get stronger.
After reading the first chapter, the early republic can be seen as a period of great accomplishment and stride in advancing a newly formed government but it was also a period that has many problems and hypocrisies littered in it. It was a period that was thriving with industry. Advances in communication and transportation helped connect the Union more closely together as well as cause business and trade to excel. Parsley alludes to the fact that the political culture of America caused the want and need for extensive trading partners. American’s wanted the opportunity to sale and buy from various sources and not be limited. This political culture helped trade in America grow and succeed. Also during the early republic there was a sharp changed from small farming to industry. Small farms were still present and prevalent however more and more people turned to wage labor. The increase in wage labor was also most prominent in the northeast while large scale farming took place in the south with cotton as a main staple. Wilentz’s supplied these facts in his essay on the Market Revolution. Wilentz’s also added that this change led to an increase in subjection of women. The sphere of influence of women had changed and women who previously had roles in making items where in charge solely on domestic issues. Also people had less need for specialized workers as time went on. The items women made previously were now being made in factory or on large scale. Also during this period of shaping the nation there was an increasing sentiment of nationalism. It was helped by the advent in communication and transportation. Rossiter idea that there is an overwhelming sentiment of nationalism is right to a point but not to the full degree he gave it. He establishes that everyone in the nation feels a unity with the Union. This can not be correct due to the fact that many people looked to a more state governing body then a federal one. There was a presence of nationalism that can be seen through the need and want for manifest destiny. It was a want to expand the American frontier. It can be established that during this time there was an excitement in the American people who saw there nation as growing and thriving. This thriving came at an incredible cost through. The lives of countless Native American’s were lost due to this excitement. Their lives were destroyed due to the greed and focus that the new American nation had. Also during this time, slavery increased immensely compared to the slavery during the revolution. This goes against Rossiter idea of greatly increased suffrage and rights. It is true that white males were given more and more rights. The percentage of landowners had increased which issued the right to vote. However, every one other then white males were subjected to lesser rights. Rossiter supplies that while Europe had class distinctions, America lacked them however there was still distinctions between different races and genders. In total, there is a lot of advancement and development but there is also a presence of strong inequality during the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Market Revolution is an important focus of this chapter. For me, this aspect is not as interesting as others. The Market Revolution seems inevitable in this new republic, as it did across the ‘developed’ world. The United States may have been greatly affected by this cash crop, industrializing, trade dependent economic system, and this aspect of the early republic is undeniably focal and interesting, but I’m not surprised to read about it. I would have assumed these events without much background in this particular historical era. And most of the background that I do have has brought this aspect to my attention. I did find it interesting in the Wilentz essay that he referred to the “non-capitalist southern civilization.” I have often read about the institution of slavery hindering the economic development of the South, but I have never experienced such a disregard of the South as economically inert. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in Pasely’s details about the social-politics of the new republic. I was unaware of the significance of the social gatherings, the toasts, and the party (meaning fun) atmosphere of the politics. I was not surprised that 70% of the (land owning-white-male) population voted. I was also not surprised that the political movements expanded beyond the voting populace, that women and minorities participated.
Perkins’s characterization of American arrogance was very interesting. It made complete sense, and did not surprise me, but I like the way that he portrayed the America attitude towards itself and the world. American’s believed that they had bravely proven the capacity of the general populace: that they were the test and the example for democracy and that they were the last hope for that success. Perkins characterizes America as a perfect storm: the combination of ideology, attitude, resistance to monarchy, the abundance of land and resources required to be sustainable, and the distance from England and Europe necessary to maintain independence.
Clearly the nation was estabishing its identity during the early Republic. When evaluating the various forces at work during this period, my inclination is to first look at the economic factors described by Wilentz. The development of the market economy transormed the means of production for industrial goods as well as provided improved infrastructure for the transport and sale of both consumer and agricultural goods.
ReplyDeleteSlavery did indeed cause a different path of development in the south. While innovations such as the cotton gin and improved methods of getting cotton to market certainly did increase the profitability of the plantation system it created a heavily divided class society in the south. There was a great divide between large plantation holders who did not employee labor and small yeoman farmers who had been largely eliminated in the northeast. Without slaves replacing wage earners in the south, it created a completely different social dynammic.
Economics also explains early expansion. Land was not easily available in the northeast and it was only natural that farmers would want to aquire new territory. This fits in nicely with Perkins who stated that expansion was largely for self interests it was indeed also explained in terms of "manifest destiny" and a need to expand the American way of life. This kind of idealism was largely self-serving although it was clearly widely believed. Westward settlers were out to improve their economic situation.
Patriotism was also emerging during the early Republic. Rossiter describes American identity in traditional terms. America was viewed as special and exceptional. Clearly a deep patriotism and sense of superiority emerged during this period which to a large degree still exists in modern America. During the period, there was also some conflict between regional and national loyalties which would play a huge part in our nation's history. Despite this conflict it was clear that even those with heavy sectional interests still had a deep connection to the ideas that they believed the country was founded on. While tradionally the importance of these patriotic feelings has probably been exagerated they undoubtedly played a huge part in the forming of our national identity.
Finally this era gave birth to popular politics as described by Jeffrey Pasley. Partisan newspapers, grassroots political campaigning, religious politics, and patriotic holidays and events all played an important role in the evolution of American democracy. Furthermore the honorarien politics of the Federalist era was breaking down, and we saw the development of party politics. While many of the methods used for politics were superficial, these political activities greatly increased the number of people involved in political activity. Pasley even notes that those who were excluded from voting felt some connection with the government through popular political celebrations.
If I were to describe the early republic I would focus on a theme of sweeping change. Each journal entry seemed to centralize on how each individual topic, beginning with the “Market Revolution,” contributed to this era of change. After reading his entry, I felt like Sean Wilentz gave an interesting view about how the Market Revolution touched on the lives of every American. I thought the most powerful point he made was the effect the Market Revolution had on the social dynamics of the family during the early republic. Focusing on the Northeast, Wilentz pointed out how a new sense of competition was arising. This was namely due to the increased expansion westward, which significantly increased the number of American farms, as well as the rise of manufacturing projects. Though there were increased opportunities in the workforce, those who were taking the lowest jobs, which were “immigrant and black day laborers, outwork seamstresses, and the casual poor,” saw their wages stay stagnant, until Wilentz points out the increase of trade unions and other political pressures toward the mid-19th century. The very formation of a new nation lent itself an era a change. Because a new nation was formed, a sense of nationalist pride in the early republic developed among citizens of America. Historian Clinton Rossiter placed emphasis on how the confidence of this new nation was growing after the defeat of the British. Lincoln later described this generation as “once hardy, brave, and patriotic.” This generation of Americans, Rossiter points out, were notably unified on the issues of “personal liberty, the security of constitutionalism, the rightness of democracy, the wrongness of class distinctions, the virtue of private property, the moral necessity of hard work, the certainty of progress, and above all the uniqueness, superiority, and high destiny of the United States of America.” Because of this relative consensus, the early republic was able to progress and develop well beyond a fledgling nation quite quickly. This thought of political culture felt like a natural introduction into Historian Jeffrey L. Pasley’s journal entry chronicling the political culture of the early republic. Pasley points out that few topics interested citizens of the early republic like politics did. As evidence he notes the seventy percent participation of adult white males in the year 1800 election. Echoing the spirit of change, a pervasive sense of democracy was ushered in during this time, bookended on both sides by the strong democratic leaders Jefferson and Jackson. If I were describing the early republic I would especially include this specific point because it was without a doubt a change from the monarchical government the now former colonists were accustomed to. I found the general direction of Bradford Perkins entry similar to the Rossiter entry because it noted the sense of individualism and pride of the early republic. Because of this was included twice in this collection, I believe this must have been a central theme to the early republic. This ego was what led Americans toward the revolution. If I were describing the era of the early republic, I would note how this pride continued and pressed a culture of change and energy in America.
ReplyDeleteThe number of developments and changes that took place during America’s Early Republic seems to be nearly overwhelming for readers who pick up a book on the topic for the first time. As the articles by Wilentz, Rossiter, and Perkins demonstrate, nearly every aspect of American life was affected by the events of 1787-1848, most important of which was the market revolution. The market revolution, which is the focus of Wilentz’s piece, is “one theme [that] does seem to unite Jacksonian historians of various persuasions and suggest a way of once again viewing the period as a whole” (Wilentz 3). Indeed, the market revolution seems to share a role in the other three articles in this chapter as well and can undoubtedly be used as a guide to describe ideas concerning Americans’ identity, sense of nationalism, and decisions in U.S. foreign policy during the Early Republic.
ReplyDeleteNationalism and self-identity appear to be difficult to discern during this period, but economic policies did make changes in the American family’s structure. For instance, gender roles seemed to have heightened during this period as more and more men became involved in politics and the production of goods, leaving women at home with their own set of responsibilities: “The world of the propertied began to separate into two spheres: a male public sphere of politics, business, and the market, and a female private sphere of domestic duties and child rearing” (Wilentz 5). Thus, the female “cult of domesticity” was created. Families invested in agriculture also had to adjust to the problem of land shortages in the Northeast; “By 1815 these straitened circumstances had led to a steady decline in family size and to an increase in westward migration” as a result of financial pressures (Wilentz 5). Farmers’ need for new plots of arable land became a defining political issue as well, and prompted the purchase and development of land west of the original 13 colonies and, eventually, the Mississippi River. Additionally, some of the earliest signs of a unique, shared American identity arose out of the technological developments associated with the need to improve transnational and international trade; the rise of railroads, canals, and steamboats, all date to Early Republic period in America. These accomplishments, which rivaled Europe’s transportation systems, caught the attention of Europeans, as well, and quickly became used by Americans to distinguish themselves from the Old World. Rossiter suggests that Americans’ desire to set themselves apart from Europe assisted the United States in forming its own identity: “By freeing a race of ambitious men from the institutional shackles of the European past it set them to digging, tinkering, migrating, playing politics, generating visions, and taking risks at a pace that surprised, even if it often dismayed, those who came from Europe to see for themselves what the fuss was all about” (Rossiter 12). The result of Americans’ “tinkering, migrating” and risk taking was economic profit and the beginning of a uniquely American identity that embraced the free market system.
Finally, in Perkins’ article, he suggests that U.S. foreign policy during the Early Republic was also largely shaped by the market economy, which became one of the centerpiece issues of many presidents’ administrations during this period: “At least until John Quincy Adams’s presidency, every chief executive devoted much of his attention to the fostering of trade and the vibrant merchant marine that carried it […]“They [Americans] wanted freedom to trade with as many nations as possible, whether in or outside British domains, in whatever goods they chose” (Perkins 21).” As a result, the American economy grew overseas and at home with the assistance of improved modes of transportation, and the additional land resources that came from westward expansion.
The Early Republic of the United States was an era of great change and advancement that united the thirteen unorganized colonies. American was earning her face that she is so famous for today. American literature, drama, politics, economics, and many other facets of American culture were born in this time. And so, it is no surprise that the English Sidney Smith asked the question, "Who reads an American book?" in 1820. This of course would infuriate many Americans, but it was somewhat true. It was not until after the era of the Early Republic that true American nationalism had a place in the world stage. One of the main components that made up this sense of identity was the enormous changes in the market at the time. Railroads were becoming much more popular. By 1860, the United States had more railroads than the entire rest of the world combined. Massive usage of trains meant massive movement west. As people spread out farther west, agriculture took a stronger position in the economy. Trade became a necessity more than ever before, so canals and roads were being built as fast as possible. The telegraph was invented as well, which was a major innovation for trade, business, and marketing. With the South's usage of slaves, industry and agriculture were booming in a way that could have only given birth to the colossal capitalist giant that is America today. The quick expansion West with all its helpers greatly set up a system that Europeans would describe later as "energetic" and "perpetually moving."
ReplyDeleteAt a time where many Federalists were complaining "too much democracy" was going around, huge developments in American politics were occurring. The political warfare that ensued in the early to mid nineteenth century laid the foundations for modern American party politics. It was in this time that the party of the "little man" was born. Most notably, President Andrew Jackson lead the charge of populism into Washington D.C. With seventy percent of the electorate voting, the majority's voice was heard. Although blacks, women, and Native Americans could not vote, the opinions of the men that mattered were heard [those mean just being white and of age]. Significantly, many areas were shedding their property-ownership requirements for voting. More and more people were voting, taking a stake in politics, and altogether caring what happened in the day-to-day affairs of their representatives. Although the ideals of Patriotism were not solidified until after the Civil War, the United States was undoubtedly displaying some nationalist feelings about itself. This, perhaps, also goes back to the notion of a perpetually energetic market--Americans were excited about expansion and growth. Since people cared more and more about policy decisions, a great number of new things began occurring. Grassroots politics had its birth in this era, as well did Presidential candidates speaking on their own behalf. Without these compenents, the United States would probably not have had the economic and political explosion that it had during the Early Republic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to describe the “Early Republic” after reading the first chapter of Major Problems in the Early Republic, 1787-1848, I would have to agree with Gordon Wood’s overall summary of this time period in American history as one that experienced “deep change.” Changes in all aspects of American life emerged during Early Republic, technologically, economically, socially, politically, and so on, and all of these changes became intertwined to form the new concepts of “American Identity,” “American Republicanism,” and “American Individualism.” In Wilentz’s essay “The Market Revolution,” he notes how the emergence of new technologies and methods of transportations not only opened up the West for exploration and settlement, but also how these new innovations created an industrial revolution for America, a revolution that branched away from the family farm as the main form of economic trade and structure, to factories, cities, and markets. He writes, “Between 1815 and 1850 Americans constructed elaborate networks of roads, canals, and early railroad lines; opened up wide areas of newly acquired land for settlement and trade; and began to industrialize manufacturing” (3). The development of these new technological innovations not only made it possible for the West to be explored, but it created new connections and new ways for the different regions of America to communicate, trade, and develop, an extreme change from the early years of the colonies and the founding fathers.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this “Market Revolution” Wilentz describes a new change in accepted and understood gender roles, especially for women, in the Early Republic. Wilentz describes how the innovations in American economics, the commercialization and development of cities created a decline of the household as the main producer and “locus of production” (5). He writes, “the commercialization of both the city and the countryside removed women from the production of goods, including goods for strictly household use” (5). He then goes on to describe how “two spheres” were created in the Early Republic, where men had increased roles in business, politics, and the market while women had increased roles in aspects of domestic duties and child rearing. In Wilentz’s point of view, the different gender spheres that emerged during the years of the Early Republic are directly related to the “Market Revolution” that also occurred. I completely agree with Wilentz’s essay and his point of view that the emergence of new forms of technology, economics, gender norms, and social conflicts developed a new concept of America and what it meant to be an American.
Another extreme “deep change” that occurred during the “Early Republic” was the evolution of politics and foreign affairs. In Pasley’s essay “Popular Political Culture in the Early Republic” Pasley diagnosis the changes in political development, education, and theory. According to Pasley, the Southern tradition of court-day barbecues were “transformed from rituals of noblesse oblige into competitive partisan debates” while in the cities and larger towns, “fraternal orders, voluntary associations, and militia companies were politicized” (16). Here, Pasley notes that the changes to these already existing traditions and activities began to have political undertones and significance for anyone who already participated in these traditions. Not only did the Early Republic see a rise in how politics were carried out, but also Pasley notes how politics were branching away from the aristocratic elite and making way into the homes of majority of Americans. Partisan newspapers were popping up left and right during the years of the Early Republic such as the Aurora and the New York Morning Chronicle. These newspapers allowed citizens across the land to read and understand the political scene and ideology more so than in the past. The newspapers allowed the common man to read and gain insight on the political happenings rather than in the years before the Early Republic when arguing and talking politics were simply for the aristocratic elite. I think the main point of Pasley’s essay is that the evolution of political culture became more mainstreamed and appreciated by all types of Americans and this was a “deep change” from the prior years of American life and society.
ReplyDeleteThe early republic is characterized by different kinds of change. The main kind of change that occurred, though, was a change in how people lived their lives. During the Early Republic many people's roles in society began to shift and change very rapidly. This was due primarily to the market revolution. Economic change almost always causes some type of social change so also out of this, many social classes became distinct that never were before. This time in history the changes were very drastic. The centers of production shifted from homes to factories and people started moving from the countryside to the cities to find jobs in factories, and also to the West in search of land for farming. This mass movement of people was enabled by another aspect of the market revolution, changes in transportation. In the Early Republic there were new roads, railroads, and canals being constructed everywhere. These were essential in changing the way shipping was conducted and the way people traveled or moved from place to place. The point from Wilentz's essay that I want to emphasize is that these changes in manufacturing were focused in the Northeastern United states, thus, leaving out the South which was not as heavily concentrated on manufacturing at the time. The way that the south was affected was the movement westward because this stretched the cotton kingdom past Georgia and into the fertile land of Alabama. This westward movement also carried along with it plantation life and slavery in the south.
ReplyDeleteRossiter's essay is very patriotic in theme so that is my point of emphasis. During this time period many across the globe thought the United States was destined for failure and that this experimental republic would not survive, thus, it was the people of America who were to prove them wrong. The quotes that are in the essay by Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and Jackson, are windows into some of the greatest minds in the history of our country. These men were committed to the success of the American Experiment and paved the way for the national pride that we have today.
Pasley's essay on political popular culture is very important because it shows the humble beginnings of the way that modern politics are viewed today. The people of the Early Republic picked their party based on their values and supported their party passionately. To a young country that is not too long removed from the monarchy of England, being able to freely choose your political party association was very important and popular to the people of the Early Republic. This is one of the defining factors that set our country apart.
Perkin's essay on foreign policy explains at one point how unprecedented the rapid land expansion that occurred in the United States really was. Never had such an expansion occurred in history without the country then calling itself an empire. Manifest destiny was more important to some than others, but I believe that it was essential to the growth of America not only by square acre but also on the world stage. The fact that the United States in its first hundred years of existence stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific is astonishing.
The Early republic is a very important time period in the history of our Nation, this point I am sure will be stressed throughout this class, but these essays are essential to grasp if you want to understand why the Early Republic is still so important today.
The immense changes that took place during the Early Republic left Americans of all classes attempting to find their way in the new market and the new nation. Sean Wilentz’s essay examined the changes which took place in the market within the United States. He then detailed the ramifications of those changes on the social and cultural dynamics of the new nation. During the period from 1815-1850 Wilentz writes, “Americans constructed elaborate networks of roads, canals, and early railroad lines; opening up a wide area of newly acquired land for settlement and trade; and began to industrialize manufacturing” (Wilentz, 3). Land speculation was also on the rise, this along with the greater abundance of manufactured goods began to force small scale farmers, particularly in the northeast, to move west in great numbers. This movement was also facilitated by the infrastructural improvements mentioned earlier. There were social ramifications as well. A new “cult of domesticity” arose as the result of the exportation from the domestic home of the production of everyday essentials to large factors. The role of women was no longer to be the at-home manager, striving to produce her family’s necessities. Instead, these necessities could be purchased on the open market, a women’s place began to be conceptualized as in the home, sheltered from the wiles and temptations of the outside world.
ReplyDeleteRossiter’s essay sheds light on American’s immense sense of burgeoning nationalism which was fostered in the Early Republic. This nationalist identity manifested itself in the letters, songs, and speeches of the period. Rossiter provides certain examples such as, “It is more than probable we are now digesting a plan which in its operation will decide forever the fate of republican government” (Rossiter, 14). As Rossiter points out, what is perhaps most striking about this quote from a speech of James Madison is the overwhelming connection that early Americans seem to have felt between their experiment with “republican government” and the “fate” of said governmental system for the rest of human history.
Pasley’s essay examines the nature of the political participate of Americans and how political parties rose to meet the fervor. He describes the festival like barbecue’s that were quite prevalent in the Early Republic. These meetings would include many rounds of drinks that would be accompanied by boisterous toasts that would trumpet party unite and slam political rivals. Another very important feature of the political landscape of the Early Republic would be a parities ability to get their message out; this entailed party run newspapers such as Aaron Burr’s Mourning Chronicle.
Lastly Bradford Perkins’ essay studies the affects that American’s new found nationalism had on the young nation’s foreign policy. The same principle that Rossiter threshed out in his essay, that of early Americans’ shared belief that their experiment with “republican government” spilled over into the international stage through American diplomacy. Perkins argues that Americans conceptualized their diplomats as shining beacons in a world full of tricky Europeans. The elements of America’s nationalism are also examined, such as a “commitment to republicanism” and “individualism.”
If I were asked to describe the nation in its early years I would begin with the economic, social, and political changes that took place between 1815 and 1848. According to Wilentz, the Market Revolution that took place in the “early republic” radically changed the existing economic structures by replacing them with new opportunities and dependencies. Although only a modest 14 % of the American people worked in manufacturing at the time, great strides in industrialization were taking place such as in the textile mills of New England and other large cities of the northeast. A lack of land in the rural northeast, a steady decline in family size, and an increase in westward migration past the Appalachians into modern day Ohio and beyond created a frenzy among speculators, land owners, and farmers for new opportunities. This steady but persistent push towards economic modernization created social changes and problems however. As Wilentz puts it, “a combination of overstocked labor markets and intense competition among employers kept wages and earnings near or below subsistence levels.” Quite differently from the North, the rise of the Cotton Kingdom in the South came with an expansion of the institution of slavery westward into Alabama and beyond. A recent historian, Eugene D. Genovese, explained the South’s economic and social distinctness stemmed from their relationship to their land and slaves. This “paternalism”, a system of subordination that bound masters and slaves in an elaborate network of familial rights and duties, created a divide between the two halves in the early republic.
ReplyDeleteAmerican identity in the early republic was something the American people vigorously searched for and would eventually lead to the formation of a very strong and particular nationalism quite unique in the world. Many of the earliest American colonists viewed themselves as “a new people on the face of the earth,” and that their new home was “a new Jerusalem sent down from heav’n.” I agree with Cushing Stout’s assessment that the early American people “defined themselves through a deeply felt conflict with Europe.” After the Revolutionary War the common attitude in the New World was one of anti-Europe and sometimes more specifically anti-England, according to Rossiter. I also agree with Rossiter’s belief that the early American people felt they had a mission, an “American mission”. This new America, ordained some say by the Lord and Savior himself, was to serve as a model community for all liberal and free nations of the world.
The political culture in the early republic was also unique in a sense. Holiday celebrations, banquets, parades, town meetings, militia company training days, toasts, and songs all played a crucial role in helping American’s identify with their newly won freedom and help to differentiate themselves from the old monarchial regime of the English crown. Many times the highlights of such social gatherings were the toasts and strong drink seemed to be the impetus for political debate in larger social gatherings of the time. These toasts, usually prepared well before, gave an opportunity for participants of the event to include themselves in the political world of the early nineteenth-century. “Print transformed toasts, holiday celebrations, and parades from quaint local customs to vital forms of political communication,” according to Pasley. Voting behavior also changed significantly during this time period. An “extraordinary surge” of voting occurred in between 1800-1816 and voter participation approached 70 percent in some highly politicized parts of the country such as Pennsylvania.
American foreign policy was given a greatly reduced importance in the day of the early republic than it is given in our modern time. Safely protected by the great expanse of the Atlantic ocean to the East the American people felt relatively safe from outside powers. The ideals of republicanism and individualism were closely tied in the American mind and had virtually universal approval of the people. Americans believed their nation “represented the hope of the present and the future” and many zealously but rationally pursued such a credo. The early republic was a time of great change in many spheres, the American people were still struggling to define clearly what they were sent here to accomplish. Was America meant to be a city upon a hill as John Winthrop described it or a beacon of republicanism and individualism for the world that increasingly has been plagued by bloody popular revolutions and radical social change?
ReplyDeleteThe early republic, like so many before have pointed out, is best described as a period of dramatic change throughout the fledgling nation. Perhaps the single most important event that coincides with the beginning of our country, as Wilentz so eagerly points out in his article, was the market revolution that took the world by storm. With it came vast industrial improvements, especially in transportation. With the addition of large amounts of new railroads, steamboats, and canals, major opportunities were presented in the way of trade. Parsley focuses on this point because not only did the republic establish extremely lucrative trade routes with other places, but it also improved the transportation of goods within the states, which of course made industrialization much more efficient. Along with increased trade and industry came westward expansion. With the increased ease of transportation, thousands of settlers moved westward to find new farm land and opportunity.
ReplyDeleteWage labor increased dramatically in the north as the shift to industrialization gripped the country. People were leaving the small farms to take on new wage labor positions in the north. While industry was not centered around the south by any means, southern states too went under great economic changes. Cotton was becoming king and this meant a large increase in slave labor throughout the south. While this regional division was starting to take shape, the early republic is also marked by a huge rise in the sense of nationalism. This nationalism can be seen also in the rise of modern politics and a huge increase in political participation.
It is clear that the early republic was a nation on the verge of advancement that was balancing on the blade of a knife. It was the last chance for democracy and could not afford to fail and prove the superiority of old European aristocracies.
The period from 1815 to 1848 was a time of fundamental change in America. Advances in technology and commerce, mass immigration, population growth, and other major developments transformed America's culture, economy, and politics. The spread of transportation networks like "roads, canals, and early railroad lines" (3) connected the West with the Northeast and allowed goods to be shipped directly between centers of trade and industry like New York and regions of agricultural production out west. Although only "about 14 percent of the labor force worked in manufacturing," (4)the old system of masters and apprentices was thoroughly destroyed by the new methods of the wage-labor market. Many traditional members of the middle class in the Northeast moved west when they faced the prospect of competing with a flood of immigrants for poorly paid factory jobs. A lot of the sweeping changes associated with the Market Revolution in early America still exist today; the pre-eminence of market capitalism, the ease of transportation between states, the need for speculation to drive sectors of the economy (and the possibility of destructive crashes caused by overspeculation), and the widening gap between rich and poor all survived into the 21st century. However, it is important to remember that while the South benefited from an efficient international market for cotton and the greater accessibility of manufactured goods, their society did not undergo a major transformation like the North and West. The economies in the rest of America were shifting as new classes of "independent and dependent workers" (7) competed against one another, while the traditional Southern system of large plantations and small yeoman farmers continued without major disruption.
ReplyDeleteWhile Wilentz focuses on the underlying economic realities and mentions cultural movements like the "cult of domesticity" briefly, Rossiter examines the cultural growth of American nationalism very thoroughly in his essay. He comments on how most Americans believed in a glorious past, filled with heroic Founding Fathers, and trusted in a glorious future, ordained by God and ensured by their natural superiority. The sense of building a perfect new world did not falter, even as divisions between North and South grew and countless Native Americans died to provide room for this dream to expand westward. Regionalism and nationalism co-existed in many politicians; an orator might proudly declare some backward section of Alabama the greatest place on earth, but he would be sure to uphold America's superiority over Europe in that same speech. America, to men of all different political beliefs and economic circumstances, was a signal light set up by God to guide the rest of the world forward out of their dysfunctional states.
George Washington's ideal of politics was well-educated gentlemen debating among themselves and coming to an acceptable compromise. He would have been bitterly disappointed by the "rise of mass participatory democracy" (19) described by Jeffrey L. Pasley and by the increasing polarization of American politics. The bitter fight between parties spread even to the subject of the Founding Fathers, as each group claimed the most powerful shared memories of America for their own. Jefferson and Washington, Adams and Hamilton, all the friends and competitors of the Revolutionary era became the symbols during the early republic. Power had not only shifted from the few to the many, but the many had even co-opted the names and legacies of the traditional elite to justify their actions.
-Greg Tullos