How do you think differing early republic individuals/ethnic groups like Native Americans and Euro-Americans might disagree on what "the West" was and who might "own" it? How do Faragher's and Cronon's Wests compare to one another?
There were two types of ideas that Euro-Americans had for the West. The first was the idea that the West could be a safe haven from the evils of capitalism and the changing social structure by reestablishing the Yoeman farmer type community. These people were typically poor and they decided to venture West because the East’s social structure and economy highly favored the wealthy. As land in the East became scarce and its value skyrocketed, farmers were being forced to unproductive land that cost much more than it was worth. To these farmers the West was an oppurtunity to return to their agrarian ways and barder economy. The seccond idea for the West was characterized by speculation and the spread of capitalism. These Euro-Americans viewed the West as potential cities. They knew that capitalism was going to conquer the country so they set out to find regions that could potentially become major cities. Once these speculators found a promising site they proceeded to buy the land in hopes to sell it at a later date for a large profit. When it came down to who might “own” the West, some Euro-Americans thought America owned the Mid-West because America had purchased it and no one owned the Pacific West because the land had not been “improved” by anyone. The Indians thought that they owned the land because they have lived on the land for a very long time and it was their home. But the Euro-Americans disreguarded this notion because they had not made suffiecient “improvements” to the land in order to call it theirs. Only if the Indians had laid waste to land like the Europeans intended to do then they might have had a chance to keep their land. But even if they had destroyed the landscape in the sake of “progress,” Americans still had the idea of Manifest Destiny. Americans were destined to rule all of North America and I’m sure God would have forgiven the Euro-Americans for killing the Indians that got in the way of spreading their “superior”way of life. The Mexicans issues the same reasons as the Indians for why the land was theirs and the Euro-Americans treated the Mexians in the same manner; give it up or we will take it. Faragher saw the West as a communal farmer type place. The West was inhabited by farmers and tradesmen that relied on a barder system. Faragher thinks that the West was intially set up to retain the barder system. Cronon thinks that the people going West were getting it ready for the spread of capitalism and wanted to make a quick buck off of the spread of capitalism with speculation. They both had compelling arguments and I’m sure both were correct in their assumptions. After all nothing in the world is black and white and I am sure that both of their assumptions were present in the West. I would not be surprised that areas like Chicago were full of speculators or that some areas consisted of communities that had barder economies. I think both of their arguments boil down to the question of whether the West was settled with the intention of spreading capitalism or not.
Without a doubt, an individual’s interpretation of “the west” depending heavily upon his or her personal background/experiences, and those backgrounds and experiences were directly related to his or her ethnic group. Therefore, an individual’s ethnic group dictated how he or she perceived “the west.” Native Americans might perceive the west as either the old home of their forefathers or a new home forced upon them by white settlers who took their ancestral lands. This would shape that individual’s interpretation. But unfortunately most Native Americans would be able to identify with the feeling of losing their true home. The West, being an old or new home, was also an opportunity for these individuals unlike for the white settlers. Native Americans used it as a way of subsistence and survival. Many white settlers would use the west for opportunity. The main difference here is how/why the individuals came upon the west. For most white settlers, the decision to go west was voluntary. They packed up and left upon their own free will for a chance at a new life. Most of the Native Americans who went west were forced to leave against their will. President Andrew Jackson made sure that lands east of the Appalachians would be mostly free of Natives. In terms of perceptions on who “owned” the west, I’m sure one’s ethic group had a great deal to do with what one thought. White settlers most likely thought of themselves as rightful owners of the land upon which they were entering and living. Their “rugged individualism” gave them a right to claim the lands, as did their nature as being civilized European Americans who would inevitably bring peace, progress and prosperity to the lands upon which they settled. It was good and right for them to settle and own the lands, and as a result, trouble making Natives must be dealt with. They were either killed or forced to move further and further west. This idea of ownership is not present with Natives. Although they would claim a right to their lands (based upon treaties and generations of living in certain areas), the thought of “ownership” was vastly different. Again, they lived to survive and sustain themselves. They were not interested in exploiting the land or gaining some advantage over others via the land. In so many ways the land owned itself, it’s just that whatever particular Native nation had a right to reside upon it. These differing opinions of “ownership” of the west are a direct result of the inherencies in the discrepancies of the nature of the ethnic identities. Faragher’s and Cronon’s Wests are actually pretty similar with one another. Both reject Turner’s belief (which became the mainstay for most of the 20th century, and which still persist as mythic lore today) that the west was purely individualistic and the success of whites upon it was a result of the bravery and toughness needed to survive. Faragher argues that in around the 1830s (early for the frontier) there were distinct communities present that negate the notion of complete individualism. He also analyzes the nature of the market and trade upon the development of one Sugar Hill. Cronon analyzes the natural geography of what would become Chicago to explain why that area became what it was initially, and then he argues that trade and economy made Chicago what it became. It realized Chicago’s destiny. He mentions the canals and Lark Michigan port as great reasons for why Chicago became a hub of the wests expanding economy. Both interpretations paint the western frontier as more “eastern” than Turner’s interpretation from late in the 19th century.
The west was a place of opportunities for some and hell for others. The interpretation of the west mostly varied on ones skin color, an issue that has defined America from Colonial time period all the way to some parts of today. White settlement had reached its capacity in the east of the Mississippi and the “West” offered various opportunities for their imagination. “Crackers” or poor whites saw the west as an opportunity to make capitol because if you weren’t an elite planter and just a simple yeoman farmer, keeping your head above water and sometimes all that you could do. The Native American viewed the West as a prison they were forced that was bestowed upon them, from Andrew Jackson speech that endorsed Indian removal to the Trail of Tears. I found that the primary source where Andrew Jackson is quoted saying, “It gives me great pleasure…..in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.” Andrew Jackson has always been a very interesting character to me but what right does he have to think his white superiority justifies the right to remove the Native Americans from their land. The further the west was expanding, the further the Native Americans were pushed. Western Expansion for white settlers offered an abundance of opportunities that were monetary goal related. James H. Carson paints a perfect picture of the gold mines many white settlers were taking part of to create their newly found wealth as a result of westward expansion. The endless hours of panning dirt hoping for some gold that would bring them instant wealth. There were many different types of people who would come in, “The population then there (exclusive of Indians) consisted of about three hundred-old pioneers, native Californians, deserters from the Army and Navy, and Colonel Stevenson’s volunteers, however these miners had distinct morals that could not go without being recognized including, no digging on Sunday which was totally bogus because the miners were either playing cards or drinking whiskey or both. As to who really owned the West, I think it is obvious the whites owned the west for sure because they had the money and the power and were doing everything they could to uphold their power. With the rising push for Texas by the Mexicans, the battle of the Alamo was relived by its commander, Jose Enrique de la Pena which left only 2 Texans. John Faragher interpretation of the west completely disagrees to Fred Turner’s thesis, “the frontier is productive of individualism.” However, he does defend Turner somewhat by saying he built his analogy on certain truths. He accounts that the west was not made up of individualism but how the “borrowing system” helped most of Americans out west. That a community assisted environment is what was really happening out west, not so much of the individual. William Cronon uses Chicago as an example in his essay of how the west was getting prepared for Capitalism. He accounts Chicago’s destiny to its geographical capabilities with its river that was used for an extreme amount of trade. He states that investors to Chicago saw what the city could be not what it actually was which explains its success. The two essays coincide with each other on the basis that Turner’s frontier thesis was incorrect.
The West was an interesting ideological idea that prevailed among Americans since the Revolutionary era. It held to potential of extending the yeoman republic from sea to sea. With the frontier rested the belief of continuing this rugged individualism that had built the republican society that any patriot was fond of. However, to outsiders and the original inhabitants this place looked a whole lot different than the way our American ancestors did. The Natives viewed this place as their home, much the same as the old tribes of the East viewed that land until it was slowly taken away from them. However, with superior numbers, firepower, and immune systems the American yeoman searching for a better life pushed farther West for more “free” land. I like how Cronon describes the way speculators viewed the future site of Chicago. For this is a perfect example of how Americans viewed their vast empty backyard. The Indians and fur traders would make way for the cattle ranchers and subsistence farmers and then farming communities would be built (like Sugar Creek), then industrious cities would develop from these small farming communities. (I also like how Cronon uses Darwinistic as an adjective to describe the process). This process had been repeated in America with earlier Western cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Speculators saw this process and picked out town spots while the natives hadn’t even been offered cessation treaties for their land.
The idea of ownership too, is something to consider to fully understanding the process by which whites settled the West. Indians in the region were mostly nomadic thanks to the introduction of the horse a few centuries earlier. So, there were few permanent Indians settlements which was good and bad for the white pioneers. It was good because they didn’t have to worry about uprooting many villages like they had to back east to make room for farms and their own “civilized” towns; bad because the mobile Indians were always a threat and hard to directly attack. Anyway, back to the point comparing the two essays. Faragher puts into perspective how life was for ordinary folk by using the town of Sugar Creek, Illinois as an example to show how quickly life when from being pioneer/subsistence to industrialized. The sense of community might have been something unique to frontier communities. A system of trade based around barter and exchange whatever neighbors could give to each other kept the market out of the local economy. As the years wore on, this became harder to do. Specie was at first only used to buy and sell property, then as roads began to be built (the citizens of Sugar Creek petitioned for them) the national economy hit the frontier in Illinois in the same way it had hit old Western communities. The isolated life of the yeomen on the edge of the frontier has to be proved to be false because if so the national market economy would have taken much longer to reach those people. I liked the section of Faragher’s essay where he talks about the irresponsible speculator named Pulliam; this reckless man to out loans on top of loans at exorbitant interest rates trying to make a quick bucks (or lots of bucks to be more correct). While Pulliam’s scheme failed (and I’m sure most speculators like him did too), it was people like him that would quickly draw in “Eastern” way of life into the frontier, thus pushed the frontier closer toward the Rockies. A good quote from Faragher’s essay to throw in this post is this (on page 271, end of that first paragraph): “The transfer of large portions of prairie commons from the federal government to a small group of resident farmers accomplished the single most important economic change along Sugar Creek since Americans had disposed of the Kickapoo.” Having the majority of land in the hands of the few sounds unfair, but it was the way things were in the East for generations and the way the world works today. Sugar Creek was developing and investing class and that would further develop the region into the next stage of American civilization much to the chagrin of the local population. I’ll end the post on Cronon’s definition of the frontier which I thought was spot on “the source of American energy, individualism, and political democracy.” Now that is Jeffersonian if I have ever heard anything describing it.
It is clear from “Major Problems” that the conquest of the American West took on many problems and dealt with a multitude of geographical areas. The first four sources all deal with the Native Americans in the “Old Southwest” and the United States’ Government’s answer to the question as to what to do with them. The first source illustrates to what degree the Cherokee Nation had “Whiteized” or “Americanized” themselves. Their constitution not only models their national government in a shockingly similar way to that of the United States, but also there are provision for racist policies against blacks and “mulattos.” What, I dare say, could be more American at this time? Being that Andrew Jackson had built his campaign for President largely off his popularity with the frontiersmen whites, it is no surprise that Jackson was eager to push Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. What is surprising, however, (as source three bears out) is to what extent Jackson elected to employ rhetoric that spook of “benevolence” with a fain at the maintenance of Indian culture. Also, source two clearly indicates that the Congress of the United States largely shared Jackson’s convictions, and his rhetoric. A careful reading of source three in connection with (the somewhat refreshing) source four, reveals that there were numerous conscientious dissenters to these views who raised many of the questions that one would like to pose to Jackson and his supporters today, albeit in vain. The primary sources briefly cover the exploits of Chief Black Hawk and his bands of Sac and Fox warriors who attempted to reconquer their stolen lands in Illinois and the white settlers’ desperate efforts to deal with them. The chapter’s light treatment of this area of the “Old Northwest” is surprising given that both scholarly essays in this chapter deal with the same area. Although Black Hawk’s efforts proved to be in vain, he still signaled a sign of intent from the Native Americans east of the Mississippi to combat the United States even as late as the 1830s. Perhaps the most famous events of westward expansion are covered in the final primary sources: the Texas Revolution and the California gold rush. Sources seven and nine give unique incite to the Mexican perspective of the events of American colonization in Texas and the Battle of the Alamo. In so many ways, both Mexican authors express dismay at their own government’s lack of response to the impeding crisis or conduct of the war. The account of the Battle of the Alamo put the John Wayne movie in the stark perspective. Instead of a band of united brothers and sisters fighting to the last man, the author gives accounts of fake surrenders and haphazard escape attempts.
Finally, the final two sources cover events in California. The first, gives an account of the relief and bewilderment of newly arrived settlers from the east upon reaching California. A war had been fought and California was on the verge of statehood, all the while the settlers were traveling on a wagon train cross country nearly starving to death. James H. Carson’s account allows one to enter the world of the poor gold miner. By 1848 things had changed to a dog-eat-dog world where people would steal your tools and entire towns would pick up and move to find the next strike. The two scholarly essays explore the frontier world of Illinois as it developed. The first essay by John Mack Faragher challengers Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous frontier thesis delivered in 1893, and off-quoted by the odd Republican politician, that the west was won by individualist people who favored self-reliance over community relations. Faragher presents convincing evidence in a case-study of Sugar Creek, Illinois where community reliance was not something one chose to neglect; rather it was essential for one’s survival. Lastly, William Cronon details the development of Chicago from its pre-glacial beginnings to that of burgeoning metropolis with an emphasis on its geographic importance. Cronon also challenges Turner’s adherence to the principles of Social Darwinism that permeate his work, stating that to the men who developed Chicago, the area was already a metropolis in their eyes, not something layoff as a goal at the end of an evolution.
As the need for new, undeveloped land grew with the rising American population of the early nineteenth century, yeoman farmers and the like were drawn more and more towards land west of the Mississippi River. This migration of settlers, however, resulted in conflict with foreign nations like Mexico who had prior land claims on territories such as Texas, and particularly with Native American tribes who had roamed the West long before whites crossed the Mississippi River. A Mexican general reported on the influx of white settlers into Texas, commenting that, “It would cause you the same chagrin that it has caused me to see the opinion that is held of our nation by these foreign colonists, since, with the exception of some few who have journeyed to our capital, they know no other Mexicans than the inhabitants about here […] I am warning you to take timely measures. Texas could throw the whole nation into revolution,” (Wilentz 251). “Manifest destiny” had taken hold of American settlers and, as a result, they ignored other people’s territorial boundaries and continued to develop and settle land that was not legally theirs. Native Americans, like the Mexicans, were also alarmed by Americans’ determination to establish permanent communities and settlements in the West, encroaching on Native lands and resources. For example, when the Indian leader Black Hawk surrendered in 1832, he said, “An Indian who is as bad as the white men, could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eat up by the wolves,” (Wilentz 250). Nonetheless, manifest destiny became an unstoppable force and resulted in the forceful removal of Indian tribes and land secessions from Mexico.
John Mack Faragher and William Cronon’s ideas of the West are both critiques of two arguments made by Frederick Jackson Turner’s concerning his thesis on the development of the Western United States. Faragher centers his piece on the development of communities and social stratification in the West. Turner had argued earlier that frontiersmen lived individualistic lives, isolated from extensive kinship networks or communities. Faragher, however, takes up the completely opposite point of view and says that communities not only existed in the early frontier, but they were necessary to survive. Indeed, “English immigrant George Flower observed that among his Illinois neighbors any man who tried to live in isolation from others, like the stereotypical frontier individualist was considered to be committing a serious offense against civility” (Wilentz 263). Frontier farmers, in particular, relied on their neighbors to borrow farm equipment and supplies during the planting and harvesting seasons. This practice cut down on an individual farmer’s annual expenses dramatically. In contrast to Faragher, Cronon looks at urban development in the American West. Turner asserted that urban development in the West was a long and pain staking process which took place in a series of steps, but Cronon is able to use the efficient and rapid development of Chicago as an example to the contrary. “The town’s [Chicago’s] speculators gambled on an urban future, staking fortunes on land they hoped would soon lie at the heart of a great city. Explaining their vision of Chicago’s ‘destiny’ means reading Turner backward, for their theory of frontier growth apparently began with the city instead of ending with it,” (Wilentz 278). Cronon sites that the reason for the successful growth of Chicago, like other Midwestern cities, was due to its proximity to a water source. Easy access to a river made trade a profitable endeavor and allowed places like Chicago to become metropolitan centers, similar to cities in the eastern United States.
To the Native Americans who had lived on the land Euro-Americans dubbed “the West” for thousands of years, the West was simply their home; however, to the Euro-Americans who began to participate in the expansionism of the early nineteenth century, the West was an opportunity to “get rich quick” and earn a living away from the overcrowded east coast. Not only did white Euro-Americans see the Native Americans who were already living on the land as “savages,” but they also believed that these so-called “savages” would welcome the white settlers in and desired to become “civilized” and assimilated into white culture. President Andrew Jackson even believed that the U.S. government was doing the existing Native American population a favor by forcing tribes off of their land; he argued that the “benevolent” policy of the government would result in “prolonging the existence” of Native Americans by coercing them to sell their lands in exchange for a larger share of land farther to the west. However, in his surrendering speech Black Hawk denounced the presence of the white settlers who “poisoned” the Native Americans into becoming more like them. He even likens the white settlers to a snake that threatened the Native American way of life; in his mind, the Native Americans had done nothing to deserve the U.S. government’s “benevolence” except to fight for their homeland and their families, much as the whites themselves had against the British. The idea of “ownership” of the West is an interesting one, as it seems only the white settlers saw it this way. Whites were concerned in immediately setting up communities with no regard for their impact on environmental resources; they wantonly depleted resources such as buffalo and plant life upon which the Native Americans had depended. On the other hand, it seems that many Native American tribes felt that since they had always lived on the land, “ownership” had never been a question. In the face of white encroachment on Indian lands, the Cherokee tribe went to the greatest lengths to ensure that they maintained their territorial sovereignty in the Constitution for the Cherokee Nation. However, in this constitution they sound quite like the whites against whom they were rebelling; not only does the language of “establish justice, insure tranquility, and promote welfare” mirror the U.S. Constitution, but exclusion of the “African race” from the benefits of citizenship echoes the whites’ views of racial superiority and inferiority. Faragher’s argument about the development of the West centers around the development of a “market” in the rural community; the relationship between squatters, landowners, and land speculators provided for the rapid development of a complex social structure that became even more pronounced as more settlers moved to the area; Faragher argues that this social structure comprises modern-day images of the Midwest, such as log cabins and the “hardworking yeoman.” Cronon’s essay examines the development of Chicago from a small “gathering place” to a large metropolis; he largely draws on Frederick Jackson Turner’s idea of a frontier city as stemming first from an Indian settlement, the white settler determined to overcome the savages, the development of ranch communities, depletion of soil and other resources, the development of denser farm communities, and the inevitable coming of industrialization and mass production. Thus, the West was a complex idea and an even more complex reality, as both Euro-Americans and Native Americans believed that they were entitled to the same land
The struggle for the West can be summed up primarily through the struggles between Indians, the American government, and white settlers pushing further and further west to make way for Americans to settle once solely occupied Indian land. The “West” included parts of modern day Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, California, and so on so when the word “West” is used during the time period 1800-1860, this term encompasses a massive amount of land and not simply the states towards the coast of the Pacific Ocean. The clear struggle for the power and control of the West for the American government and the white settlers looking to push past the Mississippi River was the Indians. The constant legal and violent battles white settlers and Indians faced between each other are summed up in the first three documents of the chapter. In the first document, the Cherokee Nation attempted a very unique way in order to try to keep their land by devising a constitution that created strict boundaries, laws, and embodied many of the similar traditions of the American constitution and form of government. Ultimately, this constitution failed as the Cherokee were forcibly removed from their lands by Andrew Jackson and relocated west of the Mississippi River towards common day Oklahoma. In Document 2, Congress created the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which enabled the Congress of the United States to forcibly remove Indians from lands that they believed they had both legal and political rights over. As shown in Document 3, President Andrew Jackson completely favored the idea of Indian removal because he understood how vitally important it was for Americans to continue the republican ideal Jefferson had embodied America, to spread west as far as the horizon and litter the land with American settlers so they could begin to build homes, families, and lives and spread the seed of American liberty and republicanism. But not only did the Americans have to fight off and forcibly remove Indians from millions of acres they believed was rightfully theirs, the US government also had to fight off Mexican inhabitants to secure the boundaries of Texas and other southwest lands. Thus, the struggle for the west, in just gaining the land, was a very violent and brutal struggle America endured from the late 1820s into the 1860s. When looking at the point of views of the historians, John Mack Faragher in “The Transformation of a Rural Community” takes a singular look at the rural community of Sugar Creek, Illinois and demonstrates the vast changes that underwent there from 1830-1850. Population increase, market and economic increases, and the overall urbanization of Sugar Creek all occurred due to the westward expansion and Great Migration that occurred during the 1830s-1850s. William Cronon observes a similar idea of urbanization in his essay “A Prairie Landscape” in which he notes the emergence of Chicago, the “west’s first industrial city” versus the development of the other parts of the western frontier as a whole. Both historians note the vast amount of changes, from economic growth, urbanization, population increase, and technological developments, the west was rapidly expanding as Americans flooded towards the Pacific Ocean and inhabited lands that were once completely unknown by any white settler.
During the period of westward expansion, European Americans sought economic opportunities in the west. Back east land was expensive, and upward mobility was becoming increasingly difficult. Despite these changing conditions, the ideal of the age was a place where free men could find opportunities through hard work and industriousness. The seemingly unclaimed land in the west provided a perfect opportunity for these Americans to "improve" the land and to pull themselves up by their boot straps so to speak.
While the settlers did not recognize property rights of non-whites, the land was in fact occupied. However Native Americans did not view property in the same way that European-Americans did. The Cherokee Constitution recognized land as collective, and many tribes lived a nomadic lifestyle. While traditionally native land was not developed or owned the same way Europeans were accustomed to, natives lived in the same hunting grounds for generations and used the land for their mutual benefit.
While cheating natives out of land had always been standard practice for whites, the tactics became even bolder during the Jacksonian period. Years earlier leaders such as Jefferson had advocated methods such as trying to get the Indians to assimilate with practices such as borrowing and drinking so that they would have to sell their land even if they did not have clear title to it. When he surrendered Black Hawk talked about how Europeans had shared their vices rather than giving the Indians a fair chance to assimilate. Rather than trying these tactics, Jackson made the decision to move Indians west of the MS. This even included those who had successfully assimilated into the traditional American lifestyle. He considered his actions benevolent despite the obvious flaws in his rationale. In 1830 he got his wish and most Indians were removed from the area East of the Mississipi.
Further west there was Mexican land. Naturally early Americans did not respect their territorial rights either although it was not as dubious as the methods used with Native Americans. A Mexican general noted that their government was over extended and that government services were lacking in some colonial areas. The American colonists thought they could do better and were dominating much of Texas. The dispute turned to war, and America eventually ended up in control of the rest of the west. After all the idea of manifest destiny was rampant and who could bring civilization to the frontier better than American settlers.
One thing that was interesting about the secondary sources was the effect of private property concepts on the frontier. By taking land from other groups, the government gained large tracts of lands that it sold to settlers and speculators. Initially land was plentiful. Faragher discusses how early settlers worked together for the common good, not out of a sense of individualism for which the west is known but for mutual benefit. They were not established on the land, and settlers needed each other.
However over time some settlers bought more property, and speculators began to buy up land as well. Suddenly there weren't as many common resources which were considered collective and some farmers began to protect their property rights. Eventually many no longer worked for themselves but became tenant farmers or hired hands. Suddenly class structures became more rigid, and the west became more like the east.
Then there were the speculators. They too sought property, but many of them were absentee and didn't even develop the land. This was the ultimate group of capitalists. William Cronon deals with this issue. The area around Chicago had been pristine wilderness. When development occured the speculators began buying up large tracts of land not because they wanted to develop it, but because they believed something might develop there later. This fueled the development of the area, but it was part of a major economic change as well. The old northwest was not the land of the yeoman subsistence farmer as many had dreamed it would be.
The views of Native Americans and Euro-Americans could not be more different when it comes to “the West” and which group rightfully laid claim to the territory. The Indians had no conception of “the West”; to them it was just home as it had been for generations before the white man came a desecrated it. According to their beliefs nobody owned the land, it was all the works of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe and his children shared the land equally. Natives never took more than they needed and always used every bit of what was extracted from mother earth. Although there were intertribal wars, these battles did not occur based on the principle of gaining territories, they were to avenge fallen brethren and showcase their talent as warriors. As white settlers encroached on what they wrongfully dubbed “virgin” land, they annihilated various tribes and cultures. As Blackhawk eloquently stated, “The white men speak bad of the Indian, and look at him spitefully. But the Indian does not tell lies; the Indians do not steal.” His statement clearly illustrates the impact white culture and expansion had on the previously undisturbed Indian tribes (later stating they had become like the whites: hypocrites, lairs, adulterers, all talkers and no workers). The whites on the other hand felt as if they were doing the Indians a favor by offering to purchase their land in order to expand their “West”. If whites were given such an offer, states Andrew Jackson, “they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.” It is obvious that the whites felt as if they deserved and technically owned the west. Thoughts such as these and rhetorical questions raised by Jackson such as “What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic?” raised the eyebrows of white settlers and encouraged further development of western territories. The Indian Removal in 1830 formally cemented the white’s ideologies toward their red neighbors; this land is our land damnit, how utterly ignorant of our ancestors. Not all whites agreed with this policy however, Theodore Frelinghuysen laments, “we minister to the agonies of future remorse.” Meaning that it will be difficult for the future kin to justify what was done to the Natives. Both Faragher and Cronon offer different perspectives as to how the West became what it is today. Faragher focuses on the development of the community of Sugar Creek in Illinois. Here settlers gathered and enjoyed communal living sharing all their instruments of labor in order to better the community, very similar to the ways of the Natives. However as more and more land speculators gained ground a capitalistic economy began to grow. The capitalism he argues grew not out of an inclination to participate in the marketplace, but the result of a changing rural social structure (i.e. wealthy speculators replacing the humble yeoman farmer). Communal living turned to profit driven motives, very similar to those East who the same men wished to escape. Cronon focuses on how the geography of the Chicago area allowed it to develop into the nation’s first industrial city. He states that the city’s history may have come from a dream but those dreams came from the foundations of earth “tracing their destiny onto the land’s own patterns.” If men could find rivers, they would build cities upon them no matter how dinky they were. The geographic advantages encouraged the settlement of western territories.
There were a vast number of perspectives on the what "the West" was and who might own it. One dichotomy to consider is the Native American and Euro-American cultural clash that lead to many of the conflicts between the two groups. With the Natives naturally being there first, they percieved "the West" as their homeland. It was the place their history was based in and it maintained their livelihood. At the same time, Euro-American ideas about property, ownership, and selective liberty brought an entirely different approach to "the West." For most, it was an opportunity. Many wealthy easterners saw it as a great chance to make large profits from land grants. For others, it was a place to start over. Most of all, they all believed that it was their destiny to maintain ownership of the lands in the west. At the time, many whites believed that white culture was superior to all other cultures, and as a result--the barbaric foreigners would be forced to submit.
This point of view agrees with Faragher's understanding of "the West" in many aspects. For instance, Faragher focuses a great deal of his essay on laying out the framework for how the poorer pioneer-type individuals were eventually taken advantage of just as the Native Americans. He finds the movement away from the original bartering system a movement away from the purpose of the area. In fact, the majority of his essay focuses on one particular place called Sugar Creek. Sugar Creek represents a typical western frontier town that supports more communal economic efforts, rather than the highly invididualistic society that it is normally referred to.
Contrasting deeply with this is Cronon's perspective. He perceives the West as a place that was always intended to be a capitalist's paradise. He explains how many of the inhabitants of early Chicago "knew" what would become of their new "wild-garlic place." This contrasts with Faragher's conceptions because Cronon accepts that from the beginning, people were taking advantage of "the West." In other words, Cronon's "West" relies heavily on profiteering by wealthy Americans.
Not one of these groups ever saw eye to eye on the idea of what the west was, and who owned or had the rights to it. As Europeans have done throughout time they have conquered other people’s lands then claimed it as their own and in the process have “helped” the former inhabitants by forcing there ways upon them. The west was no exception early Americans viewed the west as there own for two reasons. One of those reasons being that they bought the land through treaties therefore no matter who lived ther originally it was theres, there other viewpoint was that it was no one’s land since it had not seen any improvements. The native inhabitants to this westward land the Indians had lived in peace for hundreds of years before the white man came. Once this introduction came however all life would change for the Indians. The White man forced there religion and ways on the Indians as well as there diseases such as small pox and alcoholism. The wouldn’t be the worst part of it as more and more bills would come to pass forcing the Indians out of there land and farther out west, one these acts a major one being the Indian removal bill of 1830. Not all Indians would leave there native lands peacefully however and many wars would take place such as the Seminole wars in the south and the black hawk war in Illinois. Euro-americans of the early republic saw no problem taking the Indians land without remorse for it had been what there ancestors and the ancestors before them had always done. They saw it as there duty to teach these savages then kick them out and make this land “better” by changing it in to what they saw fit. When it came to the west Faragher and Cronon had two different viewpoints that somewhat met in the middle at times. Faragher talked of a yeomen farmer type city where a barter system worked greatly at first the poor and rich lived together in harmony and all was fine and well until the squatting of land was stopped. While on the other hand Cronons west was one of cities of urban areas and the idea’s and hopes that built Chicago and other cities like it. I felt like Cronon’s west was more accurate for what America would become a country of great cities, and these cities like Chicago had to be built from great imagination. At first Chicago was nothing but a common meeting place no one would have described it as a great city and now look at what it has become today. I never realized before reading Cronon’s essay why Chicago was called that and what it meant. Overall the two pictures met somewhere in the middle. One was based on rural life the other for the future of urban life both showing what America was trying to do during this time of expansion and the many different ideas and ways of the times.
The “West” the early republic meant different things to different ethnic groups. Native Americans, especially from the Eastern part of the United States, saw the West as a place where the US government forced them to move. Many Native Americans saw the West as a betrayal by the US government in the numerous treaties that the two parties signed. Some of the Western Native American tribes simply knew the West as home and were upset of the constant push westward by white Americans. Many Native Americans saw the white settlers as cruel and taking advantage of the Indians. As the chief Black Hawk said, “An Indian who is as bad as the white men, could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eat up by wolves.” Euro-Americans had a very different interpretation of the “West.” They saw the “West” as an opportunity to gain wealth and influence and create new lives for themselves. The whites saw Native Americans as only being in their way and being an obstacle to westward expansion, and because of this did everything in their power to get the Native Americans out of their way. Euro-Americans thought that it was their destiny to settle the lands west of the Mississippi and no barbaric ethnic or racial groups were going to stand in their way. John Mack Faragher, in his essay “The Transformation of a Rural Community” examines a single community in the West, Sugar Creek Illinois and traces its transformation from 1830-1850. He departs from famous historian Fredrick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis and provides his own interpretation citing that rugged individualism did not rule this section of the country. This is displayed when he states, “Sugar Creek farmers, like their ancestors and counterparts throughout the nation, utilized important rural productive resources in common with their neighbors.” This interpretation is departing from past historians like Turner and describing the West as having a “common landscape.” The growth in population and the introduction of urbanization helped transform Sugar Creek into a new landscape, “a now familiar landscape that was part of a profound social change that marked the departure of an old era.” William Cronon takes a different approach to describing the West. Along with the people in his interpretation the actual land is addressed and given human qualities. He is very concerned with the land that would eventually become the West’s first industrial city, Chicago. Cronon too dismisses Turner’s frontier thesis in regards to Chicago and believes that it is not needed. This is evident when Cronon states, “Chicago’s population exploded after 1833 without bothering much about a pastoral stage, a settlement of pioneering subsistence farmers, or even and agricultural community at all.” This development is in stark contrast to Turner’s frontier thesis. Both of these historians reject Turner’s frontier thesis and believe that the West underwent a rapid change. They just go about it in different ways, Faragher examines one community while Cronon examines the land and the individuals that went into making Chicago a truly urbanized city.
Individuals in the time period of the early republic what “the West” was and who owned it. Certainly, many of the people in this period, especially Native Americans, Northern Mexican settlers, and the British in Oregon did not consider themselves members of this early republic at all. The common conception of modern Americans is that the West was a vast expanse inhabited by a few Native Americans here and there and that the land was for the taking. It is also perceived that Native Americans were consistently brutal and savage toward white settlers without cause or justification. These readings, as well as our last class lecture, dispelled many of these notions. In reality, the West was a land inhabited by a great deal of people and wildlife alike, that had its own cultures that varied by region. The notion of savagery by Native Americans was tossed aside by the fact of so few killings of whites (who were settling on “pre-owned” land) actually taking place. The concept of property was the primary underlying misunderstanding when concerning who “owned” the West. The newly Americanized ideal of Manifest Destiny related to American settlers that God had deemed this land for the United States to settle, no matter the cost or who was on it. Because a purchase of a bulk of the West was made during Jefferson’s presidency, it can be understood how American settlers, with their notions of ownership and property, would think that the United States had full rights to this land. The readings in this section primarily dealt with the economic ramifications of the early American West. Faragher and Cronon both dispelled the blanket notion of the solely individual Wild West with a distinct culture. Rather, these readings both related that most settlers were intent on bringing Eastern society to the West, making it simply a further outcropping of the United States rather than Jefferson’s yeoman paradise. This idea has been confirmed after over a century of history. In Faragher’s work, the focus was on the bartering/borrowing system established among Western culture. This, he believed, was proof that the individualized culture of the West was inaccurate. Faragher’s example of the shift to a new culture in Illinois gave an interesting look on how even Eastern attributes such as corruption were quick to make their way westward. William Cronon also gave a stark contrast to Fred Turner’s individualism notion. However, Cronon focused on the move towards capitalism in the West rather than the barter system. His highlight of the transformation of Chicago to a burgeoning economy showed how quickly the West became incorporated as part of American culture, rather than a barren land of individuals. I found these articles quite similar, yet interesting. I agree with both authors that Turner’s notion is quite fanciful and inaccurate upon seeing the empirical evidence given by both authors. Though of course Turner is correct in isolated circumstances, I believe that Cronon’s evidence of the rise of capitalism in the West is overwhelmingly the accurate portrayal.
With the many European countries initially trying to overtake the new world from the Native Americans and from one another, the story of the expansion of the United States has always been a history covered in blood. Each separate entity, at this point focusing on the Indians, Mexicans, Texans and Americans, feel entitled to the land that the fledgling America titles “the West”. The natives claim that the land belongs to them, as it is the land that their ancestors populated long before Europeans showed up. Article one shows that the Cherokee would go as far as destroying part of their culture and integrating into white society rather than give up their land. The constitution is obviously heavily influenced by the American constitution. Black Hawk’s Surrender speech shows that the natives are even willing to die to prevent the white man’s hostile take over. The west to them is their current home, not an expansion of any kind. It is where they currently live. Further west, however means their confinement on foreign lands set up by America. Americans see the west as a stepping-stone to completing their country. They will complete this goal at any cost. Documents two and three show just how much Americans want the land from the Indians. The removal of entire nations from their homes onto terrible land seems a justifiable solution for them in order to achieve the land they desire. Citizens claim Indian attack is cause for retaliation in document five, but this might over exaggerated just to achieve more land. Texans live on lands lent to them by the Mexicans, but they are arrogant enough to claim it as completely their own and are willing to cause discord to take it from the country that lent it to them. This point is mainly stressed in documents eight and nine. Plus the west is another resource for get rich quick schemes with the discovery of gold, the mineral that is prized like no other by citizens dreaming of wealth. When comparing Faragher’s and Cronon’s essays, one of the most obvious similarities is that they both describe Fredrick Jackson Turner’s theory of rugged western individualism and discussing flaws in that theory. Faragher focuses on the absurdity of a man living in the wilderness by himself, while Cronon explains that Chicago skips Turner’s theory of supposed society progression. One of the major differences in the pieces were the descriptions of the landscapes. Faragher directly goes into explaining man’s involvement while he talks about the Sugar Creek’s landscape. Cronon, on the other hand, first goes into a detailed illustration of the landscape Chicago was placed on even before he even mentions the development of the city. Faragher’s article goes into much greater detail and greatly describes the changes to Sugar Creek, while Cronon gives a concise overview of Chicago’s development. Faragher’s article was indeed much more of a social class and change examination than the article about Chicago, as much of its greater details were devoted to land sales and utilization.
It is seen that the different groups would view the land as there own. The Native Americans would view the land as a more communal living. Under the Cherokee Constitution, the land is strictly expressed as a communal land owning without any person holding a deed for the land. It puts the land as the land of the Cherokee Nation. It can be supplied that most other Native Americans would agree with that assessment. The Native Americans did not have land deeds or titles in their government. Of course the US citizens saw the west as their right by divine conquest. Under the fold of manifest destiny, the belief was held that the land was theirs and no one would be able to stop them. This reasoning can be seen in the actions against the Mexican government as well as the Indian Nations. As displayed by the document on the colonists in Texas, the view of American ownership can be seen. The foreigners or US citizens came to the sparsely populated region and took over and then wanted to separate from the prior ownership of the Mexican government. It seems like the view of the west changed for US citizens at first it was the land west of the original colonies to the Mississippi river then as more land was acquired it was moved farther and farther till it reached California. For US citizens the west was an open land ripe for the picking. It was perfect for cultivating a new life and insuring the spread of an agriculture economy in the midst of the rise in the industrial market economy. The southern citizen most likely viewed the land as a place to extend the reach of the cotton kingdom. While the north, it was a new life away from the city life and into a more antiquated life. John Faragher presents an image of the west that changes from a communal living situation to a more market driven living. At first he shows the west as a place where everything was borrowed. It was expected of people to lend out tools and help out without a thank you. The person that was not a hospitable neighbor was seen as the worst sort of person. The person was unforgivable. This view changed later own with the increase production of roads as well as the increase in cash crops. It is seen that in the 1840's and 1850's the land was starting to be owned by the few instead of the many. The lands were being transformed into a cash crop system that focuses on market economics. William Cronon presents a similar change in lifestyle however it shows the birth of a urban lifestyle from the prairies. He presents an image of Chicago before the urban growth. The image is that of a prairie town that stood between the eastern section and the western section. He adds a lot of detail on the environment around Chicago and the rustic nature of it. He supplies that the city life that develop was due to trying to tame the “rural savageness”. The image Cronon supplies is that of a beautiful wildness full of life. This shows the stark contradictions in lifestyle.
During the great struggle for the west in the years of the early republic, there was certainly many differing opinions upon what exactly defined what the west was and who was entitled to the lands that encompassed it. Many of these differing views heavily relied on your ethnic, as well as financial backgrounds as to your personal interpretation for the answers to these questions. For many white settlers pushing westward, a sense of entitlement to the lands that for years had been occupied by Native Americans as well as those under the Mexican flag fueled their conquest of the lands west of the Appalachians. Many of the white settlers used the law to reinforce such ideas as can be seen in document 7 where the incessant growth of white settlers began to question some Mexican claims to land as they were not based on proper law and therefore, null in the eyes of Americans. Even white settlers disagreed as to who lay claim to these western lands as poor migrants and “would-be-yeomans” found themselves arguing over lands with land speculators and other wealthy creditors also moving from the east. Natives took on a much more different view on such questions as their sense of ownership was not in the same realm as that of the white settler. The natives used land as a means for subsistence just like their ancestors for thousands of years before them. This caused a great shock as the natives started losing these lands to white settlers only for them to exploit the lands for business purposes. The views on the west and who was entitled to its lands, no doubt differed greatly. In the essays by John Mack Faragher and William Cronon set about talking of the west as something very different from the common historical view. While both cite differing reasons as Faragher concentrates on the power of the borrowing system in Sugar Hill and Cronon focuses on the land as a means for Chicago’s success, both historians openly deny Frederick Jackson Turner’s view that the west was a place of individualism and anti-social tendencies. By exploiting the use of community by settlers sharing common bonds of struggle and opportunity, both authors successfully argue points against Turner and his widely held belief of the west as individualistic.
For Euro-Americans, the West was a land of cheap land, close community, and fewer social restrictions. It was an incredible opportunity, but the existence of Native Americans, particularly the Plains Indians, endangered this opportunity. When Euro-American settlers thought of Indians, they either thought of a grave threat to their existence, or of the kind of naked savages described in Source 10. However, the most popular mythology of the West, as established by men like O'Sullivan and Turner, ignores the Native American population completely and depicts the West as a savage wasteland that must be settled and civilized by brave men. Indians were marginalized in the great struggle for prosperity, as demonstrated in Source 11. For Native Americans like the Cherokee, who had lived all their lives in the East and made tremendous efforts to comform to white culture, the West was a fearful, unknown place (at least west of Arkansas, anyway). For Native Americans like Black Hawk, however, the West was home, a place to be honorably defended along with "the squaws and papooses" (250) of his tribe. Other kinds of Native Americans like the Mexicans also feared white encroachment and worried that western settlement would endanger the territory and sovereignty of Mexico. Faragher's west is a land of close community, almost resembling the Mormon settlements in the social consequences for remaining outside the group. Members of this community band together to pray, work, share equipment, build homes and rob the American government of timber. A system of barter and mutual obligation in which every good deed deserved repayment was set up, in direct contrast to the ruthless capitalist system and patronizing charity of the large eastern cities. However, genuine social stratification existed and made it increasingly difficult for squatter families to own land or find better work than hired hands. The federal and state governments, along with railroad companies, were a critical part of Faragher's West, since they constructed transportation networks and determined land distribution. Cronon also contradicts Turner's theories about the West, but he does so in a short essay that shows how federal Indian removal and rapid urban development in Chicago allowed one area in the West to skip over a state of primitive savagery and quickly become one of the fastest-growing and most prosperous cities in America.
To define the West is to say the least quite the dubious task. The definition of course was dependant upon you’re idea of sex, race, nationality and social status. As the yeoman farmer became an increasingly irrational ideal, amongst a quickly modernizing, and thusly class stratifying east coast, poorer classes would begin to push Westward. They sought out, in many ways, the opportunities European immigrant generations had sought in coming to American previously-a way to own land, increase and build wealth. In terms of ownership, the easterners laid claim to America’s West by stating that “unimproved” land had not yet been claimed, disregarding generations of Indian settlement. They would see their march to the Left coast as the march of progress, the spread of capitalism and Christianity to an otherwise savage country. It is in this time period that the ideals of Manifest destiny would truly take hold. Looking at our readings, there are definite and differing views on the building of the American West; Cronon discusses the speculation and eventual construction of the city of Chicago. Here, we see the emergence of a process to build a city from the ground up, beginning with a very Jeffersonian and individualistic idealism.
There were two types of ideas that Euro-Americans had for the West. The first was the idea that the West could be a safe haven from the evils of capitalism and the changing social structure by reestablishing the Yoeman farmer type community. These people were typically poor and they decided to venture West because the East’s social structure and economy highly favored the wealthy. As land in the East became scarce and its value skyrocketed, farmers were being forced to unproductive land that cost much more than it was worth. To these farmers the West was an oppurtunity to return to their agrarian ways and barder economy. The seccond idea for the West was characterized by speculation and the spread of capitalism. These Euro-Americans viewed the West as potential cities. They knew that capitalism was going to conquer the country so they set out to find regions that could potentially become major cities. Once these speculators found a promising site they proceeded to buy the land in hopes to sell it at a later date for a large profit.
ReplyDeleteWhen it came down to who might “own” the West, some Euro-Americans thought America owned the Mid-West because America had purchased it and no one owned the Pacific West because the land had not been “improved” by anyone. The Indians thought that they owned the land because they have lived on the land for a very long time and it was their home. But the Euro-Americans disreguarded this notion because they had not made suffiecient “improvements” to the land in order to call it theirs. Only if the Indians had laid waste to land like the Europeans intended to do then they might have had a chance to keep their land. But even if they had destroyed the landscape in the sake of “progress,” Americans still had the idea of Manifest Destiny. Americans were destined to rule all of North America and I’m sure God would have forgiven the Euro-Americans for killing the Indians that got in the way of spreading their “superior”way of life. The Mexicans issues the same reasons as the Indians for why the land was theirs and the Euro-Americans treated the Mexians in the same manner; give it up or we will take it.
Faragher saw the West as a communal farmer type place. The West was inhabited by farmers and tradesmen that relied on a barder system. Faragher thinks that the West was intially set up to retain the barder system. Cronon thinks that the people going West were getting it ready for the spread of capitalism and wanted to make a quick buck off of the spread of capitalism with speculation. They both had compelling arguments and I’m sure both were correct in their assumptions. After all nothing in the world is black and white and I am sure that both of their assumptions were present in the West. I would not be surprised that areas like Chicago were full of speculators or that some areas consisted of communities that had barder economies. I think both of their arguments boil down to the question of whether the West was settled with the intention of spreading capitalism or not.
Without a doubt, an individual’s interpretation of “the west” depending heavily upon his or her personal background/experiences, and those backgrounds and experiences were directly related to his or her ethnic group. Therefore, an individual’s ethnic group dictated how he or she perceived “the west.” Native Americans might perceive the west as either the old home of their forefathers or a new home forced upon them by white settlers who took their ancestral lands. This would shape that individual’s interpretation. But unfortunately most Native Americans would be able to identify with the feeling of losing their true home. The West, being an old or new home, was also an opportunity for these individuals unlike for the white settlers. Native Americans used it as a way of subsistence and survival. Many white settlers would use the west for opportunity. The main difference here is how/why the individuals came upon the west. For most white settlers, the decision to go west was voluntary. They packed up and left upon their own free will for a chance at a new life. Most of the Native Americans who went west were forced to leave against their will. President Andrew Jackson made sure that lands east of the Appalachians would be mostly free of Natives.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of perceptions on who “owned” the west, I’m sure one’s ethic group had a great deal to do with what one thought. White settlers most likely thought of themselves as rightful owners of the land upon which they were entering and living. Their “rugged individualism” gave them a right to claim the lands, as did their nature as being civilized European Americans who would inevitably bring peace, progress and prosperity to the lands upon which they settled. It was good and right for them to settle and own the lands, and as a result, trouble making Natives must be dealt with. They were either killed or forced to move further and further west. This idea of ownership is not present with Natives. Although they would claim a right to their lands (based upon treaties and generations of living in certain areas), the thought of “ownership” was vastly different. Again, they lived to survive and sustain themselves. They were not interested in exploiting the land or gaining some advantage over others via the land. In so many ways the land owned itself, it’s just that whatever particular Native nation had a right to reside upon it. These differing opinions of “ownership” of the west are a direct result of the inherencies in the discrepancies of the nature of the ethnic identities.
Faragher’s and Cronon’s Wests are actually pretty similar with one another. Both reject Turner’s belief (which became the mainstay for most of the 20th century, and which still persist as mythic lore today) that the west was purely individualistic and the success of whites upon it was a result of the bravery and toughness needed to survive. Faragher argues that in around the 1830s (early for the frontier) there were distinct communities present that negate the notion of complete individualism. He also analyzes the nature of the market and trade upon the development of one Sugar Hill. Cronon analyzes the natural geography of what would become Chicago to explain why that area became what it was initially, and then he argues that trade and economy made Chicago what it became. It realized Chicago’s destiny. He mentions the canals and Lark Michigan port as great reasons for why Chicago became a hub of the wests expanding economy. Both interpretations paint the western frontier as more “eastern” than Turner’s interpretation from late in the 19th century.
The west was a place of opportunities for some and hell for others. The interpretation of the west mostly varied on ones skin color, an issue that has defined America from Colonial time period all the way to some parts of today. White settlement had reached its capacity in the east of the Mississippi and the “West” offered various opportunities for their imagination. “Crackers” or poor whites saw the west as an opportunity to make capitol because if you weren’t an elite planter and just a simple yeoman farmer, keeping your head above water and sometimes all that you could do. The Native American viewed the West as a prison they were forced that was bestowed upon them, from Andrew Jackson speech that endorsed Indian removal to the Trail of Tears. I found that the primary source where Andrew Jackson is quoted saying, “It gives me great pleasure…..in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.” Andrew Jackson has always been a very interesting character to me but what right does he have to think his white superiority justifies the right to remove the Native Americans from their land. The further the west was expanding, the further the Native Americans were pushed. Western Expansion for white settlers offered an abundance of opportunities that were monetary goal related. James H. Carson paints a perfect picture of the gold mines many white settlers were taking part of to create their newly found wealth as a result of westward expansion. The endless hours of panning dirt hoping for some gold that would bring them instant wealth. There were many different types of people who would come in, “The population then there (exclusive of Indians) consisted of about three hundred-old pioneers, native Californians, deserters from the Army and Navy, and Colonel Stevenson’s volunteers, however these miners had distinct morals that could not go without being recognized including, no digging on Sunday which was totally bogus because the miners were either playing cards or drinking whiskey or both. As to who really owned the West, I think it is obvious the whites owned the west for sure because they had the money and the power and were doing everything they could to uphold their power. With the rising push for Texas by the Mexicans, the battle of the Alamo was relived by its commander, Jose Enrique de la Pena which left only 2 Texans. John Faragher interpretation of the west completely disagrees to Fred Turner’s thesis, “the frontier is productive of individualism.” However, he does defend Turner somewhat by saying he built his analogy on certain truths. He accounts that the west was not made up of individualism but how the “borrowing system” helped most of Americans out west. That a community assisted environment is what was really happening out west, not so much of the individual. William Cronon uses Chicago as an example in his essay of how the west was getting prepared for Capitalism. He accounts Chicago’s destiny to its geographical capabilities with its river that was used for an extreme amount of trade. He states that investors to Chicago saw what the city could be not what it actually was which explains its success. The two essays coincide with each other on the basis that Turner’s frontier thesis was incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThe West was an interesting ideological idea that prevailed among Americans since the Revolutionary era. It held to potential of extending the yeoman republic from sea to sea. With the frontier rested the belief of continuing this rugged individualism that had built the republican society that any patriot was fond of. However, to outsiders and the original inhabitants this place looked a whole lot different than the way our American ancestors did. The Natives viewed this place as their home, much the same as the old tribes of the East viewed that land until it was slowly taken away from them. However, with superior numbers, firepower, and immune systems the American yeoman searching for a better life pushed farther West for more “free” land. I like how Cronon describes the way speculators viewed the future site of Chicago. For this is a perfect example of how Americans viewed their vast empty backyard. The Indians and fur traders would make way for the cattle ranchers and subsistence farmers and then farming communities would be built (like Sugar Creek), then industrious cities would develop from these small farming communities. (I also like how Cronon uses Darwinistic as an adjective to describe the process). This process had been repeated in America with earlier Western cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Speculators saw this process and picked out town spots while the natives hadn’t even been offered cessation treaties for their land.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of ownership too, is something to consider to fully understanding the process by which whites settled the West. Indians in the region were mostly nomadic thanks to the introduction of the horse a few centuries earlier. So, there were few permanent Indians settlements which was good and bad for the white pioneers. It was good because they didn’t have to worry about uprooting many villages like they had to back east to make room for farms and their own “civilized” towns; bad because the mobile Indians were always a threat and hard to directly attack. Anyway, back to the point comparing the two essays. Faragher puts into perspective how life was for ordinary folk by using the town of Sugar Creek, Illinois as an example to show how quickly life when from being pioneer/subsistence to industrialized. The sense of community might have been something unique to frontier communities. A system of trade based around barter and exchange whatever neighbors could give to each other kept the market out of the local economy. As the years wore on, this became harder to do. Specie was at first only used to buy and sell property, then as roads began to be built (the citizens of Sugar Creek petitioned for them) the national economy hit the frontier in Illinois in the same way it had hit old Western communities. The isolated life of the yeomen on the edge of the frontier has to be proved to be false because if so the national market economy would have taken much longer to reach those people. I liked the section of Faragher’s essay where he talks about the irresponsible speculator named Pulliam; this reckless man to out loans on top of loans at exorbitant interest rates trying to make a quick bucks (or lots of bucks to be more correct). While Pulliam’s scheme failed (and I’m sure most speculators like him did too), it was people like him that would quickly draw in “Eastern” way of life into the frontier, thus pushed the frontier closer toward the Rockies. A good quote from Faragher’s essay to throw in this post is this (on page 271, end of that first paragraph): “The transfer of large portions of prairie commons from the federal government to a small group of resident farmers accomplished the single most important economic change along Sugar Creek since Americans had disposed of the Kickapoo.” Having the majority of land in the hands of the few sounds unfair, but it was the way things were in the East for generations and the way the world works today. Sugar Creek was developing and investing class and that would further develop the region into the next stage of American civilization much to the chagrin of the local population. I’ll end the post on Cronon’s definition of the frontier which I thought was spot on “the source of American energy, individualism, and political democracy.” Now that is Jeffersonian if I have ever heard anything describing it.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from “Major Problems” that the conquest of the American West took on many problems and dealt with a multitude of geographical areas. The first four sources all deal with the Native Americans in the “Old Southwest” and the United States’ Government’s answer to the question as to what to do with them. The first source illustrates to what degree the Cherokee Nation had “Whiteized” or “Americanized” themselves. Their constitution not only models their national government in a shockingly similar way to that of the United States, but also there are provision for racist policies against blacks and “mulattos.” What, I dare say, could be more American at this time? Being that Andrew Jackson had built his campaign for President largely off his popularity with the frontiersmen whites, it is no surprise that Jackson was eager to push Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. What is surprising, however, (as source three bears out) is to what extent Jackson elected to employ rhetoric that spook of “benevolence” with a fain at the maintenance of Indian culture. Also, source two clearly indicates that the Congress of the United States largely shared Jackson’s convictions, and his rhetoric. A careful reading of source three in connection with (the somewhat refreshing) source four, reveals that there were numerous conscientious dissenters to these views who raised many of the questions that one would like to pose to Jackson and his supporters today, albeit in vain.
ReplyDeleteThe primary sources briefly cover the exploits of Chief Black Hawk and his bands of Sac and Fox warriors who attempted to reconquer their stolen lands in Illinois and the white settlers’ desperate efforts to deal with them. The chapter’s light treatment of this area of the “Old Northwest” is surprising given that both scholarly essays in this chapter deal with the same area. Although Black Hawk’s efforts proved to be in vain, he still signaled a sign of intent from the Native Americans east of the Mississippi to combat the United States even as late as the 1830s.
Perhaps the most famous events of westward expansion are covered in the final primary sources: the Texas Revolution and the California gold rush. Sources seven and nine give unique incite to the Mexican perspective of the events of American colonization in Texas and the Battle of the Alamo. In so many ways, both Mexican authors express dismay at their own government’s lack of response to the impeding crisis or conduct of the war. The account of the Battle of the Alamo put the John Wayne movie in the stark perspective. Instead of a band of united brothers and sisters fighting to the last man, the author gives accounts of fake surrenders and haphazard escape attempts.
Finally, the final two sources cover events in California. The first, gives an account of the relief and bewilderment of newly arrived settlers from the east upon reaching California. A war had been fought and California was on the verge of statehood, all the while the settlers were traveling on a wagon train cross country nearly starving to death. James H. Carson’s account allows one to enter the world of the poor gold miner. By 1848 things had changed to a dog-eat-dog world where people would steal your tools and entire towns would pick up and move to find the next strike.
ReplyDeleteThe two scholarly essays explore the frontier world of Illinois as it developed. The first essay by John Mack Faragher challengers Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous frontier thesis delivered in 1893, and off-quoted by the odd Republican politician, that the west was won by individualist people who favored self-reliance over community relations. Faragher presents convincing evidence in a case-study of Sugar Creek, Illinois where community reliance was not something one chose to neglect; rather it was essential for one’s survival. Lastly, William Cronon details the development of Chicago from its pre-glacial beginnings to that of burgeoning metropolis with an emphasis on its geographic importance. Cronon also challenges Turner’s adherence to the principles of Social Darwinism that permeate his work, stating that to the men who developed Chicago, the area was already a metropolis in their eyes, not something layoff as a goal at the end of an evolution.
As the need for new, undeveloped land grew with the rising American population of the early nineteenth century, yeoman farmers and the like were drawn more and more towards land west of the Mississippi River. This migration of settlers, however, resulted in conflict with foreign nations like Mexico who had prior land claims on territories such as Texas, and particularly with Native American tribes who had roamed the West long before whites crossed the Mississippi River. A Mexican general reported on the influx of white settlers into Texas, commenting that, “It would cause you the same chagrin that it has caused me to see the opinion that is held of our nation by these foreign colonists, since, with the exception of some few who have journeyed to our capital, they know no other Mexicans than the inhabitants about here […] I am warning you to take timely measures. Texas could throw the whole nation into revolution,” (Wilentz 251). “Manifest destiny” had taken hold of American settlers and, as a result, they ignored other people’s territorial boundaries and continued to develop and settle land that was not legally theirs. Native Americans, like the Mexicans, were also alarmed by Americans’ determination to establish permanent communities and settlements in the West, encroaching on Native lands and resources. For example, when the Indian leader Black Hawk surrendered in 1832, he said, “An Indian who is as bad as the white men, could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eat up by the wolves,” (Wilentz 250). Nonetheless, manifest destiny became an unstoppable force and resulted in the forceful removal of Indian tribes and land secessions from Mexico.
ReplyDeleteJohn Mack Faragher and William Cronon’s ideas of the West are both critiques of two arguments made by Frederick Jackson Turner’s concerning his thesis on the development of the Western United States. Faragher centers his piece on the development of communities and social stratification in the West. Turner had argued earlier that frontiersmen lived individualistic lives, isolated from extensive kinship networks or communities. Faragher, however, takes up the completely opposite point of view and says that communities not only existed in the early frontier, but they were necessary to survive. Indeed, “English immigrant George Flower observed that among his Illinois neighbors any man who tried to live in isolation from others, like the stereotypical frontier individualist was considered to be committing a serious offense against civility” (Wilentz 263). Frontier farmers, in particular, relied on their neighbors to borrow farm equipment and supplies during the planting and harvesting seasons. This practice cut down on an individual farmer’s annual expenses dramatically. In contrast to Faragher, Cronon looks at urban development in the American West. Turner asserted that urban development in the West was a long and pain staking process which took place in a series of steps, but Cronon is able to use the efficient and rapid development of Chicago as an example to the contrary. “The town’s [Chicago’s] speculators gambled on an urban future, staking fortunes on land they hoped would soon lie at the heart of a great city. Explaining their vision of Chicago’s ‘destiny’ means reading Turner backward, for their theory of frontier growth apparently began with the city instead of ending with it,” (Wilentz 278). Cronon sites that the reason for the successful growth of Chicago, like other Midwestern cities, was due to its proximity to a water source. Easy access to a river made trade a profitable endeavor and allowed places like Chicago to become metropolitan centers, similar to cities in the eastern United States.
To the Native Americans who had lived on the land Euro-Americans dubbed “the West” for thousands of years, the West was simply their home; however, to the Euro-Americans who began to participate in the expansionism of the early nineteenth century, the West was an opportunity to “get rich quick” and earn a living away from the overcrowded east coast. Not only did white Euro-Americans see the Native Americans who were already living on the land as “savages,” but they also believed that these so-called “savages” would welcome the white settlers in and desired to become “civilized” and assimilated into white culture. President Andrew Jackson even believed that the U.S. government was doing the existing Native American population a favor by forcing tribes off of their land; he argued that the “benevolent” policy of the government would result in “prolonging the existence” of Native Americans by coercing them to sell their lands in exchange for a larger share of land farther to the west. However, in his surrendering speech Black Hawk denounced the presence of the white settlers who “poisoned” the Native Americans into becoming more like them. He even likens the white settlers to a snake that threatened the Native American way of life; in his mind, the Native Americans had done nothing to deserve the U.S. government’s “benevolence” except to fight for their homeland and their families, much as the whites themselves had against the British. The idea of “ownership” of the West is an interesting one, as it seems only the white settlers saw it this way. Whites were concerned in immediately setting up communities with no regard for their impact on environmental resources; they wantonly depleted resources such as buffalo and plant life upon which the Native Americans had depended. On the other hand, it seems that many Native American tribes felt that since they had always lived on the land,
ReplyDelete“ownership” had never been a question. In the face of white encroachment on Indian lands, the Cherokee tribe went to the greatest lengths to ensure that they maintained their territorial sovereignty in the Constitution for the Cherokee Nation. However, in this constitution they sound quite like the whites against whom they were rebelling; not only does the language of “establish justice, insure tranquility, and promote welfare” mirror the U.S. Constitution, but exclusion of the “African race” from the benefits of citizenship echoes the whites’ views of racial superiority and inferiority. Faragher’s argument about the development of the West centers around the development of a “market” in the rural community; the relationship between squatters, landowners, and land speculators provided for the rapid development of a complex social structure that became even more pronounced as more settlers moved to the area; Faragher argues that this social structure comprises modern-day images of the Midwest, such as log cabins and the “hardworking yeoman.” Cronon’s essay examines the development of Chicago from a small “gathering place” to a large metropolis; he largely draws on Frederick Jackson Turner’s idea of a frontier city as stemming first from an Indian settlement, the white settler determined to overcome the savages, the development of ranch communities, depletion of soil and other resources, the development of denser farm communities, and the inevitable coming of industrialization and mass production. Thus, the West was a complex idea and an even more complex reality, as both Euro-Americans and Native Americans believed that they were entitled to the same land
The struggle for the West can be summed up primarily through the struggles between Indians, the American government, and white settlers pushing further and further west to make way for Americans to settle once solely occupied Indian land. The “West” included parts of modern day Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Oregon, California, and so on so when the word “West” is used during the time period 1800-1860, this term encompasses a massive amount of land and not simply the states towards the coast of the Pacific Ocean. The clear struggle for the power and control of the West for the American government and the white settlers looking to push past the Mississippi River was the Indians. The constant legal and violent battles white settlers and Indians faced between each other are summed up in the first three documents of the chapter. In the first document, the Cherokee Nation attempted a very unique way in order to try to keep their land by devising a constitution that created strict boundaries, laws, and embodied many of the similar traditions of the American constitution and form of government. Ultimately, this constitution failed as the Cherokee were forcibly removed from their lands by Andrew Jackson and relocated west of the Mississippi River towards common day Oklahoma. In Document 2, Congress created the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which enabled the Congress of the United States to forcibly remove Indians from lands that they believed they had both legal and political rights over. As shown in Document 3, President Andrew Jackson completely favored the idea of Indian removal because he understood how vitally important it was for Americans to continue the republican ideal Jefferson had embodied America, to spread west as far as the horizon and litter the land with American settlers so they could begin to build homes, families, and lives and spread the seed of American liberty and republicanism.
ReplyDeleteBut not only did the Americans have to fight off and forcibly remove Indians from millions of acres they believed was rightfully theirs, the US government also had to fight off Mexican inhabitants to secure the boundaries of Texas and other southwest lands. Thus, the struggle for the west, in just gaining the land, was a very violent and brutal struggle America endured from the late 1820s into the 1860s.
When looking at the point of views of the historians, John Mack Faragher in “The Transformation of a Rural Community” takes a singular look at the rural community of Sugar Creek, Illinois and demonstrates the vast changes that underwent there from 1830-1850. Population increase, market and economic increases, and the overall urbanization of Sugar Creek all occurred due to the westward expansion and Great Migration that occurred during the 1830s-1850s. William Cronon observes a similar idea of urbanization in his essay “A Prairie Landscape” in which he notes the emergence of Chicago, the “west’s first industrial city” versus the development of the other parts of the western frontier as a whole. Both historians note the vast amount of changes, from economic growth, urbanization, population increase, and technological developments, the west was rapidly expanding as Americans flooded towards the Pacific Ocean and inhabited lands that were once completely unknown by any white settler.
During the period of westward expansion, European Americans sought economic opportunities in the west. Back east land was expensive, and upward mobility was becoming increasingly difficult. Despite these changing conditions, the ideal of the age was a place where free men could find opportunities through hard work and industriousness. The seemingly unclaimed land in the west provided a perfect opportunity for these Americans to "improve" the land and to pull themselves up by their boot straps so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWhile the settlers did not recognize property rights of non-whites, the land was in fact occupied. However Native Americans did not view property in the same way that European-Americans did. The Cherokee Constitution recognized land as collective, and many tribes lived a nomadic lifestyle. While traditionally native land was not developed or owned the same way Europeans were accustomed to, natives lived in the same hunting grounds for generations and used the land for their mutual benefit.
While cheating natives out of land had always been standard practice for whites, the tactics became even bolder during the Jacksonian period. Years earlier leaders such as Jefferson had advocated methods such as trying to get the Indians to assimilate with practices such as borrowing and drinking so that they would have to sell their land even if they did not have clear title to it. When he surrendered Black Hawk talked about how Europeans had shared their vices rather than giving the Indians a fair chance to assimilate. Rather than trying these tactics, Jackson made the decision to move Indians west of the MS. This even included those who had successfully assimilated into the traditional American lifestyle. He considered his actions benevolent despite the obvious flaws in his rationale. In 1830 he got his wish and most Indians were removed from the area East of the Mississipi.
Further west there was Mexican land. Naturally early Americans did not respect their territorial rights either although it was not as dubious as the methods used with Native Americans. A Mexican general noted that their government was over extended and that government services were lacking in some colonial areas. The American colonists thought they could do better and were dominating much of Texas. The dispute turned to war, and America eventually ended up in control of the rest of the west. After all the idea of manifest destiny was rampant and who could bring civilization to the frontier better than American settlers.
One thing that was interesting about the secondary sources was the effect of private property concepts on the frontier. By taking land from other groups, the government gained large tracts of lands that it sold to settlers and speculators. Initially land was plentiful. Faragher discusses how early settlers worked together for the common good, not out of a sense of individualism for which the west is known but for mutual benefit. They were not established on the land, and settlers needed each other.
However over time some settlers bought more property, and speculators began to buy up land as well. Suddenly there weren't as many common resources which were considered collective and some farmers began to protect their property rights. Eventually many no longer worked for themselves but became tenant farmers or hired hands. Suddenly class structures became more rigid, and the west became more like the east.
Then there were the speculators. They too sought property, but many of them were absentee and didn't even develop the land. This was the ultimate group of capitalists. William Cronon deals with this issue. The area around Chicago had been pristine wilderness. When development occured the speculators began buying up large tracts of land not because they wanted to develop it, but because they believed something might develop there later. This fueled the development of the area, but it was part of a major economic change as well. The old northwest was not the land of the yeoman subsistence farmer as many had dreamed it would be.
ReplyDeleteThe views of Native Americans and Euro-Americans could not be more different when it comes to “the West” and which group rightfully laid claim to the territory. The Indians had no conception of “the West”; to them it was just home as it had been for generations before the white man came a desecrated it. According to their beliefs nobody owned the land, it was all the works of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe and his children shared the land equally. Natives never took more than they needed and always used every bit of what was extracted from mother earth. Although there were intertribal wars, these battles did not occur based on the principle of gaining territories, they were to avenge fallen brethren and showcase their talent as warriors. As white settlers encroached on what they wrongfully dubbed “virgin” land, they annihilated various tribes and cultures. As Blackhawk eloquently stated, “The white men speak bad of the Indian, and look at him spitefully. But the Indian does not tell lies; the Indians do not steal.” His statement clearly illustrates the impact white culture and expansion had on the previously undisturbed Indian tribes (later stating they had become like the whites: hypocrites, lairs, adulterers, all talkers and no workers).
ReplyDeleteThe whites on the other hand felt as if they were doing the Indians a favor by offering to purchase their land in order to expand their “West”. If whites were given such an offer, states Andrew Jackson, “they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.” It is obvious that the whites felt as if they deserved and technically owned the west. Thoughts such as these and rhetorical questions raised by Jackson such as “What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic?” raised the eyebrows of white settlers and encouraged further development of western territories. The Indian Removal in 1830 formally cemented the white’s ideologies toward their red neighbors; this land is our land damnit, how utterly ignorant of our ancestors. Not all whites agreed with this policy however, Theodore Frelinghuysen laments, “we minister to the agonies of future remorse.” Meaning that it will be difficult for the future kin to justify what was done to the Natives.
Both Faragher and Cronon offer different perspectives as to how the West became what it is today. Faragher focuses on the development of the community of Sugar Creek in Illinois. Here settlers gathered and enjoyed communal living sharing all their instruments of labor in order to better the community, very similar to the ways of the Natives. However as more and more land speculators gained ground a capitalistic economy began to grow. The capitalism he argues grew not out of an inclination to participate in the marketplace, but the result of a changing rural social structure (i.e. wealthy speculators replacing the humble yeoman farmer). Communal living turned to profit driven motives, very similar to those East who the same men wished to escape. Cronon focuses on how the geography of the Chicago area allowed it to develop into the nation’s first industrial city. He states that the city’s history may have come from a dream but those dreams came from the foundations of earth “tracing their destiny onto the land’s own patterns.” If men could find rivers, they would build cities upon them no matter how dinky they were. The geographic advantages encouraged the settlement of western territories.
There were a vast number of perspectives on the what "the West" was and who might own it. One dichotomy to consider is the Native American and Euro-American cultural clash that lead to many of the conflicts between the two groups. With the Natives naturally being there first, they percieved "the West" as their homeland. It was the place their history was based in and it maintained their livelihood. At the same time, Euro-American ideas about property, ownership, and selective liberty brought an entirely different approach to "the West." For most, it was an opportunity. Many wealthy easterners saw it as a great chance to make large profits from land grants. For others, it was a place to start over. Most of all, they all believed that it was their destiny to maintain ownership of the lands in the west. At the time, many whites believed that white culture was superior to all other cultures, and as a result--the barbaric foreigners would be forced to submit.
ReplyDeleteThis point of view agrees with Faragher's understanding of "the West" in many aspects. For instance, Faragher focuses a great deal of his essay on laying out the framework for how the poorer pioneer-type individuals were eventually taken advantage of just as the Native Americans. He finds the movement away from the original bartering system a movement away from the purpose of the area. In fact, the majority of his essay focuses on one particular place called Sugar Creek. Sugar Creek represents a typical western frontier town that supports more communal economic efforts, rather than the highly invididualistic society that it is normally referred to.
Contrasting deeply with this is Cronon's perspective. He perceives the West as a place that was always intended to be a capitalist's paradise. He explains how many of the inhabitants of early Chicago "knew" what would become of their new "wild-garlic place." This contrasts with Faragher's conceptions because Cronon accepts that from the beginning, people were taking advantage of "the West." In other words, Cronon's "West" relies heavily on profiteering by wealthy Americans.
Not one of these groups ever saw eye to eye on the idea of what the west was, and who owned or had the rights to it. As Europeans have done throughout time they have conquered other people’s lands then claimed it as their own and in the process have “helped” the former inhabitants by forcing there ways upon them. The west was no exception early Americans viewed the west as there own for two reasons. One of those reasons being that they bought the land through treaties therefore no matter who lived ther originally it was theres, there other viewpoint was that it was no one’s land since it had not seen any improvements. The native inhabitants to this westward land the Indians had lived in peace for hundreds of years before the white man came. Once this introduction came however all life would change for the Indians. The White man forced there religion and ways on the Indians as well as there diseases such as small pox and alcoholism. The wouldn’t be the worst part of it as more and more bills would come to pass forcing the Indians out of there land and farther out west, one these acts a major one being the Indian removal bill of 1830. Not all Indians would leave there native lands peacefully however and many wars would take place such as the Seminole wars in the south and the black hawk war in Illinois. Euro-americans of the early republic saw no problem taking the Indians land without remorse for it had been what there ancestors and the ancestors before them had always done. They saw it as there duty to teach these savages then kick them out and make this land “better” by changing it in to what they saw fit.
ReplyDeleteWhen it came to the west Faragher and Cronon had two different viewpoints that somewhat met in the middle at times. Faragher talked of a yeomen farmer type city where a barter system worked greatly at first the poor and rich lived together in harmony and all was fine and well until the squatting of land was stopped. While on the other hand Cronons west was one of cities of urban areas and the idea’s and hopes that built Chicago and other cities like it. I felt like Cronon’s west was more accurate for what America would become a country of great cities, and these cities like Chicago had to be built from great imagination. At first Chicago was nothing but a common meeting place no one would have described it as a great city and now look at what it has become today. I never realized before reading Cronon’s essay why Chicago was called that and what it meant. Overall the two pictures met somewhere in the middle. One was based on rural life the other for the future of urban life both showing what America was trying to do during this time of expansion and the many different ideas and ways of the times.
The “West” the early republic meant different things to different ethnic groups. Native Americans, especially from the Eastern part of the United States, saw the West as a place where the US government forced them to move. Many Native Americans saw the West as a betrayal by the US government in the numerous treaties that the two parties signed. Some of the Western Native American tribes simply knew the West as home and were upset of the constant push westward by white Americans. Many Native Americans saw the white settlers as cruel and taking advantage of the Indians. As the chief Black Hawk said, “An Indian who is as bad as the white men, could not live in our nation; he would be put to death, and eat up by wolves.” Euro-Americans had a very different interpretation of the “West.” They saw the “West” as an opportunity to gain wealth and influence and create new lives for themselves. The whites saw Native Americans as only being in their way and being an obstacle to westward expansion, and because of this did everything in their power to get the Native Americans out of their way. Euro-Americans thought that it was their destiny to settle the lands west of the Mississippi and no barbaric ethnic or racial groups were going to stand in their way.
ReplyDeleteJohn Mack Faragher, in his essay “The Transformation of a Rural Community” examines a single community in the West, Sugar Creek Illinois and traces its transformation from 1830-1850. He departs from famous historian Fredrick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis and provides his own interpretation citing that rugged individualism did not rule this section of the country. This is displayed when he states, “Sugar Creek farmers, like their ancestors and counterparts throughout the nation, utilized important rural productive resources in common with their neighbors.” This interpretation is departing from past historians like Turner and describing the West as having a “common landscape.” The growth in population and the introduction of urbanization helped transform Sugar Creek into a new landscape, “a now familiar landscape that was part of a profound social change that marked the departure of an old era.”
William Cronon takes a different approach to describing the West. Along with the people in his interpretation the actual land is addressed and given human qualities. He is very concerned with the land that would eventually become the West’s first industrial city, Chicago. Cronon too dismisses Turner’s frontier thesis in regards to Chicago and believes that it is not needed. This is evident when Cronon states, “Chicago’s population exploded after 1833 without bothering much about a pastoral stage, a settlement of pioneering subsistence farmers, or even and agricultural community at all.” This development is in stark contrast to Turner’s frontier thesis. Both of these historians reject Turner’s frontier thesis and believe that the West underwent a rapid change. They just go about it in different ways, Faragher examines one community while Cronon examines the land and the individuals that went into making Chicago a truly urbanized city.
Individuals in the time period of the early republic what “the West” was and who owned it. Certainly, many of the people in this period, especially Native Americans, Northern Mexican settlers, and the British in Oregon did not consider themselves members of this early republic at all. The common conception of modern Americans is that the West was a vast expanse inhabited by a few Native Americans here and there and that the land was for the taking. It is also perceived that Native Americans were consistently brutal and savage toward white settlers without cause or justification. These readings, as well as our last class lecture, dispelled many of these notions. In reality, the West was a land inhabited by a great deal of people and wildlife alike, that had its own cultures that varied by region. The notion of savagery by Native Americans was tossed aside by the fact of so few killings of whites (who were settling on “pre-owned” land) actually taking place. The concept of property was the primary underlying misunderstanding when concerning who “owned” the West. The newly Americanized ideal of Manifest Destiny related to American settlers that God had deemed this land for the United States to settle, no matter the cost or who was on it. Because a purchase of a bulk of the West was made during Jefferson’s presidency, it can be understood how American settlers, with their notions of ownership and property, would think that the United States had full rights to this land. The readings in this section primarily dealt with the economic ramifications of the early American West. Faragher and Cronon both dispelled the blanket notion of the solely individual Wild West with a distinct culture. Rather, these readings both related that most settlers were intent on bringing Eastern society to the West, making it simply a further outcropping of the United States rather than Jefferson’s yeoman paradise. This idea has been confirmed after over a century of history. In Faragher’s work, the focus was on the bartering/borrowing system established among Western culture. This, he believed, was proof that the individualized culture of the West was inaccurate. Faragher’s example of the shift to a new culture in Illinois gave an interesting look on how even Eastern attributes such as corruption were quick to make their way westward. William Cronon also gave a stark contrast to Fred Turner’s individualism notion. However, Cronon focused on the move towards capitalism in the West rather than the barter system. His highlight of the transformation of Chicago to a burgeoning economy showed how quickly the West became incorporated as part of American culture, rather than a barren land of individuals. I found these articles quite similar, yet interesting. I agree with both authors that Turner’s notion is quite fanciful and inaccurate upon seeing the empirical evidence given by both authors. Though of course Turner is correct in isolated circumstances, I believe that Cronon’s evidence of the rise of capitalism in the West is overwhelmingly the accurate portrayal.
ReplyDeleteWith the many European countries initially trying to overtake the new world from the Native Americans and from one another, the story of the expansion of the United States has always been a history covered in blood. Each separate entity, at this point focusing on the Indians, Mexicans, Texans and Americans, feel entitled to the land that the fledgling America titles “the West”. The natives claim that the land belongs to them, as it is the land that their ancestors populated long before Europeans showed up. Article one shows that the Cherokee would go as far as destroying part of their culture and integrating into white society rather than give up their land. The constitution is obviously heavily influenced by the American constitution. Black Hawk’s Surrender speech shows that the natives are even willing to die to prevent the white man’s hostile take over. The west to them is their current home, not an expansion of any kind. It is where they currently live. Further west, however means their confinement on foreign lands set up by America.
ReplyDeleteAmericans see the west as a stepping-stone to completing their country. They will complete this goal at any cost. Documents two and three show just how much Americans want the land from the Indians. The removal of entire nations from their homes onto terrible land seems a justifiable solution for them in order to achieve the land they desire. Citizens claim Indian attack is cause for retaliation in document five, but this might over exaggerated just to achieve more land. Texans live on lands lent to them by the Mexicans, but they are arrogant enough to claim it as completely their own and are willing to cause discord to take it from the country that lent it to them. This point is mainly stressed in documents eight and nine. Plus the west is another resource for get rich quick schemes with the discovery of gold, the mineral that is prized like no other by citizens dreaming of wealth.
When comparing Faragher’s and Cronon’s essays, one of the most obvious similarities is that they both describe Fredrick Jackson Turner’s theory of rugged western individualism and discussing flaws in that theory. Faragher focuses on the absurdity of a man living in the wilderness by himself, while Cronon explains that Chicago skips Turner’s theory of supposed society progression. One of the major differences in the pieces were the descriptions of the landscapes. Faragher directly goes into explaining man’s involvement while he talks about the Sugar Creek’s landscape. Cronon, on the other hand, first goes into a detailed illustration of the landscape Chicago was placed on even before he even mentions the development of the city. Faragher’s article goes into much greater detail and greatly describes the changes to Sugar Creek, while Cronon gives a concise overview of Chicago’s development. Faragher’s article was indeed much more of a social class and change examination than the article about Chicago, as much of its greater details were devoted to land sales and utilization.
It is seen that the different groups would view the land as there own. The Native Americans would view the land as a more communal living. Under the Cherokee Constitution, the land is strictly expressed as a communal land owning without any person holding a deed for the land. It puts the land as the land of the Cherokee Nation. It can be supplied that most other Native Americans would agree with that assessment. The Native Americans did not have land deeds or titles in their government. Of course the US citizens saw the west as their right by divine conquest. Under the fold of manifest destiny, the belief was held that the land was theirs and no one would be able to stop them. This reasoning can be seen in the actions against the Mexican government as well as the Indian Nations. As displayed by the document on the colonists in Texas, the view of American ownership can be seen. The foreigners or US citizens came to the sparsely populated region and took over and then wanted to separate from the prior ownership of the Mexican government. It seems like the view of the west changed for US citizens at first it was the land west of the original colonies to the Mississippi river then as more land was acquired it was moved farther and farther till it reached California. For US citizens the west was an open land ripe for the picking. It was perfect for cultivating a new life and insuring the spread of an agriculture economy in the midst of the rise in the industrial market economy. The southern citizen most likely viewed the land as a place to extend the reach of the cotton kingdom. While the north, it was a new life away from the city life and into a more antiquated life.
ReplyDeleteJohn Faragher presents an image of the west that changes from a communal living situation to a more market driven living. At first he shows the west as a place where everything was borrowed. It was expected of people to lend out tools and help out without a thank you. The person that was not a hospitable neighbor was seen as the worst sort of person. The person was unforgivable. This view changed later own with the increase production of roads as well as the increase in cash crops. It is seen that in the 1840's and 1850's the land was starting to be owned by the few instead of the many. The lands were being transformed into a cash crop system that focuses on market economics. William Cronon presents a similar change in lifestyle however it shows the birth of a urban lifestyle from the prairies. He presents an image of Chicago before the urban growth. The image is that of a prairie town that stood between the eastern section and the western section. He adds a lot of detail on the environment around Chicago and the rustic nature of it. He supplies that the city life that develop was due to trying to tame the “rural savageness”. The image Cronon supplies is that of a beautiful wildness full of life. This shows the stark contradictions in lifestyle.
During the great struggle for the west in the years of the early republic, there was certainly many differing opinions upon what exactly defined what the west was and who was entitled to the lands that encompassed it. Many of these differing views heavily relied on your ethnic, as well as financial backgrounds as to your personal interpretation for the answers to these questions. For many white settlers pushing westward, a sense of entitlement to the lands that for years had been occupied by Native Americans as well as those under the Mexican flag fueled their conquest of the lands west of the Appalachians. Many of the white settlers used the law to reinforce such ideas as can be seen in document 7 where the incessant growth of white settlers began to question some Mexican claims to land as they were not based on proper law and therefore, null in the eyes of Americans. Even white settlers disagreed as to who lay claim to these western lands as poor migrants and “would-be-yeomans” found themselves arguing over lands with land speculators and other wealthy creditors also moving from the east. Natives took on a much more different view on such questions as their sense of ownership was not in the same realm as that of the white settler. The natives used land as a means for subsistence just like their ancestors for thousands of years before them. This caused a great shock as the natives started losing these lands to white settlers only for them to exploit the lands for business purposes. The views on the west and who was entitled to its lands, no doubt differed greatly.
ReplyDeleteIn the essays by John Mack Faragher and William Cronon set about talking of the west as something very different from the common historical view. While both cite differing reasons as Faragher concentrates on the power of the borrowing system in Sugar Hill and Cronon focuses on the land as a means for Chicago’s success, both historians openly deny Frederick Jackson Turner’s view that the west was a place of individualism and anti-social tendencies. By exploiting the use of community by settlers sharing common bonds of struggle and opportunity, both authors successfully argue points against Turner and his widely held belief of the west as individualistic.
For Euro-Americans, the West was a land of cheap land, close community, and fewer social restrictions. It was an incredible opportunity, but the existence of Native Americans, particularly the Plains Indians, endangered this opportunity. When Euro-American settlers thought of Indians, they either thought of a grave threat to their existence, or of the kind of naked savages described in Source 10. However, the most popular mythology of the West, as established by men like O'Sullivan and Turner, ignores the Native American population completely and depicts the West as a savage wasteland that must be settled and civilized by brave men. Indians were marginalized in the great struggle for prosperity, as demonstrated in Source 11.
ReplyDeleteFor Native Americans like the Cherokee, who had lived all their lives in the East and made tremendous efforts to comform to white culture, the West was a fearful, unknown place (at least west of Arkansas, anyway). For Native Americans like Black Hawk, however, the West was home, a place to be honorably defended along with "the squaws and papooses" (250) of his tribe. Other kinds of Native Americans like the Mexicans also feared white encroachment and worried that western settlement would endanger the territory and sovereignty of Mexico.
Faragher's west is a land of close community, almost resembling the Mormon settlements in the social consequences for remaining outside the group. Members of this community band together to pray, work, share equipment, build homes and rob the American government of timber. A system of barter and mutual obligation in which every good deed deserved repayment was set up, in direct contrast to the ruthless capitalist system and patronizing charity of the large eastern cities. However, genuine social stratification existed and made it increasingly difficult for squatter families to own land or find better work than hired hands. The federal and state governments, along with railroad companies, were a critical part of Faragher's West, since they constructed transportation networks and determined land distribution.
Cronon also contradicts Turner's theories about the West, but he does so in a short essay that shows how federal Indian removal and rapid urban development in Chicago allowed one area in the West to skip over a state of primitive savagery and quickly become one of the fastest-growing and most prosperous cities in America.
To define the West is to say the least quite the dubious task. The definition of course was dependant upon you’re idea of sex, race, nationality and social status. As the yeoman farmer became an increasingly irrational ideal, amongst a quickly modernizing, and thusly class stratifying east coast, poorer classes would begin to push Westward. They sought out, in many ways, the opportunities European immigrant generations had sought in coming to American previously-a way to own land, increase and build wealth. In terms of ownership, the easterners laid claim to America’s West by stating that “unimproved” land had not yet been claimed, disregarding generations of Indian settlement. They would see their march to the Left coast as the march of progress, the spread of capitalism and Christianity to an otherwise savage country. It is in this time period that the ideals of Manifest destiny would truly take hold.
ReplyDeleteLooking at our readings, there are definite and differing views on the building of the American West; Cronon discusses the speculation and eventual construction of the city of Chicago. Here, we see the emergence of a process to build a city from the ground up, beginning with a very Jeffersonian and individualistic idealism.