Category: Uncategorized

The reconstruction phase began after the American Civil War ended. After the war, many Northern soldiers returned to their regular employment. A good number of Northern Veterans were Irish immigrants. They returned to their previous jobs, which were primarily labor-intensive. However, as they went back to work, they went on strike because of the terrible working conditions they were forced to endure. In “Reconstructing Representation 1866-1877” by Joshua Brown it explains some of the strikes that took place were due to the mine disasters in 1869 and 1870. As miners were going on strike other mining companies took advantage of the crises to take control of the miners union. According to Joshua Brown he states that “Franklin Gowen, president of the Reading Railroad, instigated the strike so that his company might gain total control of eastern Pennsylvania coal mining by destroying the miners’ union,” (Brown 132). To accomplish this Joseph Becker was dispatched to sketch the ongoing strike. Joseph Becker is Frank Leslie’s art manager, and he responds to “emergencies,” such as strikes or other events that are likely to be covered by the media.  He sketches the situation to publish it in the newspapers. In the harsh winter of eastern Pennsylvania, Becker depicted the Irish miners as lazy drinkers. Their wives, on the other hand, were depicted as the only hard workers by cooking the meals even though they were starving and shivering from the cold. The women and children had to bear only one loaf of bread left, while they attempted to warm themselves in front of the oven. Becker shifted the focus of the scenario by depicting miners as lousy workers by not even helping their families from starving. All of this serves as an incentive to lower the miner union’s value so that Reading Railroad may buy the miners’ union in eastern Pennsylvania.

 

American reconstruction after the civil war which started during the mid-1860s was a huge deal as the emancipation proclamation gave black Americans freedom and with reconstruction came many reformations. . This is where Joshua Brown comes in with his Reconstruction Representation excerpt showing us the way of life from the mid-1860s all the up to the 1880s. Joshua Brown does not only talk rather uses a visual representation to express how perspective which I found very nice as it gave a sense of realism. Joshua Brown starts talking about the panic of 1873 which was about the bad representation of the poor in the economy. This is enduring to this day as different classes of people have bad representation but in the 1870s considering the level of immigration and labor wages, things were menacing to a peak. Joshua Brown also talks about Frank Leisle’s illustration in newspapers which helped spread the news of terrible representation. 

“The Great Uprising of 1877 marked a sea-change in the typing of American labor. The largely spontaneous two-week strike that paralyzed most of the nation’s industrial cities defied the expectations of observers.” ( Joshua Brown )

“Pennsylvania–The railroad riot in Pittsburgh 1877

It really is apparent to Joshua Brown that FRANK LESLIE’S ILLUSTRATED NEWSPAPER portrays it as wild and chaotic. Men and women were fighting all out inflicting chaos in the economy. Frank Leslie’s newspaper played a big role in this depiction as it gives us a vivid idea of the event. Leslie’s used photographic practices to capture these moments and pass them down in history. Although it was times of chaos who even know if these pictures has any legitimacy but they described it as such. So many people have witnessed this time in history and suffered from its consequences One would think after undergoing massive changes things will be better but they weren’t as people always wanted more and more. Continuing looking at the illustration Joshua brown uses it can be seen how there was chaos in the mids of stikes which were for jobs and proper wages. The illustration that Joshua Brown uses in his excerpts is from Leslie’s newspaper which goes to the credibility of his perspective which will help as we talk about the next things which are the 1877 railroad attacks which were considered the single most destructive incident in the nationwide strike as people were kind of crazy due to terrible representation but not only but also labor shortages where immigrants were hired more due to them being cheaper. I found Joshua Brown’s excerpt to be somewhat thrilling due to the realism the illustration added also the consequential effect of bad economical decisions.

In “America wasn’t a democracy Until Black People Made it One” by Nicole Hannah-Jones, she emphasizes slavery began from the very begining of the nations formation, stating “the Jamestown colonists bought 20 to 30 enslaved Africans from English pirates”. Slavery, according to Jones, is one of the nation’s most important backbones for colonists. She even mentions that protecting the institution of slavery was one of the key reasons why the American colonists decided to declare independence in the first place. She goes on to say that the colonists thought they were slaves of the British. Jones tries to exploit this hypocrisy by saying that the colonists fought for independence and freedom, but failed to give freedom to slaves. The first person to die in the American Revolution was an enslaved black man fighting for independence and liberation from British oppression. Jones claims that he gave his life for a new nation in “which his own people would not enjoy the liberties laid out in the Declaration”. Gordon Woods objects to her essay because of the use of unbacked evidence. He adds on to prove that during the American Revolution the sole reason of colonists revolting against Britain to keep slavery is simply not backable.

 

 Gordon Woods does not disprove the essay in its entirety, but her primary claims are undermined by the lack of provable evidence. If the protection of slavery was truly the cause of the revolution against Britain, why didn’t Southern planters join forces with planters in the British West Indies, according to Woods. It wouldn’t make sense if slavery was the main reason because the founding fathers of the republic, such as John Adams, were abolitionists. John Adams was responsible for The Declaration of Independence. Gordon Woods tries not to dispute any of Jones’s claims or ideas, but he believes her work is unsupportable and has too many factual inaccuracies.

 

In the American Yawp textbook, chapter 11 sheds light on one of the most influential revolutions in the south. The introduction to cotton revolutionized the global economy all together. The new version, Petit Gulf cotton, “slid through the gin…and grew tightly, producing more usable cotton than anyone had imagined to that” (Wegman). The South continued their more “traditional” practices like slavery and agricultural lifestyle because of the implementation of cotton. Of course, it was no surprise that when it started in Mississippi in 1820, merchants, planters and even botanists developed their own cotton as well to produce an abundance of profit from their plantations. According to the chapter, by the end of the 1830s technological advances made cotton “the primary crop” not only of the southwestern states but of the entire nation” (Wegman). By that time, “the five main cotton-producing states-South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, produced more than five hundred million pounds of Petit Gulf for a global market stretching from New Orleans to New York and to London, Liverpool, Paris and beyond” (Wegman). Their range was endless, and the economy was undeniably booming. Behind all that success and triumph, resided the agonizing truth of how the South maintained their “cotton kingdom”. Without slavery there would be no cotton, no capital. They were dependent of using slaves to produce massive amounts of Petit Gulf every day. Slavery was “seen as the backbone of southern society and culture” (Wegman). Cotton and slavery were so intertwined in the south that any idea of change could implode their entire economy, also being that cotton was the only major product that they could sell internationally.

While reading this chapter, I questioned the very sanity of the people in the south. How could they allow the foundation of their whole state rely on using enslaved people to do their dirty work. It’s no wonder that the Cotton Revolution, a time of capitalism, lead to competition. A product like that made every planter want to be the best and would often get into massive amounts of debt because they were actively working against everyone else. Wealth has a tricky way of manipulating people into getting more of it, making people capable of unspeakable deeds. Owners would do anything to make more cotton and enslaved people was the only thing they needed. Resistance would only cause them unimaginable pain. To them, the slaves weren’t people, they were just tools or a means to an end. Never once did they stop to question their cruelty.

In reading Nikole Hannah Jones’s essay “America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black People Made It One,” from The 1619 Project, New York Times, Aug. 14, 2019, my attention was captured by the way in which the author exposes the important aspects that were left out of American history through the analyzation of historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. For example, the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”^[1] The Declaration of Independence expresses the desire of forming an independent American nation from the British monarch due to arising conflicts; excessive taxation being one of the many. Colonists were providing cheap raw materials to the British mainland at the expense of their hard labor just to be met with harsh taxes in return. In light of these inequalities and unfairness, colonists proceeded to revolt, obtain their independence, and to gain the rights they believe they deserved. It is interesting to see how when the colonists are forced to lift a pinky, an entire war is commenced to address and resolve the issue. However, when it came to the institution of slavery, were the circumstances not like those of the colonists? Were the inequalities and unfair treatment that enslaved Africans faced not enough to start some commotion? It is baffling to see how enslaved Africans were in support of the revolution and even gave their lives for a cause that would not have an effect on their lives. Jones proceeds to explain how the “we” and the “men” used in this declaration is merely referring to white colonist men and not to the enslaved African Americans as they were regarded as a “separate race” according to the 1857 Dred Scott decision (Jones 5). The rightful equality and the granting of unalienable rights would not apply to enslaved African Americans as a result. The only way in which African Americans were regarded was in an indirect and obtuse manner. For instance, instead of being regarded as the individuals that they were, they were mostly regarded as property. In the U.S. Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2 states, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due”.^[2] Slaves were only regarded in the Constitution as property to be returned if “lost” or to express their lack of status. In reviewing Jones’s essay, it is concerning to see how the American school system is teaching history to students in that it is a story told without considering all the narratives. The narrative painted in our textbooks has gaps and fails to consider the actual role of African Americans on the development of the United States as a country. In conclusion, Jones is successful at opening the eyes of readers and portraying how the glorified historical documents that have founded our country are implicitly pro-slavery.

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/declaration/files/Declaration_ReadTheDeclaration.pdf

[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iv#section-1

America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black People Made it One by Nikole Hannah-Jones discusses the supposed ideals of American democracy during its creation and its hypocrisy. Mainly white leaders constructing a nation that is suppose to be the land of the free but building off the backs of slaves who have virtually no freedom. Slaves were a huge part of the American economy. Used to pick cotton which was a huge part of the economy and also being seen property in the eyes of the government helped bolster the success of many white owners in America. Nikola Hannah discusses that Americas greatest profitable trade was manufactured by slaves. Jones also brings up that one of the main reasons colonist wanted to gain independence from Great Britain was to hopefully keep ownership of their slaves. Although it may have only been one of the many factors to lead to independence it should not be dismissed as a reason. Jones also mentions that it is because of African Americans that democracy works as well as it does. The hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson not including black people in the declaration of independence when he penned “all men are created equal”, despite he himself being against the international slave trade.

The main thing I’ve taken away from this reading is how much history can be rewritten by the people with power. And even when there are other historians who discover that there might be more to the story than initially believed by the public there are others who will quickly dismiss it or even try to actively say its incorrect and misleading. This reading had made more aware of how relevant this problem is today in the news today as each outlet will tell their own version of the story and political parties using these stories to strengthen their own politics off the emotions of the public who blindly support them.

In Nikole Hannah Jones 1619 essay, “America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black People Made It One” Jones highlights the idea that America wouldn’t be as advanced if it wasn’t for slavery. There were “12.5 million Africans who would be kidnapped from their homes” to go through the middle passage which led to “almost two million” people passing away due to inhumane conditions. African slaves were just seen as property to the white slave owners to use however they wanted and to expand their own business. In addition, slaves couldn’t be legally married to each other but slave owners had the ability to “rape or murder their property without legal consequence” and when the slaved women fell pregnant it was a good sign because that means that slave owners would get more workers for his business. If the child was born half white and half black it would become a slave because the child wasn’t purely white. Kinship between a mother and her children was not allowed because they held no right over their children. The slave owners would decide what to do them wether that being them making the children work or were put “behind storefronts that advertised Negroes For Sale”. Through time slaves were the ones who “lugged the heavy wooden tracks of the railroads that crisscrossed the South and that helped take the cotton they picked to the Northern textile mills, fueling the Industrial Revolution”. If it weren’t for the slaves labor America wouldn’t have been able to expand in the market. What stood out to me was the irony in “all men are created equal” but yet white men felt that they were superior to black people. Even if they weren’t born to be a slave if a black person family had a history of being in slavery, that person would be considered as inferior to a white person.

Thavolia Glymph dives into the roles white mistresses played on a plantation household.  She states that many historians perceive these plantation mistresses as not having social power over the slaves. These mistresses were characterized as calm, women who created a loving household and cared for their slaves. Thavolia Glymph argues against this stating that there are indeed many claims from former slaves proving this false, she questions the traditional portrait that labeled elite southern women as “fragile flowers”.  She points out records of slave accounts where mistresses indeed used violence, stating, “This narrative… has been told for the most part as if there were no other, as if Lulu Wilson’s, Harriet Robinson’s, or Harriette Benton’s did not exist. … Robinson said that her mistress was the ‘meanest woman I ever seen in my whole life,’ ‘a nigger killer.’ Harriette Benton, although a slave for only seven years, remembered her mistress as ‘a debil in her own way.’” (p.20). This just goes to show not only how the narrative on violent plantation mistresses has been manipulated and almost ignored, but also how almost insignificant and invisible women were although the opposite. The violence from these mistresses, if ever talked about, was deemed as being done through the husband’s request showing white women to have no authority.   Thavolia Glymph clearly shows the usage of power the southern white woman had against slaves. We see how narratives from actual slaves were disregarded, for example as stated by Harriet Robinson, “meanest woman I ever seen in my whole life”. This just goes to show that plantation mistresses did not use their power and authority over slaves shyly. These so-called “fragile flowers” that were described to be hardworking, devout, and a mother who tried to live up to the expectations set by men, do not show the fact that these women did indeed have some power over their slaves. Thavolia Glymph also mentions that feminist historians have added on to this portrayal of a hardworking, self-sacrificing southern lady by stating things like, suffering from patriarchal authority to which “slaves were subjected”(p.23), or things like “white woman who tried to live up to responsibilities of her position.” (p.23).  Of course, some of this is true, women in the past were living in a patriarchal society, but Thavolia Glymph helps to reveal that although this may be true, white women, specifically plantation mistresses had power over slaves despite accounts that say this wasn’t the case. Thavolia Glymph then goes on to state how former slave testimonies that show plantation mistresses abusing slaves are simply not the norm and that violence from mistresses was seldom.

 

This reading definitely added to my knowledge of women’s power, and how manipulated stories can be.  I have always thought women had power over their slaves and never really heard otherwise. Seeing how even feminist historians change the story or put excuses to violent actions done by women is crazy to see.  A question that arose after reading this was that I wonder if other things in history were manipulated to show a better light on certain actions taken. I definitely know it’s not impossible for stories to be manipulated, and Thovia Glymph does a good job defending this.

 

The author Thavolia Glymph explains Slavery in the book “The House Of Bondage” and that slavery was when African Americans were enslaved for labor. She explains how slavery was an evil time. She shares different experiences that people had with slavery. Thavolia Glymph explains what these people had to go through and that it was horrible. Thavolia Glymph did an interview with Lulu Wilson, who was a former slave. Lulu Wilson explains that she knows a lot about slavery and goes into detail that slaves were treated unfairly. Their masters had all the power and saw slaves as property, the text states “He beat and starved the few slaves he owned and kept up a steady pattern of selling her mother’s children.”(page 18). The reading gave me more knowledge on slavery by having the different points of view that people actually experienced. And that female slaves were utilized. They were abused because they were seen to have no power. Women’s life was terrible and had the classic role of being a housewife or housemaid. The text states that “Difficulties arise, however, when the stories of women of different backgrounds encounter one another. The plantation household was just such a site of con- tact between women whose access to power, privilege, and opportunity, much less food, clothing, and citizenship, was vastly unequal.” (page 21). I learned that slavery during this time (the 1930s) was brutal. There were black and white women in plantation households. White women were slaves to their husbands. All women either a slave or not were only seen as an object. Women didn’t have equal rights to men, even if they were wealthy. This makes me question if the roles were reversed between men and women how would things be the same or different?  Also, if capitalism is a modern form of slavery? 

 

In the 1619 project, America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black People Made It One by Nikole Hannah. Hannah argued that America has been ran by white leaders in order to keep people of color inferior and not equal to white people. Arguing that slavery was the direct cause to democracy in America. In early America people of color were used as product for land, cotton picking, and expanding America to the status it holds today. Jones argues that America gains extreme expansion due to the buying and selling of slaves. In fact, she tells that “America’s greatest profitable trade was manufactured by slave.” She continues to argue that many of America’s early achievements came from the work and progress of African Americans. One of her major points was that in early America slaves were not seen as people but as property. Meaning they were seen as business to expand; Jones also makes a point that slaves were intentionally left out of the Declaration of Independence. She points out the hypocrisy of the phrase “all men are created equal” as the people of color were not seen as equal to white people.  

Jones begins another point that the key reasons the colonies wanted to gain independence from Great Britain was to keep slaves. Another writer Gordon Wood rejects this claim arguing that while it could have been “one factor” it wasn’t the only factor in fact he believed “The Stamp Act” was the nail in the coffin for the colonies. Wood continues to disprove many of Jones points from “The 1619 Project” in order to give the right information. Jones revised her piece changing “the key reason” to “one of the key reasons” still believing that it was a major factor in the American Revolution.  

This reading made me wonder if the information fed to us as children has been watered down and distorted over time. As today racism, prejudice, and discrimination still exist in America. Many Americans look over the fact that people of color were a giant part of the success of early America and should be talked and taught about more today.