Themes in American History: Capitalism, Slavery, Democracy

Gordon Wood begins by responding to the 1619 project, in which he rectifies the project for making a false allegation against the colonist. Gordon Wood acknowledges the objectives of the 1619 project, however he does not agree with the statement that the colonists declared independence because they did not want to lose their slaves. Gordon Wood, on the other hand, acknowledged that slavery played an important role in our history.

Gordon Woods claims that he had never heard anyone argue that the colonists wanted independence so that they might keep their slaves. Gordon then explains that the reason why the colonies declared independence was because of the stamp act of 1765. The Stamp Act, which required colonists to pay taxes on imported goods, was passed by the British parliament on March 22, 1765.One of the reasons the colonies decided to seek independence was the frustration with being taxed without representation. Gordon Wood further explained  there wasn’t any evidence that Britain would remove the slaves and  in Virginia they were even thinking about stopping the slave trade on their own.  They understood that they had more than enough slaves already  and didn’t need anymore. Woods latter explains that why would Virginia even argue about stopping the slave trade if John Adams didn’t believe in slavery and didn’t have any slaves.Therefore making the statement made by the 1619 project false. 

 

The question I had was where did the assumption that the colonies decided to declare independence on the British parliament due to them not wanting to lose the slaves come from? If this was something that wasn’t even spoken about if there was no proof of their even been a plan or conversation made by the British then why did they assume that this was the reason? It was very clear the reasons why the colonies wanted to separate themselves from the British parliament but it didn’t have anything to do with the slaves.

In the reading, Out of the House of Bondage, Ch. 1, The Gender of Violence, Thavolia Glymph argues against the false phenomenon that is the Sothern White mistress. White women in the slave-holding south were thought to be ladies of delicacy. They are portrayed in film and other popular media as managers of the household who bore the inexhaustible task of overseeing slaves. The plantation mistress has been depicted by feminist historians to have been subjected to a patriarchal authority that forced their hand in the slave system. They have obtained a characterization of those who testified for the better treatment of slaves.

These portrayals significantly contrast the accounts of slaves who endured extreme violence at the hand of southern mistresses. “As Norrece T. Jones writes, slaveholding women were ‘depicted frequently [by slaves and ex-slaves] as the most stringent and sadistic of the manor born.’ He describes the plantation household as a ‘war zone’ where ‘spilling milk, breaking dishes, and a variety of other kitchen peccadilloes could and often did trigger barbaric responses from slaveholders throughout South Carolina’” (Glymph 25).

However, the acts of violence displayed by white women are not evaluated the same as those of white male plantation owners. Mistress’ acts of violence are often excused as nonsystemic and hysterical. Violence delt by the hands of white women is not attributed with the same kind of authority as white men. The narrative of the mistresses’ role in the slave system being attributed to their entrapment in a patriarchal society reduces the responsibility for their active participation.

In the past few weeks we have read various passages about different events and also learned about them during lectures in class. However, there is a specific passage that has helped me further my understanding on a topic I didn’t really know much about which in short involves how patriarchy has been an issue since the beginning of time. The book Out Of The House Of Bondage by Thavolia Glymph, first chapter “The Gender of Violence” gives a great understanding and interpretation of how life for women got harder when the patriarchy and slavery issues combined. “If anything, the joining of patriarchy and slavery made the lives of mistresses harsher and more difficult overall, (Glymh, 21). I found this very intriguing to start off because in the past I thought of slavery as obviously a very broad topic but here specifically shows that there is a-lot of things to slavery that I will continue to learn about. Previously I connected slavery with capitalism which for me was already a great “discovery” and here learning that patriarchy is another thing that plays its role in slavery. Women are usually taking on their role of being the housewife in the past as well, “..the mistress emerges from slave testimony as the plantation authority figure who pled for better treatment of slaves, ‘as a white woman who tried to to live up to the responsibilities of her position,” (Glymph,23). Although women of plantations were “taking up their responsibilities,” they were still in a way enslaved themselves. In a way their “master” was their husband, once again supporting this idea that patriarchy and slavery are interconnected and women being seen as objects. As the passage goes very in depth about this topic there was a specific question at the end that intrigued me the most, “ If rich white women in the Cotton Kingdom had gained equal rights with their men, how likely is it that they would have agitated for their slaves’ emancipation?,”(Glymph, 31). I started asking myself this question because the truth is we don’t know. Every human is different but given  the time racism was a huge thing so, would color have impacted their decision on whether to fight for their slaves, or not? Or were the rich white women only pleasant because how (some may say) they were in similar positions as the slaves themselves? This passage bought not only a deeper understanding on how slavery was and how patriarchy had a role in it but also raised a bigger question to think about. What if things happened differently and the women were in charge instead of the men?

In Nikole Hannah-Jones’s essay from the 1619 project “America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black People Made it One,” Jones claims that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” and in defending that claim she brought up how there were “growing calls” in London for the abolishment of slavery which. If that was true that would have been very detrimental to the economy of the colonies, but Gordon Wood rejects this claim. He does not necessarily claim that there is anything wrong with the factual claims that were presented like the ideas of the United States being founded on a “slavocracy” rather than a democracy, but he does disprove one of her main points on the basis of how the American Revolution had started. He disproves her point by one talking about the chronological order in which the American Revolution had started. Of course the Declaration of Independence is usually looked at as the “start” of the war, but there was talks about independence much before starting with the Stamp Act in 1765. The Dunmore proclamation may have been a tipping point for the war, but in fact the idea of war had already partaken.

It was not of Wood’s intent to disprove the entire essay as seen by his introduction where he wants to help the authors because with false information being provided it might unintentionally bring more damage than harm. This is very true especially today because acts of changing how history is interpreted, it must be entirely factual. In order to teach how slavery had an impact especially before the American Revolution, one must provide information that is not often looked at in todays schools. The 1619 Project continues to be a very large stepping stone for how America looks at race at a historical level. I thought it was very interesting on how Wood provided the information because of this point. He did not want to invalidate the entirety of the 1619 project rather he wanted it to be historically correct in order for it to have maximum impact.

In the slavery era, American slaves were objects rather than human beings, they were been sell to the master, so slave men and women were not eligible to marry. Although black slaves are not allowed to marry, many slave owners still make the slave men and women in their hands from informal couples for self-interest. It will be beneficial to the mistress because slaves can give birth to children and children are the new slaves followed by their parents, when the slave’s children grow up they can work for the owner or the owner will sell them for money. This helps to increase the assets of slave owners. 

Author Thavolia Glymph’s chapter book, “Out of the House of Bondage, Ch. 1, The Gender of Violence” shows how slaves were treated badly, they were punished and bullied by the white. The author also talks about how the southern slaves experience under the white women. “ But since, “in fact,” mistresses “slapped, hit, and even brutally whipped their slaves,” it is plain that their power was neither invisible nor insignificant.” (Glymph pg26) This evidence evaluates how the mistress, the white woman who has the power of control over the slave, is treating the slave in a harmful way, they use physical violence against slaves, such as whipping, bracelet ankle chains, and more. “White women’s gender subordination merits attention in its own right and for its own sake; its overthrow is part of human emancipation.” (Glymph, pg31) Slaveholding women have some influence, and the influence of these women is seriously underestimated. This violation by the mistress shows how the gender of different types of women has different situations during the past. Glymph’s article is an academic article that is provided to historians and students or those who want to know more about that period. 

A historical figure, event, and detail that particularly stuck out was the story of Lulu Wilson, she was an old-time slavery woman who was been violent by Missus Hodges her former master, Wash Hodges’s wife, she was been special mean to Lulu which she used to tie her hands and make her lie on the floor and put snuff into her eyes, this was the reason of why she went blind. This was one of the ways that slaves will be violent by their owners, which was a normal phenomenon during the slavery period. 

Slavery in the United States has been abolished for more than 150 years today, but it still deeply affects American society. 

 

In Gordon Wood letter to the editor of the New York Times. He wants to correct “factual errors’ ‘ in the 1619 Project and makes claims that there isn’t any evidence in some of the statements said in the project. Something that added to my knowledge was the Somerset decision in England. The decision made slavery unlawful in England. Basically freeing thousands of slaves in England. In my other history classes, I was never told that there was a law that freed slaves in England during the same time colonists started to rebel for their independence.

I have to agree with Gordon Wood. I have never heard that colonists wanted to break free from Britain because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. He adds on that Britain did not want to abolish slavery in the colonies. Also that colonists did not know anything about the Somerset decision till later in the year when slaves were already free in England and colonists started to fight for their independence. When colonists started to “fight back” with their assemblies. These assemblies would have duties like taxing residents and managing the spending of the colony’s revenue. The royal governors wanted to limit their power but it only encouraged the assembly’s power to grow. It seems that Britain just wanted to control the colonies, exploit them and benefit from the taxes the colonists paid. Later we see that Britain’s Stamp Act affected people throughout the colonies. This act is another example of Britain wanting to exploit the colonies and the act is one of many reasons that the colonies wanted their independence. Britain tried to suppress them and exploit them.

A question I had while reading the article was why would ending the Atlantic slave trade have been welcomed by the Virginia planters? Would it not benefit the planters?

Nikole Hannah Jones challenges the rooted idea that democracy in America is thanks solely to the founding fathers. Jones effectively illustrates the inhuman passage black people had to face coming to America during the Middle Passage, against their will. Thanks to the enslaved black people, America grew valuable and profitable crops like cotton and “transformed lands” which benefited greatly to the growth and expansion of America. From the profits America received from the labor of black people, they were able to be debt-free paving the way for capitalism to flourish. Jones argues that America’s success was not possible because the founding fathers were a good team but because they abused and forced black people into harsh labor and to fight their battles for them. 

Jones uses Crispus Attucks death to further her point that “America wasn’t a democracy, until Black people made it one”, explaining that his death allowed other people to enjoy freedoms and liberties that his own couldn’t, he was a martyr for America. It put the start of the American Revolution into a new perspective for me, the purpose of the revolution was to gain independence from Britain yet they were doing the same thing to people, holding their independence, freedom, and liberty hostage. The fact that one of the first people to die for America’s independence did not even have independence is unjust. 

This reading is exposing the reality that America is portraying a false narrative of the truth. There is still racism, prejudice, and discrimination in this country, trying to overlook the historical reality of the root of these issues is unscrupulous. Many Americans are ignorant of the full truth of the democracy of America, their patriotism and even nationalism are founded on the abuse of black people. This article makes me wonder what other important historical information is being watered down? 

   In the American Yawp textbook, chapter 11, “The Cotton Revolution” by Andrew Wegman, it talks about the history of the cotton revolution and how it came to be. This chapter stood out to me because I have heard about the cotton revolution before and knew its meaning, but I have never learned about its history and other important factors. The author first starts off by talking about Petit Gulf cotton, which was what kicked off this revolution. America has had cotton before this discovery of Petit Gulf, however it was never as good and as smooth when it slid through the cotton gin machine. Petit Gulf cotton was found in 1820 and it drastically changed the cotton market in America. At the same time as the discovery of this cotton, the federal government forced a migration on which all Eastern people had to relocate. After this removal act, farmers had the chance to purchase hundreds of acres in the Mississippi River for very little money. By the end of 1830, cotton had become the primary crop and was distributed throughout the region. In 1835, the main cotton growing states were South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Lousisana, and the American South became the world’s leading producer of cotton. Before cotton, the south’s main crop was tobacco, but as cotton started to rise, tobacco wasn’t as important anymore. However, tobacco wasn’t as good after all. It required a lot of movement, laborers, and massive fields, but all it did was treat the land poorly. On the other hand, cotton grew quickly and was very cheap, and that is exactly what led the South to slavery. By 1840, prices started rising and slavery had become so comon that writers began referring to the are as the Black Belt, based on the skin color of the enslaved laborers. Slavery was used for everything, and without it there would not be so much cotton. Cotton became the foundation of southern economy, and the thought of change, such as anti slavery, never crossed anyones mind. The cotton revolution was also a time of capitalism and competition. In chapter 11, it states “The more wealth one gained, the more land one needed to procure, which led to more enslaved laborers, and more mouths to feed.”Nobody wanted to give up slavery, but it was also hard to maintain. Slave owners had to buy enslaved people, and the wealthier they cotton based on the cotton production, the more they had to spend money on their enslaved laborers. Another negative factor to slavery, was that slave owners were afraid of rebellion. They had hundreds of enslaved people working for them, and were also afraid of a sudden attack, or escape. Therefore, the South strongly benefited from the cotton revolution, and many became wealthy, however slavery continued, and many had questions on what to do next if slavery ever ended.

Thavolia Glymph’s novel, Out of the House of Bondage, begins with the idea of being persuasive to demonstrate, where the plantation house was a political space, where enslaved and white women battled over the idea of labor and autonomy during slavery, and then over the interpretations of liberty and civic participation that had occurred after the Civil War, as demonstrated by chapter 1.

To commence, Thavolia Glymph remarked, “Of course, I was born into slavery, and I’m as old as I am. ” The manner I’ve gone through the hackles has given me much to say about slavery.” “I am a former slave who has a great deal to say about slavery.”   In these statements, it is shown that if a woman is conceived in a slave setting, she will become a slave, and that other captives may have said that they have been slaves for a long period of time when they are at a certain year in their lives. It is stated in Thavolia Glymph that “Juxtaposing the claims of this optimal outcome against the abuse to which Wilson, Robinson, and Benton testified brings to denser display the factual as well as linguistic animosity in the intertwined utilization of the descriptive words “delicate” and “slaveholding,” that even if you are born a slave, they will concert you as a class or race.  Using this statement as an example, it demonstrates how women were utilized to demonstrate hostility by using a negative image of them, whether as a delicate lady or as a slaveholder.

Additionally and conclusively, it argues that “the plantation home was precisely such a point of interaction for women whose access to power, privilege, and opportunity, let alone food, clothes, and citizenship, was grossly uneven.” This statement indicates that women were abused, that they would get less power, nutrition, and equality for themselves as a result of being regarded as worthless, and that people who exploited those women as slaveholders were despicable human beings.

Historian Gordon Wood to the Editor of the New York Times Magazine

 

The letter that was sent by decorated historian Gordon Wood to the editor of the New York Times Magazine is an important letter that claims that the information in the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project on slavery is inaccurate. Gordon Wood begins by saying that if misinformation continues to be spread within this media outlet, then it will start to lose its credibility in the long run. (Wood, p.1) Wood’s main concern with the piece has to do with a claim that the 1619 Project had made. They stated: “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” Wood believed that this claim was preposterous and responded by saying that he didn’t know of any colonists who wanted independence to keep their slaves. (Wood, p.1) 

I knew that the British didn’t care about abolishing slavery in the United States, but I did learn that as much as the slaves helped the U.S. become what it became, colonists were still ready and willing to give up slavery. Wood also gives a direct example for this stating that John Adams, a key part of the Declaration of Independence hated slavery and owned no slaves, so why would he ever be so concerned about preserving slavery? (Wood, p.2)

Additionally this text adds to my knowledge of American history as I learned that not only were the colonists not trying to preserve the institution of slavery, but the North actually saw the Revolution as an opportunity to abolish it. In fact, the first anti-slave movements in history were supported by both white and black people and took place in the northern states directly after 1776. (Wood, p.2)

Lastly, the 1619 Project claims that there was a “rising movement” to abolish the Atlantic Slave Trade after 1776 but Wood firmly refutes it by stating that there was no evidence that this was the case or that the British government had any intention of doing so. (Wood, p.2) He then says that even if it was the case, Virginian planters would have welcomed the ending of the slave trade as they already had more slaves than necessary. (Wood, p.2) 

I had no idea that some states had so many slaves to the point where they didn’t need anymore, which made me think deeper about the true magnitude of slavery in the United States as they were so common that you didn’t have to be a particularly rich family to own one.

In conclusion, Gordon Wood brings up some great points that refute the inaccuracies of the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, showing that while slavery had a great impact America’s search for independence it was not the reason why they wanted to separate themselves from the British.