#ms-p

[amh2010-0008]

12 Years a Slave Review

       Directed by Steve McQueen, the movie 12 Years a Slave tells the tale of Solomon Northrup, a free black man living in Saratoga, New York in the 1940's.  A master violinist, he is recruited to play music in a circus performance by two men who take him to Washington D.C.  Solomon awakes the next day to find himself chained to the floor and no longer a free man.  His pleas for freedom are unheard, and he is soon shipped south and sold into slavery.  His first master, named Ford, is kindhearted and intelligent. He treats his slaves, especially Solomon, with as much respect as can be offered given the circumstances.  Due to some unfortunate events, Solomon is quickly sold off to another slave owner named Epps.  His new master is a substantially worse man, raping and beating his slaves with little reason or provocation.  The movie contrasts the two intentionally to display the extremes of how slave owners acted.  Due to a crop failure, Solomon is again transferred to another slave owner, a Judge who uses him to pick sugar cane.  H The Judge notices Solomon's skill and recruits hi to play violin for a party.  This owner displays a somewhat neutral view  of a Slave owner at the time.  After a failed attempt to get a letter to the north, Solomon again gets the opportunity to send a letter to friends in the north who can help him in the form of a man named Bass.  Bass helps Solomon and manages to bring a friend from the north down to identify him, and he is finally freed after 12 years.  This was a very intense movie, and depicted an era of American history that viewers wish could be erased from history.  

[amh2010-0008]

Amistad Review

       Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie Amistad begins with a scene aboard a Spanish slaving vessel that had just left port in Cuba.  One particular slave aboard said vessel, named Cinque as discovered later, manages to free himself from the chains, free his other slave brethren, and overthrow the Spanish crew members other than the owners who knew how to sail the ship.  The slaves end up off the coast of the US and are imprisoned yet again as runaway slaves.  A case is opened in the courts regarding who owns the slaves, but the group with the greatest claim is not seeking ownership, but rather freedom for the Cinque's group.  The abolitionist lawyer, named Roger Sherman Baldwin, seeks to free the slaves and give them the opportunity to sail back to Africa.  The entire case revolves around where the slaves were originally born.  If it is determined that the slaves were born in Africa and taken against their will, then they will be deemed free.  But if instead they are determined to have been born in Cuba already as slaves, then Spain's hold on them will be legitimized.  President Martin Van Buren wants the case to lean in favor of returning the slaves to Spain, as he wants to keep good relations with Spain and also to maintain strong support from southern slave owners, as he is seeking re-election. Communication between the African slaves and Baldwin is incredibly strained, as  the languages are too vastly different.  In a stroke of luck, the abolitionist team locates an African sailor named James Covey who is able to understand and translate the Cinque's native tongue. This, combined with paper evidence found aboard the ship indicating illegal slave trading, culminates in a courtroom victory for the abolitionists.  Because of this victory though, powerful political figures including John C. Calhoun indicate to Van Buren that if the Abolitionists win the Amistad case that he will lose southern support in his reelection and implies that a war between the north and south would be imminent.  Given this information, Van Buren moves the case up to the supreme court, (to the dismay and anger of the abolitionists and Cinque) which is dominated by southern whites.  The abolitionist team manages to gain the support of former president John Quincey Adams, who gives a powerful speech to the supreme court and sway the decision at this level again in favor of Cinque's group.  Cinque and many of the slaves are then allowed to return to their homeland in Africa.  

       Much of the movie seems accurate to the events that actually transpired in the case.  Big names, including Adams, Van Buren, and Calhoun were indeed involved to some degree in the case.  Backroom political dealings such as the one depicting Calhoun warning of an imminent war between north and south likely occurred (though likely not predicting the civil war).  Some points are dramatized, such as the manner in which Cinque acted throughout the movie, uch of the courtroom dram, or the finding of the evidence aboard the Spanish vessel incriminating the ship owners of illegal slave trading.  Such is to be expected out of any historically based movie, but overall it was well made and remained very true to the actual historical events.  

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr post 15

        At the beginning of this semester I began with an adequate understanding of the time period in American History covered by this course.  This has not changed much at all, other than a slight refinement of knowledge surrounding the Mexican-American war and a few names here and there.  

       Just because I did not exit the class with a wealth of new information does not discredit it though.  Hearing topics discussed multiple times throughout one's life often helps to cement the ideas into one's memory, which I certainly value.  

       The industrial revolution and the civil war are two of the more interesting topics in American history, and while we spent a great deal of time on the civil war, more attention could have been paid to the industrial advancements throughout the time period.  Other than the Industrial revolution though, the topic that intrigued me the most was the idea the professor brought forth regarding the end of the civil war, or the lack thereof.  The professor brought forth the notion that the civil war never truly ended in the US and that many of the modern racial tensions and race riots can be traced chronologically back to, and are thus direct results of, the civil war.  Whether this can be taken as truth remains to be seen, as such an idea requires a wealth of information to validate, but the idea is certainly an intriguing one.  

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr post 13

1. What was the cause of the American Civil War? Why is it that discussion on this topic continue to center around more benign topics such as "state's rights" or "freedom of property?" Can such views ever be changed?

The American Civil war was undeniably caused by the south and their desire to maintain the institution of slavery.  The south's crop system was so vast that it required a very large amount of man power, which the slaves provided at very little cost.  It was the logical choice, assuming basic morals and humanity are not in consideration.  In modern times, it is commonly taught that slavery was not the singular issue over which the Civil War was fought, but rather that other "important" issues were also present at the time such as "state's rights" or "freedom of property."  This is not the case though, as even the southern states were openly for secession over the issue of slavery.  These other issues, though perhaps real in some sense, were never large enough or important enough to wage a war over.  It is possible that said issues being taught in the modern classroom could be a result of an attempt to dissolve resentment among the citizens of our country today.  By providing a perspective that gives the south a less inherently flawed reason for seceding, unnecessary animosity could be prevented in modern America.  This would not be hard to accomplish, as the textbook writers could easily all work in conjunction to provide the same information on this topic, and school systems across the nation attempt to standardize everything already.  This is not a necessarily terrible thing, as in my life I have not seen any noticeable amount of unrest between northern and southern states over the issues of the civil war, and one could potentially attribute some of that to the manner of teaching found in schools today.  Of course, this is just a hypothesis of sorts, but the reasoning seems logical.  If this model were perhaps correct to some degree, and the spread of skewed information were indeed settling potential unrest, then perhaps it is not necessarily a bad thing, and perhaps the views ought not be changed.  Of course with wild ideas like this, there are many inherent flaws, but as a method of explaining the phenomenon, it works. 

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr post 12

2. What is the "Peculiar Institution?" What factors allowed it to manifest itself in the way it did in the American South?

       The phrase "Our Peculiar Institution" originates in the United States and became a popular phrase during the 19th century.  The phrase refers to the institution of slavery, and was used in lieu of the actual word "slavery" at the time due to the fact that many found it to be distasteful, primarily by those involved in politics.  The usage of slaves had existed throughout all of the states early in the development of the country, but as time progressed and industrialization took hold, the northern states began to move away from slave ownership. 

       As the industrial revolution swept the US in the 1800's, it became apparent that there was a substantial decrease in the need for slaves in the north.  The northern states were less inclined to produce crops, as the soil was less fertile and the growing conditions harsher.  The dense population and the lack of quality farming land (quality in comparison to that found in the south anyway) led northern states to shift in line with the industrialization movement and begin manufacturing of more complex goods.  In large factories with big moving parts and poor safety standards, accidents were not uncommon.  Because of this, it was the logical choice of factory owners to use cheap hired foreign labor rather than using purchased and owned slaves for the dangerous labor.  Because the slaves were viewed as property, slave owners would logically keep their slaves (which were monetary investments) out of situations where they could be permanently disfigured or killed.  As such, cheap foreign laborers would be purchased for industrial work, and slaves quickly became obsolete.  The "Black Belt" (a very large area of fertile land in the south) was an important factor in setting the south ahead in terms of agriculture.  Farming was much less dangerous and much more viable in the south, so the allotment of slaves logically skewed towards southern states.  Farming was the largest portion of the southern economy, and slaves played a massive role in it.  

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr Post 9

3. What was the Missouri Compromise? How does this event eventually shape the future of politics in the U.S. up until the Civil War?

In 1820, under the presidency of James Monroe, the representatives of the US states were hosting slave vs. anti-slave debates. The South had a desire for fewer restrictions, so that new states being established in the Louisiana Territory could potentially be slave owning.  This would provide more states that sided with the southern ideals and would ultimately provide more political power in congress. The North had more political power at the time and wished to maintain that.  The issue of the legitimacy and morality of Slavery was also a primary factor in each side's argument.  Ultimately, the Missouri Compromise was decided upon.  

The compromise stated that any territory south of the line shown in the above picture would be legally permitted as a slave state in the new territories.  Missouri, though at the time registering for statehood, would also be permitted as a slave state.  This provided an equal representation in congress while not limiting the slave owning states.  The decision of the Missouri Compromise was considered very important, as it provided a strict guideline for new states.  The decision was also used to settle many debates in the coming years.  It was ultimately overturned in 1857 with the results of the Dred Scott v. Sanford case in the Supreme Court.  The results of the case stated that the Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in new territories, and as such the decision of the Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional.  This led to greater tensions between the northern and southern states and was a contributing factor to the upcoming civil war. 

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr Post 8

1. Describe the differences between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian Democracy. How did these conflicting ideologies lay the foundation for the sectional differences that developed between the North and South.

Despite the warnings of the first president George Washington, political factions began forming within the newly formed United States government.  The leaders of these two parties were members of Washington's own cabinet, namely Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.  On the side of Hamilton, the Federalist party.  

The Federalists believed in a strong centralized government, a connection to the developing world economy, and an industrialized nation.  This is in direct contrast to Jefferson's party, known as the Democratic-Republicans, who pushed for a much less centralized nation and a primarily agricultural and self sufficient society.  These ideologies are so distinctly different that the nation became divided.  The North sided primarily with the federalists, preferring economics and industry, whereas the south worked the farms and thus sided with the democratic-republicans.  This created a substantial division throughout the United States, fostered animosity against the opposing faction, and eventually led the country into the Civil War.  

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips

[amh2010-0008]

Tumblr post 7

3. What were some of the major compromises made during the Constitutional Convention of 1787? Which compromises are still in effect today, and which ones helped foreshadow the American Civil War?

     Having obtained independence from Britain, the newly freed colonies were in need of a new government in order to keep them united.  Not every state was in agreement as to how the new government should be run, which led to many disputes.  In 1787, delegates from each of the former colonies gathered to discuss and put together a constitution to govern their new-found country.  The primary issues arose from different regions of the country which had vastly different ways of life.  In the north, agriculture was not nearly as large an industry as was found in the south.  With agricultural importance in the south also came the need for slaves to work the plantations.  The physical sizes of the southern states were also larger, and the populations were notably higher. So when the discussion for representation of each state came up, the south argued for a population based system, while the north wanted two representatives for every state.  Were either system to have taken place alone, each group would have had an unfair advantage.  The Connecticut compromise was the deciding factor.  The compromise brings forth a bicameral legislature, meaning there are two separate voting bodies. One is determined by population, the other is determined by statehood.  This way, states that have a larger population are able to get a higher representation in one house, and those states that don't have that high population are able to receive equal representation in the other house.  The second important compromise came after the Connecticut compromise and was over the issue of slaves.  The south, having a high slave population as well, wanted ideally to have their slaves count towards representation but not towards taxes, and the north ideally wanted exactly the opposite.  In order to settle this, the 3/5ths compromise was created.  This stated that 3 out of every 5 slaves would count both towards taxation and representation, thus solving the issue for the time being.  This second compromise though led directly to the American Civil war, as it promoted slavery (one of the primary focal points of the war) and treated slaves as 3/5ths of a human.  

Matthew Stansfield-Phillips