Filed under: Art, History | Tags: art history, essay, italian renaissance
Humanism, Renaissance Ideals
and the Philosophical paradox
While the hegemonic influence of Milan grew heavy over the states of Italy, in late 14th century Florence, Greco-Roman nostalgia began to blossom and form the new ideology of the distinctly secular culture of classical humanism. This advent of humanistic philosophy procured a philosophical pluralism that which emerged from the disparity between the Renaissance humanists and their classical (humanist) predecessors in their approach to intellectual advancement. As the new humanists used Greek and Latin classics to realize the caliber of human potential and thus attain intellectual fulfillment versus the old school of thought which chose the Greco-Roman legacy as a foundation for Christian dogma and faith, so was a philosophical chasm of sorts created which subsequently lead to a new status for artists in society. This new, innovative school of thought was founded by a Florentine man who himself was torn between the antiquity of classicism and the new, contemporary renaissance ideals: Francesco Petrarch.
Janson explains in the opening of the chapter, The Early Renaissance in Italy, that “the visual arts were considered essential to the resurgence of the Florentine spirit,” and that there was a drastic change in the outlook of artists as they metamorphosed from being mere ‘craftsmen’ into literate people of ideas appreciated for their creative minds. Janson states that because of the artists new company of scholars and poets they became learned and literary and thus stepped into a new social status. Because the humanists of the Renaissance may be thought of as ‘cultural archaeologists,’ reviving classical ideals and fervently embracing antiquity, how exactly did artists rise against the challenge of former stigmas to embrace a neo-bourgeois way of living? The answer lies primarily in the influence of the artists ‘company,’ most notably the poet and scholar Francesco Petrarch, who brought about a change of artistic perspective through his intellectual and philosophical insight. As the general community began their new secular studies, so did the artistic perspective begin to advance and produce more anatomically objective, scientifically motivated (once the Renaissance moved northward, anyway) pieces.
Known as the father of humanism, Francesco Petrarch was the epitome of the early middle class Florentine humanists. His life as a philosopher related directly to the life of the artist during the early Renaissance because he was torn between his passion for secular antiquity and his admiration of Christian piety. His work reveals a psychic conflict exposed by an unresolved dissonance between the classical will to reason and his Judaeo-Christian will to believe; an attribute of self torment resulting in his image of being a partially medieval man.
As the Renaissance, especially in the beginning stages, affected primarily the elite and had little if any influence on the lower classes, there grew a hiatus in cultural change between social classes. While the bourgeois, upper and elite classes relished in the excitement of cultural renewal and change, the lower classes remained in the middle ages or dealt with a medieval mind set meets early renaissance composite culture. This substantial gap in evolutionary culture between class is evident in the art of the time because the artists had stepped into a new class, as Janson stated, and thus produced a philosophical paradox: with the disparity of cultures, how would artists resolve the conflict between the new renaissancesque secularity and the platonic, Judeo-Christian, we are inherent sinners by nature belief of the past?
In the early Renaissance, before the integration of science, artists coped with this dilemma by turning to Petrarchs’ optimistic philosophy of Renaissance Humanism. His ideas essentially rejected the entire foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and in its place instilled an importance in the nature of man as being inherently good and encouraged people to question religion and learn about history and spirituality outside of the Christian context. By embracing the Petrarch Humanistic Philosophy, artists were able to experiment and make their art more personal rather than confined to the tape set by the church or society. Indeed, humanism introduced a broader sense of freedom prompting artists to be more bold and creative.
The effect of humanism, the combination of classical, Greco-Roman antiquity, personal secularity and the influence of Judeo-Christianity from the past is evident from the start of the Italian renaissance but more prominently at the end near the High Renaissance with the works of Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Rosso, Pontormo and others. During the stages of the early renaissance in Italy, early sculptures like Donatello foreshadowed a decade early the new classical style while scientific perspective began emphasizing the objective reality in two-dimensional art. With the advent of intellectualism and the widespread revival of the classical, worldly ideal of philosophical sophistication, artists were able to start breaking from being practically owned by the church and the elite, narcissistic, portrait loving (paying) class and start being appreciated for their creativity; or at least, like Michelangelo, litigated and positively reinforced by some members with profound influence.
The initiation of Renaissance Humanism by Petrarch, and his philosophy that challenged both the church and major philosophers of the time, assisted artists in emerging from the oppressive societal ideal of what art can and cannot be. Without the challenge in religious — and subsequently aesthetic — philosophy between the new secularism, traditional imperiousness of the church, and the new ideal perspective on the nature of man, artists and their works would have endured continuing creative oppression for many more years.
Filed under: History | Tags: abolition, abraham lincoln, african, american anti-slavery society, american history, confederate, essay, frederick douglass, genesis 9:25, john quincy adams, racism, second great awakening, slavery, sojourner truth, stowe, uncle tom's cabin
PROMPT: Write a very detailed essay about how slavery was abolished in the US. Your discussion of this subject must be based on the following: a description of a minimum of nine people events, documents, wars, ideologies, groups, publications, beliefs, movements, inventions or anything else you feel is pertinent to the abolition of slavery and a description of a minimum of five people, events, documents, wars etc… That helped keep slavery intact.
Slavery has played a role in the history of innumerable societies across the globe but the United States took it to a different place. The birth of the New World under British command initiated the trend of slavery as being an early form of colonialism. In the beginning, Europe and the British did not draw a direct correlation between the concepts of racism and slavery; basically the act of owning another person was conducted solely for economic benefit. Slaves were to be bought, used for personal benefit and then sold as items. Free labor was the greatest opportunity for immense profit in a new land and the originators relied on the early emergence of Eurocentrism and the fundamental values of culture to justify their actions. Subsequently, nourished on the idea of white supremacy and raised to be owners of those unfortunate to be born with tanned skin, the new American culture grew to be racist. In 1865, directly after the Civil War, President Lincoln abolished slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment. Although this portion of history is extremely significant, it represents only a mere branch of the entire political tree that grew from the seed of people, events, wars, documents and beliefs that brought the thirteenth into existence.
First off, to understand why people had to fight for what seems like a natural, obvious, moral right one must understand the condition of the side of the South and their justification of slavery as a rational thing. From the beginning of history there were many white indentured servants however it was not until the US decided to populate its vast amounts of empty territory by Virginians and (more importantly ) plantation owners from Barbados who owned slaves of colour. In the 1660’s England’s ’surplus’ of people was null and the colonists were looking for people to populate land in order to defend territory and make money by charging annual ‘quitrents’ on the land. The wealthy sugar plantation owners from Barbados came with the first labour system containing black chattel slavery. Unlike the white indentured servants, the Africans were forced to work for their entire lives, their children being born into an entire life of servitude. This system of labour, especially with the colonies being so young, helped the American economy grow and prosper; it is because of this that Southerners tried to justify their actions. Its been said that what’s good for a nation isn’t always necessarily good for a/some individual(s.) If a monarchy favouring hereditary succession finds the line of royalty falling into the lap of a young king with a mental birth defect, what’s good for the nation is definitely not him and because of it he more than likely would have an ‘unfortunate’ fatal accident. The Southerners tried to instate a complex of white supremacy in order to get society to think an Africans place was in slavery because darker skin tone was a sign of lower grade human; essentially they pled African genetics were inferior and they could not function as well as whites mentally. However, the undertones of this harsh, false rationalization was money. Profit for themselves (plantation owners) and prosperity for the Americas. These elements, the beginning of Eurocentrism and white supremacy ideologies, were the first important factors in keeping slaves from freedom. Fast forward to early nineteenth century America and delve into the beginning of the era’s sectional feelings. The North favoured free labour, the South primarily slave labour. With the expansion of factories, workshops, canals and railroads, workers often referred to themselves as “slaves of machines” and complained about their condition of making enough money to rent property, but not enough to own and thereby being enslaved by an endless economic tug of war. The white workers had much resentment for the (few) free black competing for their jobs in the open market and thus were not ones for freeing the entire enslaved South, and apologists from the South argued that the Northerners were hypocrites founding their half of the economy with the work of ‘wage slavery.’ This time period was significant because between the North condition of workers and the South’s defense on slavery, it sparked the beginning of a religious awakening that (in addition to others) commenced a staunch abolitionist movement against slavery. Another argument the South tried to pursue involved the book Uncle Toms Cabin and Religion. In response to the book that ultimately turned many Northerners -many of which have never seen a slave- against slavery with its powerful, sympathy evoking representation of the harsh slave life, the South decided to seek justifications for slavery in the Bible. Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterian ministers argued that patriarchs in the Old Testament and the apostle Paul in the New Testament all owned slaves; Paul even pressed a runaway to return to his master. They cited Genesis 9:25:
9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
where Noah cursed his grandson Canaan (his son Ham’s son) and his future descendants to an eternal life of servitude -note that Ham was an ancestor of black Africans- and used this as blatant, divinely ordained justification for racial inequality. There were also several prominent publications such as George Fitzhugh’s proslavery books from the 1850’s and lithographs depicting the favourable contrasts of slavery in Southern America (joyful, dancing, singing Africans) versus slavery in England (small, hunched, unhappy looking white men, usually representing the North.) The South mustered everything they possibly could to try and make slavery look morally right and natural.
Despite the South’s seemingly adequate argument for slavery, the North’s abolitionist views simply made more sense and outnumbered them. With the dawning of the Second Great Awakening and the emotional intensity of the evangelical revivals was bourne the roots of abolitionism; the belief in religious equality and the ability that every soul can obtain salvation. The first official anti-slavery group was formed in 1833 and was named, most properly, the American Anti-Slavery Society. The society (although a bit contradictory as they were reluctant to let Africans hold leadership positions) made the issue of slavery well known to colonists through the distribution of literature called the Great Postal Campaign. This was especially important because it helped broaden the cause by moving a bit away from the evangelical standpoint it had originally been nurtured on and to a more applicable orientation: the ideological and political pedestal. There were also many less direct ways of anti-slavery ideas being introduced to the public such as the views of John Quincy Adams. Originally tolerant of slavery stating, “That the general treatment of slaves is mild and moderate,” he quickly changed his tune when he lost the reelection in 1828 mostly due to the lack of support from southern slaveholders. In 1836 when the House of Representatives presented the gag rule, Quincy was quick to petition and comment on slavery as, “A sin before the sight of God.” Other important aspects to the destruction of slavery involved black abolitionists, Christian ideologies, John Browns Raid, the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin and last but of course not least, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Black abolitionists during the Antebellum reform threw themselves wholeheartedly into the fight for emancipation, two of the most prominent being Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, both extremely effective leaders and public speakers. The Christian ideology of the time involved the self proclaimed thought of Antebellum reformers (white middle classed Protestants) as Christian soldiers (rather than social reformers) engaged in a war over morality and republican principles against the evils of sin and barbarism. John Browns Raid was led by the radical abolitionist John Brown who traveled the North giving lectures and collaborating with fellow abolitionists on plots to bring emancipation to the forefront of political, moral inquiry. In October of 1959 he and his twenty one recruits ventured Southward with the Harpers Ferry national armory as the sub-target, and the incitation of a slave rebellion that would ruin the South as the main priority. Although his raid was rather unsuccessful and he was soon executed, his mindset lived on and his actions were a strong premonition to what would come in the next couple years. The book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was a huge selling point for the abolitionists and with 6.5 million sales worldwide, one of the best selling books of all time. Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the daughter of an evangelical abolitionist minister, the book depicts the gentle, good lives of two slaves and the harsh, evil treatment they received by their master. The Northerners who read the book (most of which had never seen a slave before) based their impressions on slavery solely off of its sympathy and compassion starved notes and began looking toward abolitionism. In 1862 Lincoln made comments that Stowe was the woman who “wrote the book that made this Great War.” Which segways into the four most distinguishing symbols of the anti-slavery movement (or the end to it, anyway): Abraham Lincoln and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Lincoln was an incredible leader with a great sense of balance… he was anti-slavery yet didn’t make it the largest of his political viewpoints until it was safe to do so, he was able to maneuver through the civil war to a victory, strengthen the US constitution, keep the union together and bring justice to all. With the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, slavery became illegal, all people born in the US from then on became natural citizens and no one from then on would be denied the ability to vote based off of (most importantly) race and color. Lincoln brought about and fought through victoriously possibly the most important era of American history… the divide between early American Independence and establishment and the beginning of the modern age and the industrial era (brought about by the necessary civil war that taught Americans how to mass produce), the shift of government control from emphasis on states to central state authority and into a country experiencing a new birth of freedom.
Filed under: History | Tags: american history, american renaissance, andrew jackson, democracy, essay, henry thoreau, jacksonian democracy, martin van burens, rise of the common man, romanticism
PROMPT: Write a detailed essay on the subject of “Jacksonian Democracy” that includes the answers to the following statements and questions: what is meant by the ‘Rise of the Common Man’, what was the influence of this belief on the politics of the United States, who were two presidents that represented this movement and why, how is the “The Rise of the Common Man” part of the Romantic Era and Relate “The Rise of the Common Man” to one other component of the Romantic Era.
The Rise of the Common Man refers to the principle philosophy of Andrew Jackson’s beliefs, most notably his fight for a completely democratic political system. Although thoughts of solid democracy were very common among the people during the time, Jackson was the confident figure needed to portray the picture politically and set forth the map of trails to a nation for the people.
The Rise of the Common Man was to bring the people into politics and have their own thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others in other classes (that may cause corruption of the system and manipulation of the people) to the forefront of electoral matters and government philosophies. Jackson’s election in 1828 and Martin Van Burens in 1836, the two presidents that represented the entire movement, signaled the start of a new age of government run by the people, for the people. The influences of their beliefs on the politics of the US were profound and included the movement toward universal white male suffrage and the qualifications for voting, a new nature of political campaigns, less monarchical like presidential terms and the addressing of the immorality of the exploitative rich to poor gap. They vowed to protect states’ rights, pay off the national debt, adopt policies concerning tariffs and internal improvements and stated that, “those abuses that have brought the patronage of the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and… have placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands,” would be reformed and that the power would return to the people. Jackson believed that the key government officials should be directly elected by the people, that there should be an end to elitism and special privilege in government (i.e. presidential appointments should last no longer than four years), and he pressed for the vanquishment of the electoral college. He opposed the re-charter of the Bank feeling it was used as a tool by the rich to oppress the poor and because it foreclosed the mortgages on farmers (however there were also levels of personal spit such as the fact that Biddle made several loans to anti-Jackson politicians.) In effect he removed government deposits and placed them in the local banks, destroying the US Bank; this caused money in circulation to increase by nearly 300%, loans made increased 400%, inflation rose as loans were made to prospective land buyers and sales of western land increased from 4 million acres in 1832 to 20 million acres in 1836, states borrowed money for internal improvements, Jackson distributed the federal government surpluses to the states (stimulating even more spending and inflation) and in an attempt to check the spiraling inflation he issued the specie circular which required gold and silver for land purchases. He advocated the right of every white male to vote regardless of whether he owns land or not and rallied a LOT of supporters with the help of John C. Calhoun and especially Van Buren for his assembling coalitions of supporters in the East, South and Western interest groups.
The Rise of the Common Man was considered part of the Romantic Era for several reasons. The textbook defines Romanticism as the following:
Romanticism: Philosophical, literary and artistic movement of the nineteenth century that was largely a reaction to the rationalism of the previous century; romantics valued emotion, mysticism and individualism.
The ‘American Renaissance’ as many call it, was a time of excitement over the new found human possibilities and high regard for human individualistic ego. Romanticism invokes senses of infinite possibilities, liberalism, lofty ideas and everything opposite of realism. Although the term usually refers to music, art and literature (during the American Romantic Era, great works of literature were especially abundant) the term may also refer quite passionately to nationalism. During the American Romantic Era the newly independent people were looking for ways to express themselves to produce a sense of nationalism that could be attributed to the long for the evolution of democracy and the solidification of the US constitution. The Rise of the Common Man was partially the result of the people expressing themselves as a people involved in government and politics and the eagerness to create a category of US nationalism. This could be compared to the literary essay ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Henry David Thoreau. As a writer during the Romantic Era, Thoreau expressed his beliefs explicitly exclaiming the moral wrongs of slavery and his belief that people have permitted government to overrule their own consciences when they could in fact be the ones taking things into their own hands. His work, in addition to the other events that happened during the time period, demonstrated the people’s strong liberal tendency during the Romantic Era. They wanted changes and their expression through aesthetics, art, music, nationalism… everything… demonstrated just that.
Filed under: History | Tags: essay, american history, civil war, battle, bull run, antietam, gettysburg, atlanta, five forks
PROMT: Choose the five most important battles of the Civil War then for each of the five write a minimum of three detailed reasons as to why the battle was significant. The reasons you choose may be based on a military, economic, political, diplomatic, psychological or any other factor you feel is relevant to the outcome of the war.
The American Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865. Throughout the war between the states there were many battles five of which proved to be substantially more significant that the rest: the first battle of Bull Run (July 1861), the battle of Antietam (September 1862), the battle of Gettysburg (July 1863), the battle of Atlanta (September 1864) and the Battle of Five Forks (April 1865.)
The first shots of the America Civil War were heard on July 21st 1861. The Battle of Bull Run took place at a railroad junction in Manassas (also called Bull Run); the junction connected Richmond with the farmlands and ironworks of Shendandoah Valley. The instances of importance for this battle were innumerable. For one it was the initial battle of the entire war and because of the nature of circumstance and outcome, it radically changed the premonitions of both sides. The North had the advantage of resource, basically the entire manufacturing industry that included the production of firearms, iron, cloth, transportation vehicles (i.e. locomotives) and boots among many other items, number of fighting aged males and perhaps most importantly the sheer number of white males as opposed to slaves i.e. the South would have to worry about loyalty and conspiracy issues since the majority of the population would be fighting against their own freedom. However despite the fact that the able, fighting white men of the north outnumbered that of the South, the able white men the Southern states did have were better trained for warfare and more accustomed to the arduous type of condition of combat due to the rough nature of agrarian work (as opposed to factory work in manufacturing up north.) The agrarian state of the South also proved their advantage with food availability however its inferior railroad system would prove detrimental to carrying it along with other supplies to the war areas. Although there are some other details such as the Confederate armies receiving aid from London in exchange for cotton (the Union blockade seemed to be ineffective in the beginning on average letting nine out of ten ships pass…) and the looting of Harpers Ferry Armory, for the most part the previously stated original conditions of the North and South were the primary causes for both sides feeling they had a paramount army and greater chance at winning. This false sense of confidence and personal security in themselves also led to both sides believing the rebellion would last a mere few months. This battle was significant because it set the stage for a four year war rather than the bit of short rebellious activity originally anticipated (with a Confederate victory, motivation at an all time high and the positive reinforcement of battle and success they obviously weren’t about to back down straight away.) It laid out a better picture for the North on just how hard they were going to have to work despite blatant naval advantages and seemingly obvious land (army) advantages (as they hadn’t expected the South to be so strong since they did not know about the aid from London) and post-battle the framework for the emancipation proclamation began to build which soon became the obvious essence of the war itself. Things were a bit slow at first only because Lincoln was clever and realized that by pleading both sides of the emancipation proclamation at first he would rally an enormous crowd as opposed to being extremely radical and making the people feel uncomfortable. Also, the abolishing of slavery obviously would entice blacks into joining the quest for freedom and since blacks made up the majority of the Southern army… the North would inevitably have an advantage which appeased the skeptics of the Northern public who otherwise may not have supported the Union or war itself.
In September of 1862 the battle of Antietam in Maryland began. If one combined all of the American casualties from the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War… they would only amount to half of the number of casualties killed in one day. The most lethal day of the American Civil War ended in a tie. This battle was extremely significant because had the outcome been slightly different, America would have encountered a radical change: the Confederacy would have won, the emancipation proclamation would have never been introduced and in effect the philosophy of the constitution and the founding fathers would not be fulfilled. Because the battle ended in a tie, the aftermath consisted of a neo-stalemate where the Confederate armies awaited attack only to encounter a brief air of post-militant neutrality; Lee took advantage of this time to withdraw and avoid possible annihilation. Had he not done so, had he taken advantage of the fact that they were twenty miles from Washington and invaded (presumably with an attempt to persuade voters to throw Lincoln’s supporters out of office what with the upcoming election two months away) then the fate of the outcome of the war would have been dramatically different. Britain and France were diplomatically watching Lee and the Confederates’ moves with the possibility of foreign intervention (on the side of the South) and official recognition of the Confederacy in mind. Obviously after hearing of Lee’s actions they decided nay on both accounts. A couple other reasons why the battle of Antietam was significant include that the battle was the first to lay down the foundation for modern warfare in a mass production, industrial based scheme (large armies with massive quantities of arms, ammo and other militia supplies), it was the first battle that witnessed the use of repeating rifles, submarines, mines and machine guns forcing the strategy of armed conflict to change, and last but not least it created a social tension and political involvement with warfare in that the armies took governmental disputes and filtered down to the people, average citizens, behind enemy lines and conglomerated them into the conceptual enemy of philosophical right and governmental doctrine. General William Tecumseh illustrated this well saying that, “When one nation is at war with another, all the people of the one are the enemies of the other… [armies were ordered] to destroy all depots of supplies of the rebel army, all manufactories (public or private) of guns, ammunition, equipment and clothing or their use.”
In July of 1863 Lee and the Confederate army headed toward Pennsylvania in hopes of invading Harrisburg, the capitol of the state and the home of a large railroad center that went from the Midwest to the east coast. Intercepted by the Army of the Potomac in Gettysburg, the forces of the North and South made this new battle the largest and most important battle of the entire Civil War. The Union forces strategically stayed on high ground a bit South of Gettysburg offering not only an advantage in numbers, but in position as well. Near the end of the battle Lee ordered his army to charge the center of the Union lines at Cemetery Ridge, PA. This move became known as Pickett’s Charge and it claimed nearly half of Lee’s men; the battle was an absolute catastrophe for the Confederates. More than one third of the army of the South was lost and Lee blamed himself; he asked Jefferson Davis to replace him but he refused despite his tactful strategies and successful time in combat in 1846. The battle of Gettysburg is interesting because, like in the battle of Antietam, the Union had at least a slight if not rather sizable advantage over the South… yet Lee and the Confederates were once again allowed to flee back into Virginia. Lincoln, obviously frustrated by now did in fact write General George Gordon Meade (leader of the battle of Gettysburg for the Union) exclaiming that, “Your golden opportunity is gone.” But why didn’t Lincoln make it absolutely clear from the beginning his intentions for the Union to demolish the South as soon as possible? What would have happened if the Union attempted a blockade since the Confederates had to pass the Potomac River and would be slowed down and relatively easy to capture? How would Davis have handled the war in first person combat? The battle of Gettysburg is so significant mainly because of the sheer amount of variables that could have changed the outcome of the war. Its been agreed upon that the Confederates retreat at Gettysburg along with the fall out of Vicksburg began the end of the Civil War. The two possibly most significant parts of this battle included the surrender of Port Hudson (the last Southern hold on the Mississippi River) and Lincolns Gettysburg Address. The famous Gettysburg Address speech was delivered on November 18th by Lincoln and its inspirational tenor helped keep the Army of the Potomac determined for victory; it has since been recognized as the greatest speech ever made by an American politician.
On September 2nd, 1864 Lincoln received a telegram in Washington stating that, “Atlanta is ours, and fairly won.” The battle of Atlanta was fought between General Sherman for the Union and General Johnston (later General Hood) for the South and ended in a strong Union victory and the capture of Atlanta. The importance of this battle was great because with the upcoming election only a few months away and the detrimental psychological effects of war on Lincolns followers beginning to harden and sculpt skeptics out of the people, a victory was needed to keep people content, Lincoln in office, and the philosophies of the American Constitution at the forefront. It has been said that the key to victory for either side during the war resided in the ability to break the other side’s will to fight. Without an adequate amount of victories, finding motivation would be hard and the daunted people would inevitably rebel and stop supporting the war. The capture of Atlanta boosted the spirits of the Union just in time for the election and Lincoln won with 55% of the popular vote and a 212-21 margin over McClellan in the Electoral College. Had there been no victory the newspaper headlines addressing Lincoln’s beliefs as “negro mania” may have overwhelmed the president’s reputation and subsequently possibly changed our entire history of freedom and quality. Other less critical items included the state of Atlanta in that it harbored a very important railroad hub and industrial center for the Confederacy, the taking of which would be felt exponentially harder in the South than had the same thing happened in the more industrial centered North and also the amount of Confederate casualties claimed that would be one of the last strings to pull from the war for surrender (the Union suffered about 3,500 deaths as opposed to the South with a staggering 8,500 claimed out of their already smaller militia.)
Last but certainly not least is the Battle of Five Forks, or the mark of the end of the Civil War. On April 2nd, 1865 Grant launched an attack on Lee’s army of Confederates (the last force left of the South) resulting in Lee’s surrender a week later on April 9th. This was a major battle because even before surrender it seemed likely that the Union would win. With all the uncertainty throughout the war, Lee’s understanding of the impertinent sacrifice of both Petersburg and the Confederate capitol, Richmond was the strongest indication of the war turning to favour the North. Outnumbered, without ally, industry and resources the South finally began rationalizing their decisions in warfare and ultimately came to surrender… without a capitol, the very land and epitome of Southern symbolic values, what was there to fight for? The odds seemed against them military wise and the people were drained both psychologically and economically. The last battle was of dire importance because without the ending it had the South perhaps could have escaped successfully and rebuilt their army; fortunately for everyone’s future, the Battle of Five Forks proved that adversity was at an all time high for Davis, Lee and the Confederates, and it was finally time to give up. Confirmed on April 11th with Lincolns address of peace, the end of the war reinstated the natural philosophy of the United States Constitution of man being equal and free, the rights we as Americans benefit from and cherish to this day.
In conclusion, the American Civil war held many battles that although not blatantly obvious at the time, held within themselves intrinsic details consequentially affecting the outcome of the war and more importantly, standard American political ethics and values.
Filed under: History | Tags: acquisitions, america, american history, annexation, essay, gadsden purchase, guana act, louisiana purchase, mexican cession, oregon territory, territorial, territory, texas annexation, treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, US
PROMPT: List all of the territorial acquisitions made by the United States between 1803 and 1877. Write a detailed account of how the US acquired each of the territories. You must also be able to discuss Manifest Destiny and all the controversy that surrounded it.
The earliest and largest territorial acquisition made by the United States was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. This area was considerably alluring to many powers including Spain and the French, the latter of which controlled the area for the majority of the colonial period up until 1763. Unfortunately, 1789-1799 was the heart of the French Revolution and weak after their defeat in the Seven Years’ War, the bit of naval conflict in the Quasi Wars that lasted until 1800, and the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars with Britain, the Louisiana area changed hands quite a few times.
After being in the hands of France for the majority of the 18th century Louisiana was yielded to Spain in 1763 following their vanquishment in the Seven Years’ War. This left the third president, Thomas Jefferson, in a sedated state of content, sure that the land will be ready for the taking in the future whenever American westward expansion was needed. What Jefferson did not know is that in May 1801 Spain had given Louisiana (in addition to New Orleans) back France which was then being run by Napoleon Bonaparte. This became evident when in 1802 New Orleans and everything south of the Mississippi closed their ports to American trade. Because the majority of westerners shipped products east through New Orleans, Americans were outraged and urged Jefferson to take action against the French. Fortunately the United States had friendly connections with the islands (such as Haiti) and they were supportive in keeping France off. This led to Napoleon offering Livingston and Monroe (the ambassador of France and a friend and ally of Jefferson) all of Louisiana AND New Orleans for $15 million. Napoleon needed the finances for the renewed war with Britain (Napoleonic War) and for three cents an acre and a peaceful agreement, the deal was one that the US could not refuse and the papers were signed on April 30th 1803. Although Jefferson, a man of the constitution, never held that the purchase was constitutional due to the timing and lack of a proper amendment addressing new territory, the Louisiana Purchase is thought to be one of the greatest achievements of his presidency. The need, whether based off of manifest destiny (the controversial philosophy that it was only natural that the inhabitants of the American lands were destined or fated to acquire the entire continent) to span sea to sea or the hopes of raw materials, the fur trade, agriculture prosperity or adequate defensible borders in addition to the urgent, expedited nature of the deal all justify the presidents’ breaching of personal philosophy.
After the Louisiana Purchase and despite the Embargo Act flop, a failed attempt at neutrality in European affairs, the explorers of the United States continued to drudge on. Lewis and Clark documented their western findings and in 1805 Lieutenant Zebulon Pike began to probe the headwaters of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. After exploring the Arkansas Rivers source in what’s now southern Colorado he for reasons unknown began exploring the desert and headwaters of the Rio Grande. He was soon caught by Spanish troops who returned him to the border. What’s interesting about this is that the doctrine for the Louisiana Purchase wasn’t extremely clear so there was a lot of speculation as to whether or not West Florida was part of the deal and respectively, part of the United States. What with borders swaying and portions of land changing hands several times before the final settlement the nations did not know to whom the land rightly belonged. Spain felt the Louisiana Purchase itself was illegal as Napoleon had told them it would not be sold so West Florida was worth a great deal to them and would not be given up easily; this led to an array of arguments and conspiracy ultimately ending in the Transcontinental Treaty stating that all of Florida would be American territory and in turn the United States would acknowledge Texas as ruled by Spain as of February 22, 1819.
After the War of 1812, the expansion of the United States took off at a remarkable pace; between 1816 and 1821 Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine and Missouri all joined the union. With the ending of the war removing all foreign power in US territory, the Indians had little comfort in knowing that it was only in time that the Americans would take over their land without the protection of Britain. The majority of Indians including the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles surrendered their land in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to the Americans however some did resist resulting in the Indian Removal Act in 1830 and a war with the Seminoles in Florida.
Up until the 1840’s Texas, New Mexico, California and Oregon were considered vast, unknown regions with claims of ownership disputable between the US and Britain. However the Texas annexation in 1845, the establishment of American title to Oregon Territory in 1846, the Mexican cession of 1848, the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in 1853, the purchase of Alaska, and the annexation of Hawaii brought the land area of the United States to its present boundaries. The Oregon Territory was settled with The Oregon treaty with Great Britain, the Mexican Cession was a purchase from Mexico following the American-Mexican War ($15 million and $3.25 million in assumed claims) the Gadsden Purchase cost $10 million (paid to Mexico), Alaska was purchased in 1867 from Russia for $7.2 million but didn’t achieve statehood until 1959 and the Hawaiian Islands were acquired in 1898 as an annexation of independent republic that received statehood in 1959 with Alaska. The new States were admitted into the Union by acts of Congress (usually) by petition of the citizens residing in the territories in question. The boundaries of these States were defined in the enabling acts (however for some States, notably Missouri and Texas, the boundaries were changed by subsequent legislation) as opposed to the thirteen original states that which were not defined by acts of ratification but rather established by the crown or by mutual agreement.
The Texas annexation, Mexican cession and Gadsden Purchase were all rather complicated and shall be further elaborated on. The Texas annexation was a peculiar situation because it started directly after the Texas revolution ended with the freshly elected House president Houston (of the republic of Texas) almost pleading with Jackson to annex Texas as soon as possible… however it was near the end of Jacksons term, the self elected Van Buren was next in line (who was also opposed to slavery and Texas was still pre-abolition) and the economy was still in a steep downward fall. Jackson decided nay on the annexation but on March 2, 1837 he did sign a document officially recognizing it as a sovereign state. After dabbling a bit in Oregon and California, the independent Texas, along with portions of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado were annexed and became part of the US. This led to controversy because Mexico barred the move illegal as they still felt Texas was part of Mexico rather than independent; subsequently this led to the Mexican-American War. Wilmot Proviso, who prohibited slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico, and President polk fought with Mexico all around the Rio Grande and throughout the rugged Mexican Terrain while dealing with the new settlers of California. The war ended with the Mexican cession in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Polks reluctant compliance to taking all of California, Nevada, Utah, portions of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming ( also established was the Texas-Mexican border with the Rio Grande) instead of all that in addition to all of Mexico as some had hoped. America’s Manifest Destiny, the long to span ’sea to sea’ was fulfilled (at least for a short time.) The war with Mexico also served as a precursor to the full realization of America’s strengths of being an industrialist nation and a technologically advanced country that would be revealed more later on in the Civil War. Another significant geographic event was the Gadsden Purchase. After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo tensions with Mexico were at an all time high because the US was trying to build a southern transcontinental railroad and needed the land of the present day states Arizona and New Mexico to do so. Fortunately after negotiation and some conflict with private companies, the land needed for the railroad was sold to the US under the condition that they would help with the native american attacks.
There were also many other smaller, often disputed acquisitions such as the islands claimed under the Guana Act of 1856 that included Baker Island, Howland Island, Navassa Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll and the Midway Islands. After 1877 the US continued to take on more islands such as Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, The Federated States of Micronesia… etc etc many of which are self governing, unincorporated or uninhabited.
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics, Philosophy | Tags: biography, capitalism, china, culture, essay, fredric jameson, Globalization, ideology, liu kang, marxism, modernity, Philosophy, politics, revolution, xiaobing tang
Liu Kang and Fredric Jameson
Work: Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China: Theoretical Interventions and Cultural Critique
Authors: Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang (with a foreword by Fredric Jameson)
Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=0tqn4W3ohgQC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=fredric+jameson+politics+ideology+and+literary+discourse+in+modern+china&source=web&ots=NVKrdelLP8&sig=-fBJVLQF10_Sg7OVTlii7LpsJCo&hl=en#PPP10,M1
In the work Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China by Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang, Fredric Jameson writes a forward prompting readers to look into the possibility of China starting over, reinventing its culture yet again, in an effort to warm readers up for the deep, engaging theories and philosophies of Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang later on. Jameson points out that despite the past trend of cultural rebirths ending in cul de sacs, for China to make a fresh start now would be easier and much more inclined to succeed because of the obliteration of tradition from the past revolutions. Generally, Jameson focuses on the traditional place of hegemony in Chinese culture and China and the impact of euro-centrism stating that, “Intellectuals confront opportunities and can have a sense of mission instructively different from obtains in Eastern Europe, where a dogmatic belief in Western political and economic paradigms is coupled with an utter loss of hope in the prospects for modernization as a total social process.”
In the forward, Jameson speaks of the third world intellectuals highly and often to demonstrate his belief that they, the young generation of literary theorist scholars of the PRC (including their colleagues in Hong Kong and Taiwan), despite the effects on hegemony and the obliteration of the bourgeoisie during Mao’s communist reign, will be the ones to see fully the crippling effects of western influence from the past and use that wisdom to prevent more cultural imperialistic attacks in the future. He states that, “As for the traditions of pre modern national culture, socialism clearly broke the mould of those patterns, only later on obligingly breaking the mould of its own (Maoist) ones.” Jameson makes many predictions as to what may happen in Chinas future, especially what with the freedom of intellectuals now, but also subtly (yet lengthily) illustrates his faith in the theory that revolution is a counter analytical measure in the debate of a uniform globalistic system of modernity. Jameson, as well as Liu Kang (which is probably why he mentions Jameson so often in his essay on Modernity in China), both firmly believe that a fundamental aspect of revolution involves questioning whether the system in effect is correct and just…essentially this unrelenting curiosity debating what is best by the cultural revolutionaries eventually and inevitably leads to change, i.e. revolution.
In Kang’s essay, ‘Debates about Modernity in China’ in the book The Cultures of Globalization, Kang quotes Jameson saying that, “We need a non-Euclidean geometry to conceptualize a space where China is situated. A global or geographical term is needed for the ways in which chronological nonsynchronicity manifests itself in a spatial and even national form.” This strongly exemplifies the politically liberal character of both Kang and Jameson suggesting that China develop a political, economic and cultural structure that which is a sturdy framework yet not strictly by the book liberal or Western (to preserve the traditional culture of China and it’s lengthy history.) Essentially one of the main points both texts emphasis is the conflict presented by the culturally imperialistic ways of the West on China and the fact that modernity in some ways does exist in the country therefore there must be an alternative to Westernized, capitalistic globalization. Although some Western culture is inevitable, media should be monitored and questioned to form a semi resistance in efforts to prevent corruption of the system. Neither author pushes any one specific form of government, but rather pushes their faith in any system that uses checks and balances to prevent corrupt, fraudulent practices.
When describing revolution among many things pertaining to identity, nationalism, modernism etc…rather than audaciously advising the adoption of a set standard framework, Jameson often uses a viewpoint heavily influenced by philosophy (especially, in this text, in relation to subjectivity and political revolution.) To lead into a heavy philosophical section of subjectivity regarding political structure in his forward, Jameson first begins to explain his opinion on postmodernism with the statement, “Unlike modernism, however which was specifically Western and marked as an import, postmodernism in its very nature can and always is home-grown, its pluralist celebration of difference constituting an immediate authorization of local cultural production over imports, whether from the outside or from the national power centers themselves. Nor can the theory of postmodernism be said to be Western exactly, for it arrived in Europe as an import…” this further exemplifies (pertaining to previous statements above) his feeling that there is always, at least a partial anyway, alternative to 100% cultural, political and economic reform. When speaking of identity Jameson often speaks of the ‘center’ and explains that even “decentered” subjects may obtain a powerful identity. He later goes on to say that the center has something to learn from the outer margin and that essentially all the ‘center’ is is a constitutive blindness repressing all the utmost political importance’s within itself identified as ‘nationalisms;’ therefore Chinese national subject is a derivative of the psychic or subjective and it is because of this intervention on debates over subjectivity and identity that has led China to search for an alternative rather than look at the possibility of effective difference outside in other social formations and other systems of production.
On the Author (of the Forward)
Fredric Jameson
Fredric Jameson is a contemporary neo-Marxist writer and a literary critic with strong roots in politics and philosophy. First focusing his writing and studies on the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, Jameson developed a reputation as being an anarchist-like intellectual against the establishment of literature and structural literary criticism. Jameson began thinking outside of the box and took on a new perspective truly his own when writing and analyzing the work of others. In the 1960’s he began studying and published several works on Marxism, capitalism, postmodernity, fascism etc…he added a branch of high political tone to his intellectually blooming philosophical tree of thought. Although he emphasized many different dimensions of thought in his works, he often focused on the way literary works are placed in historical sequences and analyzed the way history affects and creates literary work…thus his works on predicting the effects of globalization by comparing the past of a country with the past of a previously similar country plus given variable plus outcome of said latter country. Jameson’s theology and overall intellect have made many important contributions to the scholarly society of politics and philosophy. He urges readers to think deeper and more abstractly about contemporary issues and justifies and rationalizes a firm case in even the most ambiguous of debates.
