Chapter 5 Flashcards
Page 1
The American victory over the British army became possible because many white males were already armed, with nearly all possessing guns and shooting skills. Revolutionary leaders, though wary of the impoverished masses, recognized that the Revolution lacked appeal for slaves and Indians, necessitating the wooing of the armed white population.
However, garnering widespread enthusiasm for the war proved challenging. While a considerable portion of the white male population engaged in military service during the conflict, only a fraction remained committed. John Shy’s Revolutionary army study suggests about a fifth of the population may have been actively treasonous, with John Adams estimating a third opposed, a third supportive, and a third neutral.
Alexander Hamilton, a close aide to George Washington, expressed frustration at the populace’s passivity, stating they possessed the “folly of the ass and the passiveness of the sheep.” He believed salvation depended on France and Spain.
In the South, slavery complicated matters, hindering South Carolina’s ability to resist the British due to the need to use the militia for slave control.
The early colonial militia comprised respectable individuals, but desperation led to the recruitment of less reputable whites. Massachusetts and Virginia even drafted “strollers” (vagrants) into the militia. Military service became a source of promise for the poor, offering a chance to rise in rank, acquire money, and change social status.
This recruitment strategy was a traditional method used by those in power to mobilize and discipline a resistant population—enticing the poor with the adventure and rewards of military service for a cause they might not fully understand.
An American lieutenant at Bunker Hill, once a shoemaker, revealed his motivations for joining the rebel forces—ambition, a desire for promotion, and a chance to rise in rank. The broader dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies was of little concern to him.
Page 2
John Shy delved into the post-Bunker Hill experiences of William Scott, a lieutenant from Peterborough, New Hampshire. After a year as a British prisoner, Scott escaped, rejoined the American army, fought in New York battles, faced capture again, and escaped by swimming the Hudson River one night with his sword tied around his neck and his watch pinned to his hat. Returning to New Hampshire, he formed a company, fought in various battles, and witnessed his eldest son’s death from camp fever after six years of service. Financial hardships followed as he sold his farm for a note that became worthless with inflation. Post-war, he gained recognition for saving people from drowning but succumbed to fever in 1796 while surveying western lands.
Scott exemplified many Revolutionary fighters, often from lower military ranks and humble backgrounds. Shy’s study of the Peterborough contingent revealed that prominent citizens served briefly in the war, mirroring patterns in other American towns. Shy noted, “Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in its time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of them did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783: A very old story.”
The military conflict, overshadowing all else, prompted people to choose sides in the crucial public contest. Ruling elites, knowingly or unknowingly, grasped that war ensured internal security across generations. Military preparation coerced neutral individuals to support the Revolution, culminating in a seeming democratization of military forces with conscription, mainly acknowledging wealth. Recalling British impressment riots, the American navy engaged in impressment by 1779, with fears of its adverse effects noted by a Pennsylvania official.
Observing the disciplined Washington’s army, a Concord chaplain remarked on the strict governance, emphasizing distinctions between officers and men. While Americans faced initial defeats at Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, and the Deep South, they secured victories in smaller battles like Trenton and Princeton. A pivotal moment came at Saratoga, New York.
Page 3
During a tough winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, George Washington’s army endured hardships. Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin negotiated an alliance with the French monarch, eager for revenge on England. The war shifted to the South, where the British claimed numerous victories. Eventually, the Americans, assisted by a sizable French army and a naval blockade, secured the decisive victory at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781.
Throughout these events, conflicts between the rich and poor Americans persisted. In wartime Philadelphia, described by Eric Foner as a period of immense profits for some and severe hardships for others, inflation led to agitation. A newspaper referenced European actions during bread scarcity, hinting at potential unrest. In May 1779, the First Company of Philadelphia Artillery petitioned against troubles faced by the “middling and poor,” threatening violence against those seeking wealth at the expense of the virtuous. A mass meeting in the same month called for price reductions and investigated accusations against Robert Morris, a wealthy Philadelphian. In October, the “Fort Wilson riot” involved a militia group confronting James Wilson, a wealthy lawyer opposing price controls and the democratic constitution.
While most white colonists, with some or no land, initially aligned with the Revolution, the growing bitterness of war strained their loyalty. About 10% of the white population, primarily large landholders and merchants, owned significant wealth and slaves. The Continental Congress, governing through the war, was dominated by rich men connected through business and family ties, linking regions across the country. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was connected to the Adamses of Massachusetts and the Shippens of Pennsylvania. Delegates from middle and southern colonies were linked to Pennsylvania’s Robert Morris through commerce and land speculation, with Morris serving as superintendent of finance, assisted by Gouverneur Morris.
Page 4
Morris aimed to reassure those who lent money to the Continental Congress and gain officers’ support by promising half-pay for life. However, this neglected the common soldier facing unpaid wages, harsh conditions, and watching others profit. On New Year’s Day, 1781, Pennsylvania troops, perhaps fueled by rum, dispersed officers, killed one, and marched towards the Continental Congress at Philadelphia.
Washington, cautious of rebellion, advised restraint. He urged General Anthony Wayne to gather soldiers’ grievances, ensuring Congress stayed in Philadelphia to prevent wider unrest. Washington prepared to march on the mutineers if needed. A peace deal discharged half the men, while others received furloughs.
A subsequent mutiny involved two hundred men from the New Jersey Line. Washington, prepared this time, sent well-fed troops to disarm them. Three ringleaders faced trial, one pardoned, two executed as an example.
Two years later, post-war, an eighty-soldier mutiny in the Pennsylvania line forced Congress to flee. Civilian rebellions were more common. The Revolution fueled civil conflicts in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and to a lesser extent, Virginia. Maryland’s constitution of 1776 excluded 90% from office, causing social tensions.
In Maryland, small slaveholders, non-slaveholding planters, tenants, renters, and day laborers posed challenges for the Whig elite. Fear of slave revolts increased, with 25% of the population enslaved. Washington rejected requests from blacks seeking freedom to fight in the Revolutionary army.
When Lord Dunmore promised freedom to Virginia slaves joining the British, concerns grew. Poor whites were disarmed for encouraging runaway slaves. The Revolution’s impact on social dynamics persisted, revealing conflicts between classes and races.
Page 5
In Maryland, there was unsettling white rioting against leading families supporting the Revolution, suspected of hoarding needed items. Some disloyal people expressed class hatred, suggesting it was better to pay duties and taxes than face slavery. Wealthy landowner Charles Carroll noted envy among citizens.
Despite the tension, Maryland authorities maintained control by making concessions, taxing land and slaves more, and allowing debtors to pay in paper money. This sacrifice by the upper class helped keep power.
In the Carolinas and Georgia, vast regions lacked authority. Many common people refused to participate in a seemingly irrelevant war. Nathanael Greene, Washington’s commander in the lower South, used a mix of concessions and brutality to deal with disloyalty.
Throughout the states, new constitutions from 1776 to 1780 were similar to the old ones, with minimal concessions. While property qualifications for voting and holding office decreased in some places, Massachusetts increased them, and only Pennsylvania abolished them completely. Bills of rights had modifying provisions to avoid possible abuse.
The American Revolution is credited with separating church and state, but after 1776, the northern states imposed taxes supporting Christian teachings. Land confiscated from fleeing Loyalists was distributed to enrich Revolutionary leaders and create a broad base of support. The new nation’s enormous wealth allowed the creation of the richest ruling class, with a buffer of middle classes between the rich and dispossessed.
Page 6
Before the Revolution, large landholdings of Loyalists motivated the fight for independence. Notable figures like Lord Fairfax had vast acres, and after the war, some absent Loyalists faced land confiscation. In New York, freeholding small farmers increased, reducing tenant farmers.
While independent farmers increased, the overall class structure remained stable, with merchant families of major cities adapting to personnel changes. The Revolution, often seen as a contest involving lower ranks, was essentially an upper-class struggle for power.
The post-Revolution era showed persistent inequality, and the term “We the people” didn’t include Indians, blacks, women, or white servants. The rebellion did little to end white bondage, and the revolutionary leaders belonged to the colonial ruling class, like George Washington, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin.
However, the Revolution’s rhetoric, military camaraderie, and land distribution united town mechanics, laborers, seamen, and small farmers, creating a national consensus labeled as “America.” In Dutchess County, New York, during the Revolution, struggles over confiscated lands were mainly among elite groups, exploiting tenant grievances for political gain.
Page 7
During the Revolution, promises of land were made to tenants to encourage enlistment. However, as soldiers, they received meager pay compared to government contractors who became wealthy. Frustration grew, leading to many tenants refusing to pay rent. The legislature responded by confiscating Loyalist land, creating new freeholders, a significant voting bloc.
This group, initially anti-Federalists, later supported the Constitution, influencing its adoption in New York. The new freeholders, once tenants, now faced mortgage payments to banks. The rebellion allowed a colonial elite to replace those loyal to England, benefiting some small landholders but leaving poor white workers and tenant farmers in similar situations.
For Native Americans, the Revolution brought no equality or consideration. The Americans, now free from British control, pursued their own imperialism in the West. Conflict arose as settlers moved westward, breaking earlier agreements and pressuring tribes like the Covenant Chain in the Ohio River valley. The pre-existing peaceful coexistence with the colonies deteriorated, leading to displacement and violence against Native Americans.
Page 8
When the British and the French fought for North America in the Seven Years’ War, the Indians sided with whoever promised to respect their hunting grounds and living space. Shingas, chief of the Delaware Indians, asked British General Braddock for permission for Indians friendly to the English to live and trade among them. However, Braddock rejected this idea, stating that no savage should inherit the land. In response, Shingas and other chiefs decided not to fight for the British if they couldn’t have the freedom to live on the land.
In 1763, after the French and Indian War, the British, viewing it as a conspiracy, tried to control the Indians. Using biological warfare, British General Jeffrey Amherst provided smallpox-infected blankets to Indian chiefs during negotiations. Despite this and the burning of villages, the British couldn’t break the Indians’ will to fight. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established a line at the Appalachians, beyond which American settlements should not encroach on Indian territory. This angered Americans, but it helps explain why most Indians supported England during the Revolution.
Americans assumed Indian land was now theirs, leading to expeditions like Harmar’s Humiliation and St. Clair’s Shame, which failed against Indian resistance. Even General Anthony Wayne’s victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1798 didn’t fully subdue the Indians. The Treaty of Grenville in 1795 acknowledged Indian power, with the U.S. giving up claims to certain lands in return for peace.
Francis Jennings emphasizes the Indian role in the Revolution, as their land was a major point of contention. The Revolution, in his view, involved various oppressed groups turning against each other. The eastern elite controlled coastal lands, forcing the poor seeking land to move West, where they became a buffer for the rich, as Indians often targeted frontiersmen.
For black slaves, the American Revolution had complex consequences. Thousands fought for the British, while others joined the Revolutionaries, and some gained freedom amid the chaos. Many left on British ships, settling elsewhere, while some stayed in America as free blacks, evading their former masters.
Page 9
In the northern states, the Revolution didn’t immediately end slavery. By 1810, around 30,000 blacks were still slaves in the North, and even in 1840, there were about a thousand. In the upper South, more free black people led to stricter laws. Meanwhile, in the lower South, slavery expanded due to rice and cotton plantations.
The Revolution did, however, create opportunities for blacks to demand change. Some demands came from emerging black elites in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Richmond, and Savannah, while others were voiced by courageous slaves. Inspired by the Declaration of Independence, blacks petitioned Congress and state legislatures to abolish slavery and grant equal rights. In Boston, they sought education funding equal to what whites received. In Norfolk, they aimed to testify in court, and in Nashville, free blacks asserted their right to the same opportunities as anyone else.
In 1780, seven blacks in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, petitioned for voting rights, connecting taxation to representation. Benjamin Banneker, a self-taught mathematician and astronomer involved in planning Washington, wrote to Thomas Jefferson challenging racial prejudices. Banneker hoped Jefferson would overcome narrow views, but despite Jefferson’s attempts, societal structures, economic interests, and entrenched prejudices kept him a slaveowner throughout his life.
Page 10
Before the Revolution, the unequal treatment of blacks, the exclusion of Indians, and the establishment of elite supremacy were already present in the colonies. With the English gone, these principles were officially solidified in the Constitution of the United States, created by Revolutionary leaders in Philadelphia in 1787.
While some view the Constitution as a brilliant document fostering democracy and equality, historian Charles Beard offered a different perspective in the early 20th century. He argued that, considering a government’s primary role in determining property relations, the dominant classes had to shape rules aligning with their economic interests. Beard examined the backgrounds of the 55 Constitution framers and found that many were wealthy individuals with economic ties. Lawyers, landowners, slaveholders, and bondholders dominated the group.
Beard suggested that the Constitution was designed to serve economic interests: manufacturers sought protective tariffs, moneylenders opposed paper money, land speculators needed protection for westward expansion, and slave owners wanted federal security against revolts. Notably, groups like slaves, indentured servants, women, and property-less men weren’t represented in the Constitutional Convention, leading to a document that didn’t reflect their interests. While Beard acknowledged the personal gains of some Founding Fathers, he emphasized that the Constitution primarily aimed to serve the economic interests these individuals represented.
Page 11
Not everyone at the Philadelphia Convention fit Beard’s theory. Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin, despite having land holdings, opposed the Constitution’s ratification. However, Beard noted a general connection between wealth and Constitution support.
By 1787, a strong central government was needed to protect significant economic interests, and there was immediate fear of rebellion, highlighted by Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts. Resentment against the Boston legislature grew due to increased voting property qualifications and refusal to issue paper money for debt-ridden farmers.
Illegal conventions formed in western counties to oppose the legislature, with Plough Jogger expressing grievances about unfair treatment and wealth redistribution. While some aimed to address issues through peaceful petitioning, tensions rose during court proceedings to seize farmers’ property. Luke Day, a veteran, led armed farmers demanding their constitutional right to protest. The outnumbered militia sided with the farmers, and the judges adjourned in response to the people’s protest. Shays’ Rebellion underscored the need for a stronger government.
Page 12
Soon after, at courthouses in Worcester and Athol, armed farmers prevented the courts from seizing their property. Militias sympathized with the farmers or were outnumbered. In Concord, Job Shattuck led a caravan to the town green, demanding redress of grievances. A county convention suggested judges adjourn, which they did.
At Great Barrington, a militia faced armed men and boys, split on court proceedings. Judges adjourned as the crowd demanded. The chief justice pledged not to sit until the Massachusetts General Court met. The crowd broke open the jail, freeing debtors. Samuel Adams, once a radical leader, urged lawful action, claiming “British emissaries” were involved.
Beyond Massachusetts, Rhode Island debtors controlled the legislature, issuing paper money. In New Hampshire, men surrounded the legislature, dispersing when military action loomed. Daniel Shays, a war veteran, entered the scene after his friends were indicted. Shays led armed farmers to Springfield, encountering soldiers. He asked to parade, and as their ranks grew, the judges adjourned court hearings. Shays’ Rebellion reflected widespread discontent, prompting fears and responses from political leaders.
Page 13
After the recent rebels became the authority in Massachusetts, Governor James Bowdoin sought to assert government dignity. Sam Adams helped draft a Riot Act and a resolution suspending habeas corpus, allowing authorities to detain people without trial. Concessions were made, permitting some old taxes to be paid in goods.
In Worcester, 160 insurgents faced the courthouse. The sheriff read the Riot Act, but the insurgents demanded judges disperse. Confrontations between farmers and militia increased. When Shays marched a thousand men to Boston, a blizzard forced them back, causing a death.
General Benjamin Lincoln led an army funded by Boston merchants. In an artillery duel, three rebels died, and one soldier lost both arms. The rebels were outnumbered, and Shays fled to Vermont. His followers surrendered, with sporadic violence against authority. Captured rebels were tried; some were sentenced to death. Arguments arose over the hangings, with General Lincoln urging mercy and Samuel Adams insisting on severe punishment. Several hangings followed, while Shays was pardoned in 1788, returning to die poor in Massachusetts in 1825. Thomas Jefferson viewed such uprisings positively, considering them healthy for society in a letter from France during Shays’ Rebellion.
Page 14
While Jefferson was distant, the country’s political and economic elite grew concerned about the potential spread of rebellion. General Henry Knox, a veteran of Washington’s army, founded “The Order of the Cincinnati” to preserve heroic memories and monitor radicalism. Knox, representing the wealthy elite, wrote to Washington, sharing the sentiment that the insurgents sought to use their force to address the government’s weakness.
Alexander Hamilton, a prominent leader of the emerging aristocracy, expressed his political philosophy favoring a permanent share in government for the rich. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton suggested a President and Senate chosen for life. Although this proposal wasn’t adopted, the Constitution didn’t prioritize popular elections, limiting voting qualifications and excluding certain groups.
The deeper issue post-Revolution lay in society’s division between the rich and poor. Wealthy individuals possessed significant influence through land, money, media, church, and education. This raised questions about the effectiveness of voting in challenging such concentrated power. Representative government, even when broadly based, tended to be conservative, resisting drastic change.
Page 15
When the Constitution needed ratification, state conventions voted, requiring approval from nine out of thirteen states. In New York, where the debate was intense, a series of pro-Constitution newspaper articles emerged, written anonymously by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. These became known as the Federalist Papers, with opponents labeled anti-Federalists.
Madison, in Federalist Paper #10, argued that representative government was necessary to control factional disputes arising from property inequalities. He identified the real issue as a majority faction, suggesting a large republic spanning thirteen states could prevent its spread. While Madison’s argument promotes maintaining peace, it raises questions about the government’s interest in preserving a particular order and whether it prioritizes the concerns of those with economic power.
Examining the economic interests behind the Constitution reveals it as a document crafted by specific groups aiming to preserve their privileges while granting limited rights to garner popular support. Despite later political differences, Madison and Hamilton, representing different parties, shared common goals in establishing this new government. They were aligned with the broader agreement between the Democrat-Republicans and Federalists in the American political system, emphasizing the need to suppress domestic faction and insurrection, as seen in Shays’ Rebellion.
