Initial Thoughts on Woody Holton

In my reading of the introduction I believe Holton is arguing that there were two opposing viewpoints about the amount of government needed after the Revolution. The issue that seemed to stir the most debate regarding government regulation was regarding taxes and debt collection. For those like Madison a new government with the capability of taxing and enforcing debtors to settle their debts was needed. Also that the a National government was needed to buffer the control of the individual state assemblies. The opposition was ordinary men who were mostly farmers who felt that government was already to burdensome. What I found interesting was relating to the class discussion in our last class about ideas. Before the Revolution England felt it was perfectly justified in taxing and collecting on debts from the colonies. However, some of the people in the colonies, Especially Boston felt that the taxes and the power of the English government was to harsh. The colonies then rebelled against England because of these ideas. In this book, Holton is showing that this problem reoccurs. The people who agreed with Madison saw that a powerful National government capable of collecting taxes and debts was necessary and perfectly justified, while others thought government was already overstepping its boundaries.  These ideas led some lime Shay and Matthews to rebel. It seems that the what we take from the history depends upon which perspective we look at it with. Just like we discussed in class, if we look at the Revolution from Wood's perspective it seems very radical, but if we see it from the perspective of Gary Nash it was disappointing. Ultimately I think that Holton is trying to show that the framing of the Constitution can seem very different depending on which perspective we view it from.

Unruly Americans

I am still working on the pre-read of Woody Holton's "Unruly Americans " but so far I found the preface to be charming and full of character. While reading it I imagined myself as his student participating in the exercise they were doing. At first I thought he was going to pose the question "what if the Constitution had been ratified without a Constitution" but instead he closes with " If the most compelling motive for the Constitution was not to safeguard civil liberties, what was it?". This is where I leave off to go find the answer...

Gordon Wood and Edmund Morgan

First, I'd like to say that Wood's historiography is as engaging as Morgan's--I've enjoyed both, although their depictions of what modern readers view as the cruelty of the 17th and 18th centuries are rough if necessary. Aside from this, Wood's descriptions of the character of early colonial society seems different from that which Morgan describes. The idea of the "disinterested," "self-sacrificing" aristocrat (as Wood puts it in the clip that Chris posted) seems to contrast with the opportunistic character of early settlers in Morgan's book. While Wood doesn't extol the aristocratic system in the section "Monarchy," and while it is clear that the upper classes were not in fact completely disinterested, he makes clear the intricate connections and the very different perception of people and their places in the societal chain in a way that I did not perceive in Morgan's writing. I wonder if what I am seeing is actually the difference between monarchists and republicans and not a fundamental difference in the way that Wood and Morgan portray the early colonists. Did anyone else get a sense of this difference? Thoughts?

Gordon Wood interview

I will do my best not to regurgitate Gordon Wood. So here's a video of Wood in an interview discussing the Revolution, the creation of the "self-made" man, why there will never be another George Washington, and the reasons why David McCullough got so rich. More on my thoughts of the Radicalism of the American Revolution later...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmEhoUbUEeY

Initial Thoughts on Gordon Wood

I have done some pre-reading of Gordon Wood and wanted to throw some thoughts out and see what sticks. I first thumbed through the index and found most of the entries that had the most attention throughout the book were not surprising. Names like Jefferson, Washington, and Addams I was expecting to see the most attention to. However, the term society shows up a great amount as well and I guess that surprised me a bit more. I then looked at the Table of Contents and it seemed that the organization of the material seemed to address the history chronologically. I then looked at the introduction and I began to see why the term society came up so much in the index. For me it seemed that Wood was arguing that while the Revolution was not a social revolution in the same context of the French or Communist Revolution in China, it was still very much a social revolution in that the social environment in the colonies was turned on its head. I think that argument is compelling because most of what I have thought about the American Revolution was in terms of political change. I am looking forward to the actual reading. Let me know what you guys think.

thoughts on G. Wood

So far I have only done pre-reading of "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" to find what Gordon Wood's main arguments are. He argues that "white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off"(page 4). Our Revolution was that of a change of government and not of social upheaval. What I find interesting however is that according to Wood, what makes the Revolution radical is the changes in relationships "that bound people to each other", caused by the changes in government after the Revolution. He also argues that the Revolution altered American's "understanding of history, knowledge, and truth." While as student I have come across this idea anthropologically many times for many different events, people, etc I am interested to see how he combines all of the aspects that he argues makes the American Revolution, radical (revolutionary?).

The Colonist as Soldier in Roanoke and Jamestown

One of the things that struck me the most after reading Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom  was how often he spoke of early English colonial interests being almost entirely militaristic. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the narrative in the first half of Morgan's book deals with how English colonial interests in Virginia were dominated entirely not by friendly, peace-making colonists, but rather by privateers, and colonists whose primary mission it was to either be soldiers seeking riches or English gentlemen who could afford the pay to make the journey to the Americas who fought and intrigued against one another.

I thought it was interesting how early colonial Virginia saw non-European encounters in the New World as opportunities for exploitation, whether it is using the Cimarrons to attack the Spanish or using Native Americans. I had known previously that early English colonists exploited non-European New World residents, but I had never known just how militaristic the early Virginia colony really was. I was struck throughout the reading how Morgan interprets the colony's actions through a militaristic method of analysis, with the commander being a "lieutenant" and the early leaders being military appointees leading colonists who Morgan claims were over half soldiers and sailors used to navigate the ship. I also found it interesting that many of these colonists also did not possess the farming skills to grow crops for themselves, knowing only very particular skill sets. I thought it was a very smart analysis to actually take a look at how both Native Americans and Englishmen lived in society at the time as well. The chapter "Idle Indians and Lazy Englishmen" was my favorite, because it took the time to give this crucial backstory, so that readers may understand better the personalities and characters in early colonial America.

Coming back to the point on military, did anyone else find this "militaristic" view of early colonists to be appropriate or did you have a different understanding of society in early colonial Virginia? I think it is a useful way to look at early colonial Virginia, but I have a hard time believing that EVERYONE was either backstabbing or had a militaristic mindset as Morgan makes it seem, so I think he might be stretching this character trait a little too much. Thoughts?

Thoughts on Edmund Morgan

I have to say that I really liked this book! There were a few chapters that I found myself straight out reading through like a novel. One of the sections I found really interesting was when Morgan compared how England handled the poor and homeless to how Virginia handled those same issues. This would have been the chapter "Toward Racism" I believe when he addresses how even though there were those in England looking to enslave the poor and homeless for profit that the government would not allow it of its citizens but it was allowed in the colonies, and only on those who were foreign such as the Indians and the African that were later purchased from Barbados. I am continuously thinking of the different arguments in this book and am looking forward to class discussion.

Initial Thoughts on Edmund Morgan Reading

Hello everyone, I am trying out blogging for the first time, and thought I would insert some initial thoughts I had from my pre-reading the Edmund Morgan book. I first looked through the contents and and saw that he had arranged the material into 4 books. The first book title seems to suggest an ideal vision of the new world that the future colonists envisioned upon their arrival. The second book appears to deal with the realities of colonial life once the colonists had arrived. The third books brings the tension between the various peoples in the colonies into the foreground, and the final book looks at how the institution of slavery and freedom came into fruition throughout the colonies and how that is contrasted with the idea of freedom. Also looking at the index, the author focuses mostly on the origins of counties, Indians, slaves and servants, and the growing of tobacco. What I gathered from the preface is that the argument of the book is that the institution of slavery in America is sharply contrasted with the ideas of a free republic established through the American Revolution, however that because of slavery the creation of a free republic was achieved. These are just some initial thoughts and they are probably way off, but I would certainly like some feedback to see what others are thinking.

Instructions for Posting and Labeling

Welcome to the inaugural run of a blog on US History for graduate students at GSU. While I am not the first, or even the second, professor to consider blogs as a means of ongoing communication for a class, I do want to make this blog both useful and interesting. As such, we are going to work with a set of simple rules and see if it takes off.

Rule 1: you may post on discussion questions for next week's reading, or you may share extra readings or other ideas connected with the next week's topic. OR, you may post links to websites of interest, books or articles, or other resources that others in the class may find helpful. Especially of interest are links to examples of the uses of history in the modern day world.

Rule 2: you should comment early and often on posts. All posts should be invitations to discussion.

Rule 3: debates are permitted. Rules of courtesy and professionalism apply. As administrator, I will remove any and all inappropriate posts.

Rule 4: you MUST add labels to all of your posts, so that we can find them and use them later. You should add a LABEL for any author you are referencing (make sure you post the author's full name, e.g.: Edmund Morgan), as well as something to identify the topic or period. Try to match tags already in existence, and if one does not exist, then go ahead and create it.

Rule 5: Make sure that I can identify your profile name connected with your google account. If you are Robert8484859302, it may be difficult to know who you are. Likewise if you choose some cool-sounding moniker for a name, like "History Bandit." I will not insist that you choose your first and last name to post under, but it is incumbent upon you to make sure you get credit for your blogging by making it easy for me to identify you.

Rule 6: more rules will be added as we go along.

Happy blogging!