Choosing to focus on the Eaton Affair – a political scandal without mentioning the Indian Removal act seems like it undermines the efficacy of your book.
Besides being a deeply significant event in American history, the Indian Removal act is critically important in the discussion of Jacksonian politics.
– Jackson established the power of both the executive branch over Congress with The Bank War, and the power of the exec. over the Judicial Branch with the veto of John Marshall’s ruling in Georgia vs the Cherokee Nation and the subsequent Indian Removal act – passed in 1830.
If nothing else, to round out your chapter on Jackson – who is mentioned by name 137 times in the “Democracy in America” chapter, you need to add information on the court case – Georgia vs The Cherokee Nation, John Marshall, Jackson’s rebuttal – “Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”, the Indian Removal act and the Trial of Tears.
The claim near the end of this paragraph is misleading and should be reworded or qualified. The passage reads as follows: “…most white Americans were content to compromise over the issue of slavery, but the constant agitation of black Americans…kept the issue alive.”
This claim is misleading for several reasons. First, it marginalizes actors who were central in the nineteenth century anti-slavery movement. These include such figures as William Lloyd Garrison, Elijah Lovejoy (who was murdered for the cause of abolition), Sarah and Angelina Grimke, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, among others. Garrison’s newspaper, The Liberator, featured thousands of articles, features, cartoons, and editorials; for 35 years, it served as a critical outlet for anti-slavery agitation in America.
Second, the claim referenced above ignores the fact that thousands of whites served in and donated to such abolitionist organizations as the American Antislavery Society.
A more honest and accurate rendering could read as follows:
For nearly a century, free Black Americans (including those who had once been enslaved, such as Solomon Northup and Frederick Douglass) agitated for the abolition of slavery and worked alongside white abolitionists in forming antislavery organizations, publishing antislavery literature, and sponsoring public events.
[The more the hosts gave away, the more prestige and power they had within the group. Some men saved for decades to host an extravagant potlatch that would in turn give him greater respect and power within the community.]
[One or more sachems governed Lenape communities by the consent of their people. Lenape sachems acquired their authority by demonstrating wisdom and experience]
Much different than the 13 year old kings of say, Egypt, for example.
There is no proof that Olaudah Equiano was not honest about his account of his experience. the suggestion that he may have made it up is baseless and harmful.
The enslaved were also often caught, beaten, and re-enslaved post war. They were not living without consequence or free. There is almost a 100 difference between this and the ending of slavery.
Recent Comments in this Document
March 8, 2024 at 7:59 pm
Choosing to focus on the Eaton Affair – a political scandal without mentioning the Indian Removal act seems like it undermines the efficacy of your book.
Besides being a deeply significant event in American history, the Indian Removal act is critically important in the discussion of Jacksonian politics.
– Jackson established the power of both the executive branch over Congress with The Bank War, and the power of the exec. over the Judicial Branch with the veto of John Marshall’s ruling in Georgia vs the Cherokee Nation and the subsequent Indian Removal act – passed in 1830.
If nothing else, to round out your chapter on Jackson – who is mentioned by name 137 times in the “Democracy in America” chapter, you need to add information on the court case – Georgia vs The Cherokee Nation, John Marshall, Jackson’s rebuttal – “Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”, the Indian Removal act and the Trial of Tears.
See in context
February 8, 2024 at 12:16 am
Perhaps add Fred Hampton and the Rainbow Coalition.
See in context
February 1, 2024 at 3:42 pm
The claim near the end of this paragraph is misleading and should be reworded or qualified. The passage reads as follows: “…most white Americans were content to compromise over the issue of slavery, but the constant agitation of black Americans…kept the issue alive.”
This claim is misleading for several reasons. First, it marginalizes actors who were central in the nineteenth century anti-slavery movement. These include such figures as William Lloyd Garrison, Elijah Lovejoy (who was murdered for the cause of abolition), Sarah and Angelina Grimke, and Harriet Beecher Stowe, among others. Garrison’s newspaper, The Liberator, featured thousands of articles, features, cartoons, and editorials; for 35 years, it served as a critical outlet for anti-slavery agitation in America.
Second, the claim referenced above ignores the fact that thousands of whites served in and donated to such abolitionist organizations as the American Antislavery Society.
A more honest and accurate rendering could read as follows:
For nearly a century, free Black Americans (including those who had once been enslaved, such as Solomon Northup and Frederick Douglass) agitated for the abolition of slavery and worked alongside white abolitionists in forming antislavery organizations, publishing antislavery literature, and sponsoring public events.
See in context
January 12, 2024 at 8:02 pm
[The more the hosts gave away, the more prestige and power they had within the group. Some men saved for decades to host an extravagant potlatch that would in turn give him greater respect and power within the community.]
Sounding familiar…
See in context
January 12, 2024 at 7:48 pm
[One or more sachems governed Lenape communities by the consent of their people. Lenape sachems acquired their authority by demonstrating wisdom and experience]
Much different than the 13 year old kings of say, Egypt, for example.
See in context
January 11, 2024 at 4:15 pm
They mention it in this book too.
See in context
January 11, 2024 at 3:59 am
It’s good that Obergefell is here. What about Dobbs?
See in context
January 10, 2024 at 4:33 am
There is no proof that Olaudah Equiano was not honest about his account of his experience. the suggestion that he may have made it up is baseless and harmful.
See in context
January 10, 2024 at 4:31 am
There is an undertone of over exageration of the amount of free enslaved here. It was not a monumental number.
See in context
January 10, 2024 at 4:29 am
The enslaved were also often caught, beaten, and re-enslaved post war. They were not living without consequence or free. There is almost a 100 difference between this and the ending of slavery.
See in context