Gray Gold: Lead Mining and Its Impact on the Natural and Cultural Environment, 1700–1840 by Mark C. Chambers (review)

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC Pub Date : 2023-08-26 DOI:10.1353/jer.2023.a905111
A. Hall
{"title":"Gray Gold: Lead Mining and Its Impact on the Natural and Cultural Environment, 1700–1840 by Mark C. Chambers (review)","authors":"A. Hall","doi":"10.1353/jer.2023.a905111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ground in the West, both political and violent, Suval strips away the sense of the inevitability of secession and war that often hangs over portrayals of the 1850s. Old characterizations resurfaced in new guises during debates over slavery in the western territories. Stephen Douglas echoed Jacksonians of the past when he championed the rights of squatters to shape the social institutions of their new territories. They were not escaping civilization and citizenship but instead were extending the blessings of settled society to the wilderness. Who better to determine the fate of slavery in a territory than those who pushed forward first? Southern Democrats emphasized the transitory nature of early settlers when rejecting the concept of “squatter sovereignty.” Calhoun thought popular sovereignty “was reckless and frankly ridicu lous . . . given that the ‘first halfdozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full dominion’ ” (102). Opposing the bill to accept Oregon as a free territory, Calhoun called the inhabitants “ ‘mere trespassers . . . without title and without the authority of law’ ” (198). Like the Whigs a decade or two earlier, southern politicians portrayed squatters as disrupters and obstacles to the kind of propertied settlers who might champion slaveholders’ rights. Unlike the Democrats and Whigs of old, politicians like Douglas and Calhoun found no common ground to reconcile the growing divide between North and South. Suval has written an impor tant and engaging book that makes a strong case for the need to follow the paths of squatters to understand the political divisions over western territory, first over control and owner ship of public land and then over the fate of slavery in the West.","PeriodicalId":45213,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jer.2023.a905111","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ground in the West, both political and violent, Suval strips away the sense of the inevitability of secession and war that often hangs over portrayals of the 1850s. Old characterizations resurfaced in new guises during debates over slavery in the western territories. Stephen Douglas echoed Jacksonians of the past when he championed the rights of squatters to shape the social institutions of their new territories. They were not escaping civilization and citizenship but instead were extending the blessings of settled society to the wilderness. Who better to determine the fate of slavery in a territory than those who pushed forward first? Southern Democrats emphasized the transitory nature of early settlers when rejecting the concept of “squatter sovereignty.” Calhoun thought popular sovereignty “was reckless and frankly ridicu lous . . . given that the ‘first halfdozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full dominion’ ” (102). Opposing the bill to accept Oregon as a free territory, Calhoun called the inhabitants “ ‘mere trespassers . . . without title and without the authority of law’ ” (198). Like the Whigs a decade or two earlier, southern politicians portrayed squatters as disrupters and obstacles to the kind of propertied settlers who might champion slaveholders’ rights. Unlike the Democrats and Whigs of old, politicians like Douglas and Calhoun found no common ground to reconcile the growing divide between North and South. Suval has written an impor tant and engaging book that makes a strong case for the need to follow the paths of squatters to understand the political divisions over western territory, first over control and owner ship of public land and then over the fate of slavery in the West.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《灰色黄金:铅开采及其对自然和文化环境的影响》,1700–1840,Mark C.Chambers著(综述)
无论是政治上的还是暴力上的,苏瓦尔都将这种不可避免的分裂和战争的感觉剥去了,这种感觉经常笼罩在对19世纪50年代的描绘上。在关于西部地区奴隶制的辩论中,旧的特征以新的形式重新出现。斯蒂芬·道格拉斯(Stephen Douglas)呼应了过去的杰克逊主义者,他支持擅自占用者在新领土上塑造社会制度的权利。他们不是在逃避文明和公民身份,而是将定居社会的祝福延伸到荒野。谁能比那些先驱者更能决定一个地区奴隶制的命运呢?南方民主党人在反对“寮屋主权”的概念时,强调早期定居者的短暂性。卡尔霍恩认为人民主权“是鲁莽的,坦率地说是荒谬的……考虑到“最初的六个擅自占用者将成为主权国家,拥有完全的自治权”(102)。卡尔霍恩反对接受俄勒冈州为自由领土的法案,称当地居民“不过是非法侵入者……”没有所有权,也没有法律的权威’”(198)。就像十年前或二十年前的辉格党一样,南方的政客们把擅自占用者描绘成破坏者,是那些可能捍卫奴隶主权利的有产权定居者的障碍。与过去的民主党和辉格党不同,像道格拉斯和卡尔霍恩这样的政治家没有找到共同点来调和南北之间日益扩大的分歧。苏瓦尔写了一本重要而引人入胜的书,它有力地说明了跟随非法占用者的道路来理解西部领土的政治分歧的必要性,首先是关于公共土地的控制和所有权,然后是关于西部奴隶制的命运。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Early Republic is a quarterly journal committed to publishing the best scholarship on the history and culture of the United States in the years of the early republic (1776–1861). JER is published for the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. SHEAR membership includes an annual subscription to the journal.
期刊最新文献
“An Emporium of Beggars,” Medical Rhetoric, Disability, and Philadelphia’s Early Nationalist Welfare Crises The West India Regiments and the War of 1812 The Contagion of Liberty: The Politics of Smallpox in the American Revolution by Andrew Wehrman (review) Index—Volume 43, 2023 “Servants not Soldiers”: The Origins of Slavery in the United States Army, 1797–1816
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1