-  Was abolition of slavery inevitable according to Wilentz? âInevitableââmeans it had to happen and could not have not happened.  What does he mean by ârelentless unforeseen?â Does this agree or disagree with Hannah-Jones?  When we look back at history, how do we see the events vs. how did the people at the time experience them?
- One main difference between Wilentz and Hannah-Jones is that Wilentz does not tell the story of the role of the African-American in liberation from enlsavement. On the other hand. Hannah-Jonesâ thesis is that the African-American contribution to abolition of slavery and the continued struggle for equality for all is of the utmost importance in American history.
- Wilentzâs main point is that is was not known at the time that slavery would be abolished. There was a great struggle between proslavery and antislavery world views among the white population.
- In paragraph 3, Wilentz references the 1740-1750s âexplosive consciousness of manâs freedom to shape the world in accordance with his own will and reason.â In general, this refers to the âenlightenment.â Hannah-Jones will be quick to point out that this âuniversal freedomâ was not extended to the enslaved, and slavery did exist at that time. Wilentz is arguing that the moral rejection of slavery was advanced by âscrutinizing inequality, personal sovereignty, national sovereignty and servititue of every kindâ (paragraph 4).
- In paragraph 5, he says that though slavery had always existed, âthe struggle to abolish it came abruptly.â He sees the American Revolution as part of this process, that there was an anti-slavery movement in the Declaration of Independence, but it was violently opposed by the proslavery forces that existed based on feudal and ancient world view of conquest of peoples and social hierarchy.
- Write your own reflection (400-600words) on the first 19 paragraphs of Wilentz. Compare it to Hannah-Jones. Post it by Monday 1pm.
- Note: I will make comments on your previous Hannah-Jones posts by Monday 1pm.
3 thoughts on “Write a brief (400-600 words) reflection on Wilentz (first 19 paragraphs)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Reflection of âAmerican Slavery and âthe Relentless Unforeseenâ Sean Wilentz
When I start reading this article from the first paragraph I immediately recognized that it’s different from the Hannah-Jones article because of how two authors describe the history. In the 1619 project, Hannah-Jones explains how African Americans were important to establish freedom and equality for everybody. Also, How Hannah-Jones explains that African Americans was the one who fought and made a lot of sacrifices to able to get freedom. But in Sean Wilentzâs article, he talked about not only African Americans fought for equality but there were white antislavery people who wanted freedom and equality for every human being. There were people who were against slavery and protest. Also, Sean Wilentz and Hannah-Jones had a different view on why America declared its independence. In Hannah-jonesâ article, she explains why America wanted to become independent because the British government wanted to abolish slavery and American colines didnât want it to happen so They declared independence. But Sean Wilentz views that there was not a big conflict between the British government and British people over slavery. In London, there were no growing calls to stop the Atlantic slave trade. Also, Sean Wilentz had different thoughts on freedom for everybody. Sean Wilentz would say that there were people who fight against slavery and believing that every human has equal rights and freedom. But in Hannah-Jonesâ article, she explains that we founder fathers created the American constitution they did not include African Americans in freedom and equality. Also, Hannah-Jones would say that most of the white people didnât see those slaves as human beings. There were people who want to same equality for everyone and supported freedom. But most of the people wanted to keep slavery because of economic and political reasons in the south mostly. Most of the rich people were big farmers who own big lands and they own most of the slaves too. Also, slaves were giving an advantage to the southern states in the government to have more power.
Good overview. We see a different historical perspective in Hannah-Jones vs Wilentz.
Especially important, as students of history, is the idea of “relentless unforeseen.” We do not know what our actions will lead to. This is true for African Americans who fought for their freedom and “white” abolitionists who believed slavery was a crime against God, as man is created in the image of the divine.
Reflect on the possibility of human freedom in history. Do we have the power and freedom to make history, or are we the victims of some powerful evil fate, which always oppresses us?
Wilentz brings up a idea a bit different to us, I have to admit that it made me think a lot more about this topic and differently from what I was thinking when I read the 1619 project. He states and proves that slavery was something inevitable, it was going to happen one way or another, but at the same time he shows that slavery had his time to end, and it was going to happen even if the Americans were refusing to let that happen. This means that slavery was something destined to happen, but there is a quote that says âEverything has a beginning, and a end.â And slavery wasnât the exception. On my perspective, when he says ârelentless and unforeseen,â he refers to the end of slavery, that for most of us, was a relentless age with many atrocities and disgraces for the black people, and also for some white people. On the other hand, for most of the people back in that time, I bet they did not expect that end, or they did not want to see it finish some day. Especially Americans, they were hiding the sun with a finger, the finish was coming and it affect that, it shocked them, but it was necessary. I donât think he agree or disagree. He just give us another point of view to the history because Wilentz doesnât go to a side or another in his essay, he gives his idea, how he see the history, and thatâs something we should appreciate. However, I admit that Wilentz itâs not totally on the same spot that Hannah Jones. She is more on the side of African-American being mistreated, abused, etc, while Wilentz narrates the history in a neutral point where you can see everything very clearly and think by yourself. Additionally, where as Hannah Jones focus a lot on the importance of African-American in the history, Wilentz doesnât. He accepts that happened, try to know and show us why, how, when this happened, and the importance of it. I totally understand the point of Wilentz, he makes it pretty clear. The abolition of slavery wasnât on anyone’s mind, the fight for whatâs correct and whatâs not long a lot. It was bloody, intense and extensive, but anyone who wasnât blind, knew that eventually it was going to end. Wilentz states that America’s independence happened in order to not get rid of the slavery, which was in the British’s plans. Was this the main reason? I canât certainly tell, but I get this idea and I agree with it. Americans were so obsessed with having this power, with getting richer and richer with the power and lives of others that they would not let it finish.
This is not something from 1740-1750, this is something that was in everyoneâs mind. This didnât happen in 10 years, this wasnât a discoverement or something similar, this existed and I bet it was gnawing the conscience and mind of many people. Furthermore, the more slavery grow, the more this feeling, this disease for the mind would grow, specially in people who werenât grow like this. People from more recent times would see this as there every day, but someone who knows that this world would still work and live without slavery, would have suffered the desire to do something against it. As a result, exactly in this time, it exploited more than in other years, but this is something that we should thank destiny. This is shown when we know that the Declaration of Independence has many clauses where we can interpret the abolition to slavery, but the majority disagreed with this, so they changed it to their benefit. I can relate this a lot to the bible because it is interpret just as the person is reading it wants, this gives permission to many people to do many things and have their minds and hearts âclearâ. This is what happened with the Declaration of Indepence, they disagreed with this sacred scripts, so the interpretation made something else of what it really was.