Edited by author 12-05-2002 04:15 PM
      The discussions in class today about Red Cloud raised an interesting contradiction that I would like to further detail. The stories in the “autobiography” were obviously centered around battles, raids, and conflicts. Most of these events were depicted as random and unprovoked, which would lead one to believe in the savageness of the Sioux as a tribe and people, but it is doubtful if this was Red Cloud's goal in telling the stories. Therefore, the war topics discussed, both vivid and descriptive, serve to make a point for both the Native American and white settler side of an interprative issue.

      For Red Cloud, these stories were boasted about in his old age as an attempt to glorify his pride and courage in his younger years. The status of a man in the Sioux tribe was determined by his actions on the battlefield, so it was essential to Red Cloud that he be depicted as having deserved his position as a respected leader. For the most part, however, these stories were for simple bragging rights, not much unlike those of a group of modern drinking buddies crowded around a bar table, bragging about and exaggerating the glory days of their younger lives. The pure element of machismo is completely relevant, and what is I believe the major theme of the stories for Red Cloud.

     On the contradictory side, war stories that depict unlawful raids and killings give every white frontiersmen his excuse to invade Indian land. It was assumed that if imperialistic ideals had been a core value in Sioux society, then the law of natural selection was simply inevitable. This inevitableness allowed white men to do the same type deeds to the Native Americans that they believed the Native Americans had done to others. The depicted war journals gave settlers more of a peace of mind in doing it, too. It’s easier on the conscience to steal from a thief or kill a murderer.

     This contradiction of themes was not clear to either side at the time of Indian land removal, but in hindsight, we can see things differently. Thus raises a segment of the question that we have discussed over and over again. When looking at a historical document, what determines how it is to be interpreted? And is it our interpretation that we should take from that document, or should we try to objectively view the issue from the author’s (or in this case, the orator’s) point of view? In other words, who plays a larger role in creating the essence of history – the author or the reader?

Sorry for the late post

I agree with the statements of most of the class about how easy to read this book was for me. I found to be quite interesting and informative. Leanna mentioned that she had never heard of Red Cloud, and I was in the same situation before reading the book. This suprised me because of the many exploits of Red Cloud. As the only Indian to win military victories over the United State, his place in the historical record seems somewhat neglected. This may be because the fighting between the Indians and U.S troops is often mentioned briefly in history classes.
I think this book has value in that it gives it's reader an insight into Indian culture and customs. The book often portrays Red Cloud, as Brittany mentioned, as a mere savage. Allan's account of Red Cloud is understandable due to his postion and the time in which he wrote, and once the reader seperates the bias in the writing from the facts of the story many things of intrest come up. Allan goes into detail on Red Cloud's political skills and I found this to be one of the better parts of the book.

Edited by author 12-02-2002 08:51 PM
I, too, apologize for the late posting. I also thought that the posting wouldn't be due until our class discussion.

I agree with Jake that Red Cloud is portrayed out of context in comparison to other tribes. You know that he was not the only Indian that acted in this manner. To the 'white men', his actions may seem irrational or savage, but when you turn your preconceived notions of proper behavior upside down, to an Indian, his actions may have made perfect sense. When you think that the Americans were pushing their way west and taking over Indian lands, you have to wonder how the Americans would react if, say, the Canadians tried to take them over. You can bet that they would react fiercely to protect what was theirs, and rightfully so. I think Red Cloud acted the same way, in a manner of speaking.

I enjoyed the book, as it seems most of the class also did.

Very sorry for the late post-didn't realize we needed to have posted by classtime today.

Anyways, as has been mentioned several times, I felt the book did center around the various rivalries between and sometimes within a tribe. While this was easy to read, I thought it became somewhat tedious after a while. I realize this book was written to give an accurate portrayal of Native Americans, but the massive amount of time spent on fighting just serves to perpetuate what I think to be an inaccurate stereotype.

I enjoyed reading about the customs more than anything else-especially with marriage and social hierarchy(I thought this idea was especially interesting since, as the author noted, Native Americans were viewed to be very democratic). Red Cloud was certainly an interesting man, but as the author points out, a man with faults. By noting these faults it is much easier to picture Red Cloud as an actual human being instead of this magnanimous leader that some biographers would have a tendency to do.

Overall I found the book to be very interesting if a bit too concentrated on war.

Sorry for a late posting- I thought since our discussion was delayed so was our posting.
 I personally have always found Indians very captivating. As a youth I read many books about Indians, heard stories from my grandad who is part Cherokee, and visited many Indian villages. Each experience left me with a deep interest in a culture that was so swiftly and decidely removed/ compartmentalized in American society. Therefore I found Red Cloud to be a fascinating person. However I was a little disappointed in how the book portrayed him. He was seen as a savage that had little better to do then create a disturbance with other tribes. The book makes comment that after a long winter of no fighting that Red Cloud and his men simply set out fight surrounding Indians. The book does take note to descibe his bravery in fighting, but does little to explain the motivation behind such fighting. Try as they may, Red Cloud comes off looking like a savage with an over aggressive approach to life. Certainly Red Cloud isn't in the world of the white men and will not work according to white man's standards. I wish the book would have provided a wider base and understanding of Indian culture that would have brought better understanding of the man Red Cloud.
On a positive note, I found what the book did include to be fascinating. The accounts of his fightings, marriage, etc. were great insights into Indian culture. The book was both descriptive and concise in its treatment of such events. You could imagine him sneaking up on unsuspecting enemies, or walking through his village. I had a sense of being there with him. The easy-read style was great for reading over break too!
Red Cloud's story is one that vividly portrays an important era in our history and overall I would recommend this book to anyone.

The presentation page for today's treatment of the new urban environment can be found at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/urban41.htm)

I've always been interested in Native American culture as it progressed throughought American history, and this book fulfilled that desire to learn about the state of affairs for the Indians. Like Ensley said, the way that battles and savagery was focused on was a little disappointing because I wanted to learn more about their family traditions and other subtle things. I was thankful for the ease of reading this over break, but I have to question the author's motives in writing this book, and I would love to know what was left out in the process of putting this together.

  In regards to the attention to deatil and the easy reading of Red Cloud's Autobiography, I believe that they both added to the purpose of the book as a whole. The fact that the book was an easy read pevents a reaction like many of us had to other books we have read where we became disinterested and lost focus on the topis of the book. The presentation of the biography in a mini-series style seemed really interesting to me and, in contrast to past readings, presented an entertaining approach to history rather than a simple, though informative, documentary.
   The militaristic perception of Red Cloud did not seem barbaric or "uncivilized" to me when taken in context with other historical events. I particularly enjoyed the unique insight into the rituals of native american life and the intra-tribe relations. I feel like I was pretty uninformed about many aspects of Native American and I really felt this reading gave me good insights into the life on Native AMericans.

Like many of my classmates I enjoyed this book and found it interesting. Like Leanna I had never heard of Red Cloud before reading his autobiography and after reading it I am wondering why I hadn't. I enjoyed the attention to detail on Native American life. One thing I didn't like about the book is how it tended to reenforce many people's stereotypes that native americans are savage, barbaric murderers. What I think people need to realize is that in the time this book was written native american life was based alot around fighting between the tribes to protect the individuals of each tribe. All this shows is the differance in the NAtive American culture and the American culture and how at this time there was such a difference in the ideals of the cultures. Again I did enjoy this book and I found its attention to detail very enlightening, however I don't feel that I got the whole story because I found the book so biased.

I think I'll have to agree with Paul when he said that of course the book centers around war and killings. First of all, Red Cloud was daily sitting down with Deon and telling stories of his life, without a clue that Deon was turning around and writing down the stories with the purpose of publishing a book. Think about it, what kind of stories do people tell today when they're just chillin? Picture a big group of people. The person in the center of attention isnt going to tell about their trip to Publix or about how they did their laundry that day. That person is going to tell funny stories, adventerous stories, romantic stories. And two, Deon and Allen were trying to record what would sell. Remember how Allen sent the manuscript off to publisher after publisher, but they wouldnt publish it because it "dealt little with events deemed important to the winning of the West" (16) (more on this later!)? This means that even if Red Cloud had told about how he painted his plate with tribal patterns, Allen wouldnt have included it because he was looking for the $ale. And what sells? barbarians and killings! Think about movies today.... what would Braveheart be without a single battle? Imagine going to a movie and watching Indians paint pottery and washing their clothes in the river. Combined with what sells and what Red Cloud the warrior was most likely to talk about, is the white American hatrid of Native Americans, which is definitely a large reason that Native Americans are depicted as nothing but barbarians and warriors in The Autobiography of Red Cloud.
Something else that struck me as I was reading the Introduction is what is not covered in the book. Like I said before, publishers wouldnt publish the book because it did not cover the events of Red Cloud defeating the United States. Why is Red Cloud famous? Because he was "the only Indian leader to win a war against the United States" (6). The single greatest incident in his life, according to whites, is not included in Red Clouds autobiography. He talked easily about his wins over other tribes, yet refuses to talk about fighting the whites. Does this mean that Red Cloud was not proud of his victory over the whites?

Despite the fact that Red Cloud's Autobiography was written in a rather simplistic manner, it did not fail in presenting me with some very strong themes; and therefore, as Catherine said, I have mixed feelings towards the book. First of all, it was rather easy reading and aesthetically pleasing. The book was very entertaining and interesting. I really enjoyed the detail provided for each account of Red Cloud's bravery. I particularly liked the account of the Sioux's failed raid on the Gros Ventre tribe, and Red Cloud's subsequent escape by boat. Another aspect that I enjoyed from this autobiography were the stories of Native American--whats the word-- politics, I guess. For example, Red Cloud's rivalry with another Sioux warrior, Black Eagle, due to his attempt to create a mutiny against Red Cloud within the tribe. I guess I liked this passage because of the illustration that human nature does not change and that similar themes occur throughout history and civilizations.

As enjoyable a read as this was though, I definitely had some problems with it. I did not like how Red Cloud was portrayed almost exclusively as a brutal warrior. I really believe that in order to understand the story you need to realize that the Native American lifestyle was extremely different than any other ever seen in North America. If Red Cloud is compared to Robert E. Lee, for example, he looks to be a disgusting, savage murderer. However, after considering his natural suroundings, he is almost immediately promoted to brave warrior. I don't think that this book did a particularly good job of putting the story into it's cultural place. Overall though I definitely enjoyed the book and would recommend that it remain on the curriculum.

I felt this book was interesting if not a little slow at times because of the immense detail (which I admit was probably necessary). Chris Cox made an excellent point about what else could we have expected Allen to focus the book except warfare. Through this focus the bias and perceptions towards Native Americans as savage people becomes abundantly clear to the reader. I feel that seeing potential bias and being skeptical is helpful to our understanding of society at this time. Through this book I received a healthy look into how Native Americans were perceived at this time. I like many people felt that discussing the daily life of the Native Americans may have been a beneficial addition to the book, but it is one of those requests where you need to be careful what you ask for because you just may get it. I do not know that I would have wanted to read more about daily life when the book was tedious at some spots anyways.

     After reading the postings of my fellow classmates, I feel just slightly ignorant in revealing that, before reading this book, I had never heard of Red Cloud. It is entirely possible that I did learn about him at some point and just was not paying attention (whoops!), but I would think that I would have recognized at least the name of the only Native American to lead his people in "military victory against the United States Army" and actually negotiate with President Grant face-to-face (p 8). Reading this book interested me in large part because I was learning about someone, of obvious importance, who I had never heard of before. This being the case, I do think about how the slant of the transcribers of this autobiography influce my idea of Native Americans.

     Several of my classmates have pointed out the bias present against the Native Americans, portraying them as war mongers and savages uncapable of successful negotiations. I think that Paul made a very good point, though, in that the different fighting tribes are parallel in many ways to the "bickering nation states" of the Western world. They also made me think of stories I've seen on the news about African tribes killing each other today. As "civilized" Americans we gasp at the brutality and inhumanity of such stories, but I definitely think, too, about the atrocious things Americans have done, as Jefe pointed out. I thought it was apparent, though certainly not emphasised, that alcohol and firearms introduced through Westerners decreased quality of life and increased mortality rates for the Native Americans, as shown in chapters 6 and 18 for alochol and throughout the narrative for guns. This just reminded me of learning about these devastating affects of white western expansion in a more modern-day setting in the story, _Ceremony_ by Leslie Marmon Silko, that I had to read junior year, probably because it is the only other Native American book I've read.

     Unlike some of my classmates, though, I think this book does include information about the "daily life" of the Oglala people, depending on what one's definition of "daily life" is. True, it does not venture into the actual day to day goings on of the people, but it does give informative accounts of the rituals surrounding important events of marriage, death, war, and feasting. As Rusty noted, this book is very detailed. I, for one, know this book benefitted me by informing me of who Red Cloud was. Yes, one does have to face the question of objectivity in this as with all historical books, and passing through several hands cans reduce a story's integrity, but what else can one do but take in as much information as is available from various sources and from them piece together a history to the best of their ability (like we did with our term projects)? Though I wish Red Cloud had chosen to relate stories of his later interactions with Americans, such as his travels to Washington, I can see where these would not be the glorious type of story he would like to keep remembering; nontheless, this book added to my knowledge of Native Americans.

Should we really be surprised that Allen focused on mainly on fighting when writing about Red Cloud and the lives of the Oglalas? During the time of the original writing, there was still an obvious perception of Native Americans as savages merely impeding American Manifest Destiny. Fighting was the only thing of importance (in the minds of many living in that time) that the Native Americans ever did. As David pointed out, why would anyone at that time care what Red Cloud did when he wasn't fighting off rival tribes? The result of such writing is that we witness Red Cloud and the Oglalas through the lense of a culture that did not hold them in high regard. This is certainly history, but it is not the complete story (history rarely is). I also plead ignorance on the subject matter with which The Autobiography of Red Cloud dealt. Given that I found the book interesting as it did give some, though skewed, insight on an era to which I have paid much attention.

I like many others thought that The Autobiography of Red Cloud was definitely biased against the Indians. However, I thought it was quite interesting as to the way in which the Indian communities were depicted. It made me think back to another book that I had read during a religion class and I drew quite a few parallels to this book. The Autobiography seemed to be one big ongoing war between tribes. I don’t think that this makes them barbaric, it just shows that the culture of these people included conquering other tribes and using their resources. The religion book that I had read, the name of which escapes me now, concentrated of course on the religion of the Indians, but it did have a major emphasis on the battles of the tribes. The fighting and war among these tribes were all about resources, I believe. In retrospect, if the tribes had some system of organization where all the resources were shared, the prospect of attack from European powers might have been slimmer.

Like everyone else in the class, I enjoyed this autobiography of Red Cloud because of how easy it was to read. There is no way my attention would have been kept if there had been long chapters on the everyday social habits of the Lakotas. Like David Gladden said, no one wants to read about how a bowl was made. Fighting and wars sells books, and I believe Allen, Sheldon, and even Eli Paul realized this. Reading things like the Pawnee village raids, the war with the Omahas, and the killing of Bull Bear is what readers would like to see. However, that made me think of the absence of Red Cloud’s scuffles with white men.

White men would be the ones reading these books, and does anyone think that a white man would like to read about other white men being brutally killed by Red Clud and the rest of the Bad Faces? Would a white reader be interested in hearing a story about a white man being scalped alive, or a dead white man having his arm cut off? One would certainly think that Allen and Sheldon would carefully avoid any gruesome stories about the slaying of white men, but Paul should have dug deeper and tried to find some accounts of conflicts between Red Cloud and whites. Why is there not a more insightful look into the Fettermen Massacre? I don’t necessarily believe that Red Cloud did not wish to discuss conflicts with white men “because they were friends”. Maybe Allen and Sheldon were the ones who did not wish to discuss the issues. If they had, I don’t believe American readers of the early 20th century would have enjoyed reading about the killings of whites.

The Autobiography of Red Cloud was a good read. The book was very informative to native american life. However, as some had pointed out earlier, some of the stories may not be as factual as others and some parts could just be made up due to the passing down of stories from one person to the next.

There is an interesting bias towards the native americans in the book. MOst of the stories were, to my liking, concentrated around the battles that the indians fought in. The indians are portayed as finding fun in fighting. Also focus is on the killing of members of other tribes. This is stereotyped as barbaric.

One aspect of tribal life in the book that appealed to me was the community that existed within the tribe. The leader seemed to be in the mix within the tribe and the tribe mixing in with the leader. Everyone realizes that they are made better by helping each other out rather than an individualistic attitude. Our society should be taking notes from these guys.

i really enjoyed the great detail given in each little "scene" of the book. overall a good easy read and i did learn a lot because i really did not know really anything about the native americans before reading this book.

I, like many of my classmates, enjoyed The Autobiography of Red Cloud. It was an easy read and very interesting. I will agree with Mike and others who say that Allen (the origional author) wrote with a bias toward Native Americans, or so it seems at least. He concerns himself only with inter-tribe warfare and the celebrations which followed triumphant battle (and boy, they partied a lot). Allen did not talk about the everyday life of Red Cloud, but rather battles in which he played a key role. I wonder...how else would one write about the war leader of the Oglalas? You can't just say something like "Thursday, Red Cloud finished making a bowl and decorated it with tribal colors." Nobody would care. You have to talk about what was important to Red Cloud, and that was warfare. I don't know, these are just thoughts.

I do think that Allen and Paul show somewhat of an understanding of Native American culture (at least in this aspect) when they discuss honor. An example is a battle in which Red Cloud and others are fighting the Crows. "Red Cloud...struck three of the prostrated Crows with his bow, but killed none of them, for the reason that among the Indians, more bravery is considered to be displayed by striking a living enemy that by killing him" (42). It is very strange that we receive this account, and then later learn of some of the many gruesome things Red Cloud did, such as cutting the arm off of a Snake after killing him (145). This is a mixed message, which I really don't understand. Reguardless, I really enjoyed the book.

 My first reaction to reading Red Cloud's autobiography is exactly like Nathan's feelings. Any time a narrative of such importance or magnitude is translated and recorded by an individual outside of a community like Red Clouds' I feel we all need to be very cautious with how we view this book. I also feel that the simplistic nature of the writings is a combination of not only Allen's attempt to make the Indians appear inferior, but also Allen's own limitations with recording a fully detailed translation from his interviews with Red Cloud. Even though I was able to enjoy some of the passages of the narrative dealing with the various battles, I wish the book was a more definitive source of information relating to Native American interaction with not only other tribes, but also the advancing white settlers since I am not very familiar with these topics. I do not think it is fair to judge the merit of a book based on my own shortcomings, however I feel I would have benefited more from a book that provided more historical references and factual assertions than are present in the autobiography. With some of the other books we have read that provided more stories instead of real facts and events I was able to enjoy the books more since I already had a previous understanding of the situations in that time period through either my own knowledge or what we have discussed in this class. In conclusion, this autobiography needs to be read with great caution since Allen does not do an incredible job of providing an unbiased opinion. Yet I do have a feeling that this narrative is in enjoyable with the proper amount of background knowledge on the subject. I could see myself reading this book again, just not with for a scholastic purpose.

The Late Night Message (Medicine?) Man
We really rag on our country and for good reason. I heard once if we wish to befriend Native Americans, we have to acknowledge that our country broke over 250 treaties with the American Indians. One thing we've been missing in this course is something more than a sheet of events that discusses Indian removal. We live in a country that may parade freedom and liberty but has committed some undeniably inhumane racist actions: enslavement of blacks, concentration camps for the Japanese during WWII, and Indian Removal throughout the 19th century are some examples. Similar to America (not the same), though, Native Americans also go to war for territorial expansion, the greater slaughtering the weaker. From what we see here, these men weren't the most "negotiating" of peoples.

One thing I Gladly don't see much of is sold out individualism among these tribes. (Well, if you exclude the Black Eagle conspiracies). There seems to be a general acceptance and encouragement emanating from the tribe to the leader and from the leader to the tribe. I don't know much at all of Native American anthropology, what can you tell us Dr. Benson? It's always seemed rather communal and family-oriented to me, at least within the tribe. We could learn a lot from that these days. Our families are being destroyed by individualism.

Paul tells us this narrative depicts a "vigorous" and "warrior"-like Red Cloud, one unlike what most whites came to know as an "accomodating politician." (26) Though the pages are bloody with fierceness of fighting, p. 70 and elsewhere still portrays his diplomatic deftness in extinguishing the "smoldering embers of resentment in the Cut-Off band." He was able to unite Sioux forces and challenge the despotism of the United States. Kudos Mr. Cloud.

random note: Just as the tribal consumer desire led them into inter-tribal wars (the book tells us that battles between tribes often came hunters trespassed into other territories), consumer desire with the gold rush brought Americans into conflicts with the American Indians.

Finally, I still don't understand Ch. 15's battle with the Arapahos tribe, because the author lists the Arapahos as a Lakota ally (5). What gives here?

I have extremely mixed emotions about The Autobiography of Red Cloud. To be honest, my first reaction, after just completing the book was "how boring." Story after story of this tribe battling that tribe, this warrior slaughtering that warrior, and so on and so forth. I know that war isn't really my thing, but wow, could we be a little more gruesome? The only happy moments throughout the whole novel were when warriors gained honor or tribes were victorious. I just saw the story as fairly repetitive and that made me kind of uninterested.
So after reading the book, I started to think about what I could post besides "I thought it was boring." And the first thing that came to me was the ways in which the Native Americans were depicted. I totally agreed with Nathan's post in that the way in which the different tribes were portrayed was extremely degrading and almost dehumanizing. I think part of the reason that I felt that the book was repetitive was because the Native Americans seemed to be "barbaric" as they waged war against each other for no reason other than the other tribe was weaker. Now, obviously that cant be the whole story, so I looked more closely at the introduction and found that Red Cloud's story must have gone through at least 5 or 6 people before it actually got printed. That fact answers a lot of questions as to why the Native Americans were portrayed in the light that they were and why, if you look close enough, there are slight "white supremacy" undertones. The role of media and marketing definitely had a lot to do with how this book was written and how certain people were portrayed. But then again, what book isn't?
Lastly, I would just like to say that I thought Paul made a really good point. Until I read his post, I was convinced that if the editor had just added more about the daily life of the Native Americans, the book would be a lot more insightful and interesting. But now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't have made that big of a difference. This book caters to those historians interested in the battles of Red Cloud and his people, not the wood collecting or basket weaving. Just because it didn't make it to my top ten list doesn't mean that it isn't #1 on somebody else's. That's definitely something important to always keep in mind.

When I read over my message, I think I was too strongly against the bias. It is there. I just don't think it is as critical as most of the others thus far have.

I'll begin by saying I thought it was cool. I didn't realize we had it assigned until I got back here, so I sat down to read it and I enjoyed it. Maybe that says something bad about me...

I agree that the book shows a bias against the Indians, though I'm not sure I agree in some ways as to the bias shown.

First, there is the argument that it is bias that Allen ignores the day to day actions of an Indian. But this is not bias, but two other things:
1. Tailoring the work to meet the demands of the public, who, frankly, are not going to buy a tale of the day to day goings on of an Indian, male or female. War stories are far more palatable, not because of the blood, but because of the emotions involved: heroism, revenge, loyalty, pride, not to mention the intrigue of mini-nations involved in incessant low-intensity warfare.
2. Telling the story of the person whose story it is. When war correspondents followed soldiers around in the Second World War, they reported on the combat, the letters, and other notable events, not the day to day rations, digging, and marching, even though those mundane activities took up most of the soldier's work. The soldier was a soldier because of the events, not because of the normal activity. Just so, Red Cloud is a cheiftain, a war leader, and though he assuredly led another life aside from combat situations, those were the things that made him.

Second, the idea that the bias of Allen caused him to omit things, such as the childhood of Red Cloud.
I do not think this was Allen's choice--if Red Cloud had given him information on his childhood, he probably would have put it down--I am actually surprised he didn't make up more than he did to fill in the vast void up until that first foray.

Do y'all really think that Red Cloud thought the important things to him were tent building and wood collecting? I doubt Allen had to do much to the story. If I were Red Cloud, I would tell the same stories he did--those are the things that made him.

Aside from that, I also noticed the idea that Allen uses the stories to reinforce a bias that the Indian tribes are savages. This is probably true, though I noticed descriptions here and there of relations between tribes or between warriors in a tribe that seemed to draw off "civilized" relationships between nations. Did anyone else read the introductions to sections about warfare between the Sioux and this tribe or that tribe and immediately think of the bickering of nation-states? Perhaps he did not intend it, but I ended up seeing the Oglalas and the other tribes as Western peoples again, just in a different place, which led me to think that maybe all humanity is sorta similar along certain lines--that parallels exist across the board, and the bias one has against another is found within itself.

I think I should clarify myself a little bit. I think that the most important aspect of the book to realize is the slant with which Allen, the original author, wrote it with. The violence, seemingly trivial and random, is most likely wildly overemphasised. While it may have been the key to status in the indian cultures, Allen makes it seem like random acts of violence for purely personal gain only.
As Nathan said, the key to this book is who tells the history. That's generally what I was trying to say before, but I don't know how well I managed that.

Autobiography of Red Cloud was one of the easiest reads I've had in a long time. It was easy to follow, but is there a reason for that? Was this Allen's way of trying to say that he was superior to Red Cloud? Just a random thought that came to me as I was typing...

Like Mike and Lindsay, I was startled at the violence and brutality that was included in this book. I guess I was more startled, not by its presence, but by the way it was depicted. Red Cloud and his fellow Sioux are made to look like barbarous savages who delight in murder. It is impossible to know if Red Cloud described the violence and ;eft out the details of camp life, or if those omiisions were made by Allen. A few passages about brutality were especially strong : Red Cloud stabs a man to death (51); White Horse scalps a man alive (103); Red Cloud dismembers a man he killed (145).

This was the first Native American autobiography I have read. It was quite different from anything I've ever read

Edited by author 12-01-2002 10:48 PM
      The Autobiography of Red Cloud reveals several key insights about Native American literature and culture. Here are a couple on my list:

      1. The concept of “who defines history” has once again embarked us through this narrative, a collection of stories told by Red Cloud but recorded and interpreted by Charles Allen and Sam Deon, white frontiersmen who merely lived among the Sioux for some years. Obviously, the majority of Native Americans were not literate in the English language, and the historical world only has the words of non-Native Americans to explain the activities and lifestyles of the former group. The prejudices and subjective insights are clear. The work describes, at several points during the book, “savages” with “barbarous” rites and “inhumane” practices. Lacking both decency and taste, the narrators illustrate the mourning of the families who lost loved ones in tribal battles as being filled with “weird, pathetic cries” (p.38). A misunderstanding of the subjects’ culture and a sometimes indecent interpretation of such elements does little to effectively describe the lives of Red Cloud and his Sioux family. Yet it is through these ethnocentric eyes that we as readers see all we can see. If it is any wonder as to why Native Americans have been constantly degraded in history, add this type of narrative to the list of reasons; it only shows that even the greatest attempts by white men to portray sensitive descriptions of the Indian life and people failed to do their job.

      2. It is clear that in our industrialized nation, we do not empathize with a tribal culture. I say this because as I was reading the biography, I developed a lessened sympathy for the Native American population within the United States historical realm and a greater feeling of impartiality to the white man’s invasion of their lands. Please do not throw the stones yet. I do sympathize with the persecuted, and I find myself usually rooting for the underdog in most situations. But after the reading, I see that the European invasion onto Native American land and the eventual destruction of Native American culture followed in line with the way the Sioux and many other tribes were already living. It was not uncommon in the reading to see examples of the strong surviving; Red Cloud and his tribesmen often stole horses and killed rival tribesmen for no other apparent reason than selfish motivation and material gain. According to the book’s descriptions, these raids were not even necessary to the Oglalas’ survival. The book even mentioned that the Crows, a weak tribe, were often picked on and raided, not because they had inflicted harm on or made threats to anyone, but simply because they were an easy target. I find it hard to sympathize with such illustrations that lead me to believe many Native American cultures survived and thrived on the same morals that early American settlers and frontiersmen did – survival of the fittest, no matter what it takes, and getting as much wealth as one could grab along the way. To me, there is no difference in Red Cloud telling another tribe to pack up and move and the American government telling Red Cloud to do the same. There is no difference between the unnecessary Oglala rustler or scalper and a European who swindles or destroys an entire Native American village.
     
      Overall, I did enjoy the readings. It was nice to not worry as much about a historian’s particular analysis of an event and instead be allowed to enjoy the true beauty of history – the stories. They were entertaining, adventurous, and easy to follow, and if Red Cloud would have scripted them himself, they would have been even better.

Unlike Mike, I found this book informative and entertaining. However, I found it entertaining for the sole reason that it was an easy-to-follow anthology of stories told in a fashion that is reminiscent of what you could find in short movies. Most of all, it was an easy read.

Despite the overall entertainment that I found in this book, it remained an informative historical account of the lives of Indians in the 1800s. As Mike pointed out, some of the stories are not exactly factual and parts could be made up thanks to the two other hands through which the stories of Red Cloud passed before finally reaching print. But, this book does give the reader a better glimpse into the lives of Indians that is not available in other books.

What I find MOST interesting, however, I did not realize until Mike pointed it out in his post. This is Allen's bias towards the Indians. The majority of the stories do center around the actual fighting and raids in which the Indians took part and not nearly as much attention is focused on the life in the camp. The Indians are shown as liking fighting and finding entertainment in this act. On another note, from an outsider perspective, a great deal of the fights are spent on the actual killing (i.e. scalping, etc.) of individuals of the alternate tribe. To some readers, this could represent the Indians in a sort of barbaric form. From Allen's point of view, do barbarians enjoy fighting? Maybe it's just my own wandering mind on this topic, but I think that it could be an interesting thought to investigate further.

Overall, I thought that the book was a fun and fairly easy read, but it contained a far more intellectual and informative core than the general appearance of the words on the page may suggest.

I really didn't like the Red Cloud book very much. Well, I guess it mostly frustrated me, more than anything else. I wanted to know what the overall story was, and he simply gave too many specifics. I really don't see how this could be used as anything other than just a preliminary outline of events that happened at some point in the past.

Despite my lack of entusiasm for the book as a whole, I did manage to find plenty of interesting passages. It is clear to see that Allen was biased against indians. I mean, it's not too surprising, considering when he was writing, but he really makes everything seem so simple and childlike. For instance, on page 47, Allen wrote, "the Sioux, deciding that they had had recreation enough, declined these proffered courtesies." Was this fighting really recreation? I doubt it. Maybe the point wasn't to kill the others, but it really didn't seem like a game to Red Cloud and the others. They were serious political and intratribal issues that determined status and power.

Maybe the most important to realize about this book is it's unreasonable bias against the indians it is based on. I can see how it would be very difficult to find out what really happened when the indians giving the stories were hesitant to discuss points of their lives, and what they did talk about was just twisted to make it seem trivial and childlike. It's really too bad how pathetic Allen makes the indians seem, and I guess that is really the point of the book.

One more thing, the little intro things before each chapter. What is the point. Other than a few times where they explained why like certain guns were present, even though it would seem unlikely that they would be in indian hands at that point of time. Other than that kind of stuff, they are pretty worthless. It is like reading Dante's Inferno, with the descriptions before each canto. Except in this case, it isn't difficult to understand the actual text. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like those were only there for the current author, Paul, to actually say something.

So, I guess, interesting, yes. Informative, somewhat. Read again, no.

I thoroughly enjoyed the somewhat scattered format of Red Cloud's narrative(s). Despite the constant debate over accuracy and honesty, I chose not to worry so much about form as I did substance. I was struck most by the detail involved in each little episode. Red Cloud always seemed to point out how many people were involved, what the prevalent feelings were, and what exactly the landscape looked like. The numerous tales provide a great glimpse into the very core values of Native American life. Bravery was considered paramount, and honor was held in very high esteem. I must say, going back to the form/accuracy issue, that I was not so fond of the latter sections in which Samuel Deon gets more and more coverage. It seems as if he almost wanted to slide in and become the central character of the tale; the book began to detail his actions as thoroughly as Red Cloud's. Finally, I was intrigued by the episode in which the Sioux and--I think it was the Crow--participated in a sort of "play fight", knowing that in the specific battle death was not either side's intent. When juxtaposed with the Native American ideas about honorable death and justified murder, this notion of playful fighting presents quite a paradox. Evidently, the bounds for when killing was OK and when it was not important were clearly defined, not in print, but in the minds and passed-down tales and understood rules of respective tribes.

I enjoyed greatly hearing about everyone's paper and how diverse the topics were that we focused on. I found it interesting in that many of the Southern papers they were more pro-union, but imediatly after the South was attacked they changed their views. I also thought it was interesting that in the diaries that were read both the women thought one way about how slaves were treated but when they actually went to a slave plantation it wasn't what they expected.

Edited by author 11-20-2002 09:01 PM
      It is interesting to note the variety of primary documents the class decided to tackle and the troubles that accompanied each type. Letters and diaries were very narrowly focused, while some newspapers were much too broad. Illustrations and weekly readers contained a lot of visual effects and entertainment, but sometimes little news at all. All in all, each type of document had some sort of problem that accompanied it, and every document itself was slanted and biased by particular writers to a particular audience.

    It is always argued that the media plays a huge role in our modern society, but it is usually a narrow complaint about promoting violence or stereotypes and often silenced easily. However, after analyzing nineteenth century documents, I think it can now be argued that the media plays the largest role possible in society, and I think that I might actually subscribe to that hypothesis. The perspective of people's experiences is the only thing they take with them about certain events and occurances, and the makers of perspectives for people who were unable to directly experience the event or occurance are in control. Whatever they write goes, and whatever take they present on something, most people buy into it, at least in some part (and we wonder how easy it was to create sectionalism). I don't want to get too philosophical with this, because honestly, I'd bore myself to sleep and it'd be bad to accidently submit this message with a bunch of random letters on it that were typed with my dozing forehead. But I will say that I now believe a lot more in the power of the media. Often times in history, it's the only thing we have to go on.

Edited by author 11-20-2002 11:47 AM
I found it interesting how diverse the different newspapers and publications such as Frank Leslie's were. My research was based on a diary, so there wasn't much variation there, just the thoughts and events of one person. In my secondary sources, I mainly utilized other books, mostly about the author of the diary, but now I wonder how the perspective of my paper might have changed had I chosen to also use some newspapers and other publications like that from the time period. Also, props to everyone who researched from a newspaper, because I know how much time and effort that took to read issue after issue and gather enough information!

I think its really cool that we have the opportunity to talk about our research and discuss topics relating to our papers in class. It really helped me get a sense of things going on nationally at that time. I must say that the conversations have been entertaining to say the least, especially Ian's "Southern Candy." It's really cool to hear both sides of the story, as we hear from Whig and Democratic papers from both the North and South. Andy had a unique opportunity, I believe, as he had Leslie's Illustrated Journal to report on. Political cartoons have always been my favorite, and it seems like that's exactly what Andy had to work with. I found it interesting what John said about the Union and Whig advison from Jan -June 1861. He said that it started off quite Unionist, and after the election of Lincoln, became pro-secession. It was also neat to hear form those who read personal diaries and journals. Getting personal accounts is always a wonderful tool in understanding history. I really enjoyed this assignment and feel that I learned a ton from it. Great job everybody!

Edited by author 11-20-2002 10:33 AM
It has been educational (interesting has been used far too much) to hear about all of these newspapers sources and how so much and so little changed over the course of the years leading up to the Civil War. One of the things that these presentations made me wonder is what would happen if newspapers today had such an obvious bias on the issues. I do believe as it was mentioned in class at one point in time, that having a less obvious bias sells more newspapers. Today, instead we have TV and radio for Democrats and Republicans to duke it out. Like Paul, I also found it interesting that papers changed their views at the drop of a hat (or a fort). John's Richmond Whig and Advertiser was pro-Unionist and all of the sudden Fort Sumter happens and Lincoln is the great Satan. A bit of an overreaction in my view, but great stuff nonetheless. Overall, everyone did a great job on their projects.

I thought that it was really interesting to read a women's diary, and then listen to all the presentations about the newspapers. The woman that wrote my diary was so oblivious to everything going on around her that it was strange to research the time period and remember that things actually did happen in that period. The two sources (diaries and newspapers) each contribute such different factors to history. In theory, diaries give a more personal view of issues, while newspapers are supposed to give "just the facts." But, after listening to the presentations, it becomes apparent that often times those roles are reversed. Most newspapers seemed to lean to one side of the political spectrum and were far from neutral, while many of the diaries gave a broader view of the issue.
I really liked hearing about other women's diaries and comparing them to mine. I found that the woman that i studied was a lot less involved in the "political" world than many of the women, and i wonder if it had to do with the time period, her residence, or the community around her. Or maybe it was all three. She seemed a lot more concerned about her friends and family than she did about how politics were affecting her life, but then again she also had fewer issues to deal with directly, such as slaves.
Overall, i think everyone did a great job. And how happy is everyone that this paper is finally finished!!!

Well, lucky me, I get to post on both days. Hey, maybe I'll post again after the last 3 go tomorrow.

I thought the presentations today were good. I found it interesting that the Richmond Whig went from unionist to confederate very quickly. In the National Era, the editors praised the founding (I think--maybe it was just the stance) of the Whig, until it went pro-Taylor. The way papers could switch from one alignment to another overnight is amazing to me. We love the Union!--BANG--Those evil northerners!, all in no time. Sure, its a process that starts earlier, but the transformation happens to quickly--really cool, I must say. The changes are justified I guess by the fact that they come in response to alteration of circumstances: the status quo changes, and the papers adapt. I just wonder if the readers got confused when it happened. And was the purpose of it more to convince readers to abandon the old view or to get back at those that (the newspapers felt) had betrayed them?

Listening to the discussion of the different papers and journal topics that each student researched, I was struck by the diversity on partisan viewpoints of the same events of each newspaper. Each newspaper seemed to have it's own distinct perspective on the events, even though the party to which it was affiliated only varied slightly. For instance, we had the strong secessionists, Democrats, moderate Democrats, Unionists, and Abolitionists to name some. I also found the differing viewpoints on the Lincoln-Douglas campaigns to be very informative, since I, myself, did my own research on the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Although the information concerning these two characters happened after the debates of 1858, the same party politics still played and influential part and I was able to gain a broader insight into the events that followed my own topic.

I really thought that everyones presentations were done very well. It seemed like everyone really got into their papers and thought it out. One of the more interesting ideas was from Rusty's, when he said that kind of like today, the people were looking to the newspaper to get away from everything, and take it for its entertainment value. Also, how in some Southern paper that were thought to be pro-union turned their thought completely around once the firing on Fort Sumter occurred.

I've found the presentations over the past two days to be very informative. I researched a set of letters, so I liked being able to hear about the newspaper projects. A lot has been said on here about the merits of journals vs. newspapers and personally I think they both have the ability to offer something unique to history. Yes, newspapers are more representative of a community's thoughts and feelings, but I think the journals/diaries/letters allow a reader to become more personally involved in the story. This is an aspect that is very lacking in most textbooks.
As far as Dr. Benson's questions are concerned, I think that there is no truly unbiased account of history, nor do I think there should be. Textbooks are as close as we'll get to being unbiased and I feel that most do an adequate job of relaying basic facts. When you get to newspapers, journals, and diaries,though, they should be biased-how else would you be able to understand how people were feeling? History is about more than just dates and events, its about how those dates and events affected people's way of life. Listening to the presentations, it was obvious that most of the newspapers presented did just that.
All in all, I thought the presentations and projects were very good.

A common them that I've noticed as people have been talking about their papers the last two days is cadidates bashing other candidates. I've wondered to myself, should it make me feel better that it's not just candidates today that will say anything to make their opponents look bad, since apparently candidate bashing has an old history? yikes!
I was interested to hear what Brittany said today about what she learned about the Charleston Mercury, since we had the same paper, but under different editors and years apart from each other. I thought it was interesting that she found the Mercury to not be very representative of the people in Charleston at first, but then that people started to agree more with its views after Lincolns election, because i found a similar thing during my time period- that at first the people of Charleston weren't in line with nullification as the Mercury was, but over time their opinions changed.
I would have to say that a textbook would probably more accurate than my source, because the Mercury only painted a one sides picture. If I had not looked at any outside sources while writing my paper, I would have thought from reading the Mercury that all of Charleston was completely for nullification. I also would never have known about the first steam engine in America that ran in Charleston during my time period, because the Mercury never wrote an article about it.

I posted yesterday thinking we had to do it both days. Oh well. I thought that everyone's presentations were once again very interesting. I thought that the topic that most people focused on was the Lincoln-Douglas Republican nomination. It was very cool to learn how different the papers were in terms of their take on Lincoln and Douglas, and who they supported and why. It was also interesting to hear Nathan's take on The Southern Enterprise because that was the same paper I did; so I was wondering what he took away from the paper. I thought that each person, despite having the same time periods came up with interesting and unique takes on the situations at hand during the antebellum period. The difference of opinion and biases that are showed in the papers is so cool, and I enjoyed hearing everyone discuss the special predispositions of their papers.

I really enjoyed hearing everyone tell about their papes yesterday. It is really cool to see the same stuff popping up all over the place in different cities. Two things that really surprised me, however, was the 15 month congressional elections that paul was talking about and the repeated occurance of concern over the mormans. I just cant imagine an election where the national party essentially changes its appearance as the election goes on to get more votes. In our age of instant gratification, that seems like it would be very frustrating as a political observer.
    I was so surprised that two papers had concerns over the Mormans. For a very small group of people, hundreds of miles away, it seemed to be a very hot topic.

I have found these projects to be very interesting. The presentations on the journals are much different than what I uncovered when I read my newspaper. As a couple of people have commented on, the different experience of history presented by these two different types of sources is very intersting. I agree with Ian about the inportance of the type of paper that you chose for the project. I used a daily paper and my paer was filled with all kinds of information that was of no use to me at all. The thing that was the most suprising to me about these papers was the fact that what we see as important looking back at the past ofter did not seem important at the time. I think Lindsey's paper was a good example of this. She thought the Lincoln Douglas debates would have been a central focus of the paper, but often they were not even mentioned.

It was very interesting to hear about everyone’s research, but two stood out to me the most. Those two presentations were the one by David Gladden and the one by Corey Tant. The reasons these stood out to me was because their newspaper, The Southern Patriot, pretty much was the 1850’s version of my newspaper, The Greenville Republican. Ben Perry’s pro-union paper very much reminded me of the pro union paper that existed in Greenville during the 1820’s – my Greenville Republican.

From reading the common American History textbook, one would think that everyone in the South was in favor of the idea of secession. During the War Between the States, most people in the South probably were in favor of secession (no slave power conspiracy), but David, Corey, and I studied antebellum South Carolina. Antebellum South Carolina didn’t seem like too much of a threat to the Union through the newspapers that were researched by my classmates and I. Although this perception might be due to the own political agendas by the editors of our respective papers, it still shows that there were some Southerners who were Unionists – even in South Carolina. Obviously, something must have happened in the South between the early 1850’s and 1861 to get everybody on board with secession. I believe Ben Perry was much more of a committed Unionist than my editor, Charles W. O’Doyley, and I think Perry’s paper would have been better suited to have the name Greenville Republican, instead of Southern Patriot.

It was very interesting to hear specifics about the other projects yesterday. I realize that i am glad that i did a 6 month weekly paper. The journals would probably have so much clutter in them that i would lose patience. The daily newspapers would probably spend a lot of ink reporting about nothing. i even saw this in my weekly paper. however, having a weekly allows for more events to happen and have them all reported at once which is extremely beneficial.

there were many interesting things brought up in the presentation. the british woman's experience on the slave plantation. The spill about mormons. being from the southeast, there would not have been many mormons to judge. it was interesting to see how the newspapers played off a stereotype. also, as sean reported, the impact that religion had on his paper.

i really enjoyed researching topics presented by my newspaper. its also interesting to see the roots of the beliefs and stereotypes that i was brought up on. some beliefs still hold true today in sparkle city

I found it interesting to hear the issues people spent time researching and the different topics that their papers, diaries, and journals possessed. These sources are different from sources today because they are not afraid to let you know how they stand on different issues. I felt that Sean's report brought about some interesting ironies in his paper the Southern Enterprise. Their dislike of the Know Nothings and the fact that they shared views with this party on temperance. Another thing that I found interesting was the report on the Lincoln- Douglas debates. The Illinois State Register gave little attention to this issue, but textbooks make this out to be the most important news that was going on at this time.

I would like to reiterate how intriguing it was to hear the details of the other projects that were presented yesterday. I was particularly interested in the journal of the woman from Maine and her voyages to the South, Cuba, and England. It was also interesting how the idea of upward mobility of the common person was quite prevalent even in this period. The journal of the woman who was anti-slavery up until the point when she visited the Georgia plantation was very revealing of the northern sentiments of the day. It seems to me the attitudes of the northern abolitionists would change as well if they would only see the actual logistics that are involved in the day to day operations of plantations instead of calling upon the few but readily available horror stories of slavery.

   Like Brittany and Christan and others have said, I am really glad we have these two class days to hear everyone present their paper topics. I just want to echo how interesting I think everyone's subjects are, especially because they are all so different from mine! I read the journal of a planatation mistress just before the Civil War, and I would agree with Andy that journals are presenting a different way of looking at history than a newspaper does, although both sources convey the opinions of the author/editor. As I got into my project, I found myself wondering how different the newspapers were compared to the journals, because they obviously cover a wider range of stories, but I enjoyed my topic and feeling like I was getting to know someone personally.
     Meghan made a point I agree with, that history books give more generalized depictions of history, because they cannot go into detail on everything and everyone. My journal was of a woman who was widowed, childless, and was in charge of running a plantation, so she was not the stereotypical southern woman one would read about in a text, because she had additional responsibilities and was not the norm. I found it fascinating how capable she was of managing so many properties (four estates and over 200 slaves) and think she is representative of both male and female souther, white planter opinions towards slavery just at the brink of war. Her entries also reveal her practice of paternalism, and provides examples of typical slave deception, which we learned about in class and so I thought that was really interesting.

To continue with Rusty and Mike's discussion, I simply think that the journals give a different type of history than what would be found in a published newspaper. A lot of personal musings and insights of a person's journal could offer some things that the newspapers cannot, but I for one am VERY glad that I didn't have to do a journal. I'm also glad that my paper was a weekly paper and not a daily, because it allowed more time for the national and congressional news to develop. Like Chris, I too did Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly, and this "national enquirer" comparison has been bothering me all day. True, the paper did feature a number of entertainment features as mentioned in class, but it also took careful note of the national and international developments of the era in a business-like way in the news section and various political features. This duality of the Frank Leslie's--both entertaining and insightful--was the focus of my paper. It sounded to me like the people who did the journals or rural papers had the not-so-fun task of scouring every page for information, yet in my term paper I only used about one-fourth of all the information that I planned on using because of the constraints of the assignment. I couldn't help but feel priviledged to have done my paper on a source that was actually entertaining for me most of the time during my research, and I applaud the other presenters today who really dug into their sources for material while I gorged at the "buffet" of information in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly.

Just a reminder that if you presented today (Monday) you are not scheduled to post until tomorrow, and if you did not present today your posting is now due.

Thanks everyone for enlightening us about your research; it was good to know how others approached this assignment and what primary (and secondary) sources they used.

It is nearly impossible to list any differences between all the primary sources used for this project and history textbooks - the list would be endless. History books make a valiant attempt to remain objective, but these newspapers and diaries are, by nature, completely subjective accounts of the events of their day. I was fascinated by my own primary source, the Chicago Daily Tribune, and I was gald to hear that my classmates had had similar experiences. Reading about the past in the context of its present made me think about how many historical events were actually connected and how often historians make these connections for their own purposes. I think that what the editors of the papers and the diarists left out of their works was just as if not more important thatn what they included. A perfect example was Catherine's discussion of Susan Hawthorne's diary. The details excluded from her diary indicated her priorities and views. I think that the sources discussed in class today are representative only of the opinions of their editors or authors. They are so filled with bias that there is no way they express a general concensus of the feelings and attitudes of the community.

First off, I wanted to comment on a few things others said that I thought were cool.
The British woman who was all anti-slavery and then went to a Georgia plantation and didn't see what she expected to see. I'm sure there was still plenty wrong, she just didn't know how to recognize it. We condemn things done by other cultures around the world, even if we don't know what the deal is.
This was really cool: women had the right to vote in Georgia until 1857, but few exercised it.
The jurisdiction battle over the Carolina affair--usually the battle is over who gets to try the case, not who doesn't have to. Maybe I just misunderstood.
All the talk about Mormonism was interesting, especially since it was coming from the southeast, where they had probably not met a single Mormon.
The sensationalism was pretty cool from Frank Leslie's. Sorta reminds me of FoX news--don't get me wrong, I love Bill O'Reilly, funniest thing on television next to the Simpsons and the British Parliament, but if there's a car chase or something 'fun' going on...they're there on the double. A bank robbery turns into a terrorist hostage situation, and all of a sudden there's speculation about nuclear bombs, etc. Ok, that was WAY off track.

Now for the questions:
I thought my newspaper, the National Era, was pretty representative of abolitionist sentiments, after all, its editors were three of the main men in the Liberty party. I also noticed the diversity of the abolitionist movement, though the National Era was moderate enough to fit into the beliefs of most abolitionists, except the racists. The paper went OFF on racists.
I thought it was very different from the textbook, mostly because the textbook said very little about this period. Oh well. So that's what the textbook is missing--a critical moment in abolitionism, the beginning of the end for the Whig party. All it has is a little blurb about Buena Vista making Taylor a national hero--on that point at least, it and the National Era disagreed sharply. Like Rusty said, this isn't a country of cut and dried, easily predictable groups--they change all the time, and respond in ways that we don't expect (just look at Jesse Jackson! Oh wait, bad example).

I agree with Mike in that the substance of the differences, not simply the existence of differences, is important to note in the papers. I was surprised at how many people's sources, such as Cox's "Frank Leslie's Illustrated", did not display a noticeable amount of sectional tension. Then, other people noted harsh politcal overtones and blatant sectional appeals in their papers. This sort of disparity supports the notion that a nation is not a single entity that can be characterized by sweeping, general traits at a given time.

I noticed from the presentations that most people approached the project in sort of a "reaction to one or two events" kind of mindset. Th general practice seemed to be to assess the public response and reasoning towards supporting or opposing things such as Wilmot or Kansas-Nebraska. The research based on diary entries, though, had to be a bit different. I enjoyed the conclusions that Catherine made regarding Susan Hawthorne and her changing notions of womanhood. It seems that finding secondary sources for diary entries must have been a bit challenging, yet rewarding.

In general, everyone seemed to have learned a great deal from their research, and many varying conclusions were thusly drawn. My conclusions varied a bit from many of the others as I looked at my research in both a contemporary and historical sense. I tried to make assessments based on today's knowledge of the past while keeping a firm hold of what the people of the day thought. The varying types of analysis all-around are beneficial. No one wants to hear everyone say the same thing...

I also thought it was cool on how many different types of ideas were portrayed through the different publications. However, it does not surprise me in the least. I mean, the one thing that characterized this country in the antebellum period, if anything, was inconsistency and differences. Whether it be on regional, religious, party, or race lines, this country was totally about differences. Everyone everywhere wanted to dinstinguish themselves from everyone else. I believe these traits are still present today, though they seem even more prevalent then.
My paper, the Mobile Daily Register, is an example of so many differences. Though Mobile, Alabama's biggest city, was very much in favor of the national Democrats at the end of the 1850s, the state voted overwhelmingly for Breckinridge and the State Right Democracts in the 1860 election. So, I guess all I'm saying is, the differences are interesting to note, but the fact that there were differences is not noteworthy.

Finally, I have no qualms with those in the class who did journals and diaries for their projects, because i think it's cool to see such and individualized response and thinking. I don't, however, really think that these types of documents tell us much about the bigger picture...ie anything outside of the individual. While personal reaction is important on one level, I find much more pertinent information coming from actual publications such as newspapers. I mean, I like knowing that my paper was actually representative of other people, because I can look at the voting records, and see that the city of Mobile voted along the lines of the way the paper I read said they would. I don't know, maybe it's just my wanting of facts to verify what I see, but I just think that reading personal accounts are not necessarily representative of the times.
Again, I have nothing against those of you who did these, because I do see the value in them on a personal level. This is just an observation on my part.

I just wanted to say great job to everyone who presented today. Sounds like everyone had interesting topics to write about and much information to look through. Some comments from today: Liz's presentation of the Charleston Mercury was note worthy to me. Liz and I are both using the same source, mine from 1860, and it was fascinating to draw the parallels. Liz spoke about Charleston's unclear existence. The North viewed it as rural and traditonal, whereas the South found it to be modern and urban. The inability to classify Charleston left it somewhat on its own. The North shunned it, the South wasn't sure what to do with it. By 1860, Charleston is the leading town in secession ideology. With leaders, such as the Fire-Eaters, Northern hatred is propogated. I wonder if earlier snobbery by the North caused Charleston to further propel itself into secession ideology? Also, I wonder if inability of rural South to comprehend Charleston forced Charleston into leading the secession movement? I find those correlations very interesting and important.
To comment on others: I found the discussion of the Southern Patriot interesting. I assumed, as others did, that it would be of a Southern perspective. Cory did a good job in explaining what Ben Perry actually wrote about, railroads and education.
It is fascinating to note that in 1853 the headlines concerned what we would consider today as subplots. The book utilizes much space to explain the Civil War and the happenings leading to the genesis. However, the people of the day seem to emphasize daily routine, local stories, novels, etc. in local newspapers. I find that our spin on the time is dramatically different then theirs was. In light of that, I still support, that higher education needs to utilize both textbooks and experiential references, such as journals and newspapers.

I think the different topics that people had today were really interesting and the focus of their newspapers and journals shows us how diverse people are even though we clump them into two or three groups in history books. The sources also show how the world wasn't always about politics to everyone and that the south was a lot different than we always thought. My subject was a diary about a Confederate nurse and it amazed me how much nursing in the Civil War changed the world for women greatly. I've never learned about how the war impacted the woman's world from a text book or any other source except when I focused on it this time.Also the women that were talked about today as well as my subject defy the ideal southern woman and make their own. They try to be like her as much as possible but in reality they are their own person and will never be that women. In history books we get the ideals of the culture and what people were supposed to be and not so much of what they really were.

I felt like everyone did a very good job of describing their topics. The interesting thing to me was how different all the topics were from the focus of my topic. My paper was so over-the-top, slap you in the face religious virtuosity that it created for a lot of interesting reading. In no way would this paper have been a good example for what was really occuring in the community of Greenville, and definitely not for what was happening in the nation as a whole. The ironic nature of my Paper's motto and its actual stance made it quite easy to find a lot of things to write about. I really found it interesting that Corey's paper, which was centered around the same time as mine and in Greenville, was saw far removed in focus from The Southern Enterprise. One thing I was also glad to hear was that other papers neglected the main issues so much, and focused on other things as well, because mine seemed so much like a hodgepodge of stories and anecdotes and not real political news. However, the undertones of my paper did create a way to look at what was going on in terms of sectionalism. I also thought that the variety of types of things covered, from journal entries and diaries to sensationalist magazines really created for an intriguing discussion of the time period from 1828-1860 that was covered today. Again I think everyone did a great job in explaining briefly the myriad of information and exhausting amount of time and energy that we put into this project. Well done and thank God its over!

Presentations

You will have no more than three minutes. In your presentation you will want to describe in a sentence or two what your source was and what time it covered, and say a few words about what your most important and original discovery was.

Presentation Order:
Monday
(1) Liz Moore
(1A) Becky Lane
(2) Ashley Carroll
(3) Ensley Parkinson
(4) Paul Johstono
(5) Sam Wells
(6) Jeff Zehnder
(7) Cory Tant
(8) Sean Parshley
(9) Catherine Bonardi
(10) David Gladden
(11) Chris Cox
(12) Lindsay Keaton
(13) Jake Murtiashaw
(14) Andy Gould

Tuesday
(1) Rusty Lee
(2) Mike Orr
(3) Dan Martin
(4) Brittany Thome
(5) Nathan Crum
(6) Leanna Dupree
(7) Ian Bramhall
(8) Andrew Carson
(9) John Ball
(10) Christan Rowland
(11) Meghan Duetsch
(12) Cal Leopold
(13) Michael Parker

In response to some of Nathan's deliberations, no matter what your definition of 'history' is, I think DeForest's book is the closest we've come all term to getting a feeling of what was really going on at a certain place and time. That said, I really like the way DeForest writes and talks in this book (and as a YANKEE, I think he and I would have gotten along pretty well back in the day.) I felt like I was sitting on his porch listening to all the amazing stories that this man had to tell, mostly about how unbelieveable he felt most of the actions around him were. Can you not just think of some of his chapters being preceeded by the phrase "Wait til you hear about this one!"?
 I probably would have gotten along well with him, but I really do not envy his job whatsoever. His condescension in describing some of the poor white and black people was a little off-putting at times, but it still gives me the feeling that he's not pulling any punches in telling what was going on. So many people and places and faces, sometimes funny but usually in a tragically funny sort of way, its no wonder that I like this book better than any of the rest. It would be cool to go around and use the book as some sort of tour of Greenville since I havent really spent much time learning its history, maybe some other time when I dont have so much work.

Edited by author 11-14-2002 01:42 AM
After realizing that DeForest's account of Reconstructionist Greenville is one of the bases for the American interpretation of post-war Southern states, combined with questions raised in our discussions today, I have consistently debated the notion of history in my head. I can not take credit for the question itself, but nonetheless there are several ideas that I can't stop thinking about. What exactly is history? And who or what makes it?

I can think of several optional answers to this question, but because I can not rule out one or the other, I am in a philisophical rut and I'm afraid I will remain here. Is history merely what happens in this world or is it how people percieve what happens? Is history merely based on who interprets events and occurances? What exactly is history? This raises numerous unanswerable questions, such as objectivity vs. subjectivity, true experience and perception, and value of bias and practicalness. I do not mean to embark on some huge philosophical journey nor start some fiery debate in which no side will ever come out on top, but DeForest's work does bring those type of questions to mind. His view of Reconstruction and the people of Greenville defines how many people view that time period. Is that fair? Is it accurate? Does it embody the real essence of - history?

     Hmmm... unlike the majority of the class, I think I'm going to have to say that I dread learning about the Reconstruction after the Civil War. For some reason, the policies and actions occurring during this period are easier concepts for me to grasp than all of the various causes of the war. That said, I definitely enjoyed De Forest's account of his experience working in the Freedmen's Bureau. Like Lindsay, I was even more interested in the book since it takes place right in our own Greenville. (I should know this- but were the university and the "women's college" he mentions Furman?) And like Christan, I was not really sure what exactly the Freedmen's Bureau did. This book offered great insight into the daily lives of the ordinary people in the community by giving first hand, often entertaining, accounts, and that made the book very interesting to me. I was also interested in the various racial distinctions De Forest drew.
     In my Literature of the South class with Dr. Pate one of the major themes we discuss are black-white relationships, and this book offers a valuable commentary on what those relationships were like in the period of Presidential reconstruction directly following the Civil War. I thought De Forest was able to record an objective account of his experiences and that he really strove to ensure equal punishments/advice to blacks and whites, wanting the black man, like in Cato Allum's case, to be tried just as a white man. I also think it is funny that the term "poor white trash" is not at all a new one, and that it has been around even since the Civil War! Flannery O'Connor, who we read in Lit. of the South, also offers interesting commentaries on various social classes in her short stories, especially "Revelation," that are apparently as applicable to people today as they were a hundred and fifty years ago. I think this was an entertaining and educational book and would definitely recommend it be kept in the curriculum.

As a local kid, I thoroughly enjoyed DeForest’s work for the simple references he makes to the surrounding area of Greenville – Furman University, Greenville Women’s College, First Baptist Church, and the vast woodlands between Greenville and Pickens that would eventually become Easley, my hometown, in 1876. It was also interesting to see the origins of such things as McBee Street (also McBee housing on campus here) and Oktoberfest in Walhalla. Although I initially expected disappointment with the book (simply due to its subject matter), I found instead a revived pride in this area’s history and my father’s ancestors who inhabited the “picturesque highlands” DeForest describes in his preface to A Union Officer in the Reconstruction.

The simple phrase “reconstruction” makes most die-hard Southerners cringe, and we often picture the unwanted presence of arrogant, blue-clad Yankee officers and soldiers in Southern streets and farmlands. Although the mere presence of the Union army still implies a sense of degradation and belittlement, I was pleased to note the nature of DeForest as an example of an assigned Union militiaman, and if his descriptions and experiences of post-war occupation are indeed typical, then I should welcome the idea of reconstruction with less stomachache.

DeForest does not seem to look to his assignment as one of a domineering power stationed to right the Confederate wrong and show the Rebel who’s boss. Instead, he says that he portrays a stand-offish approach in making sure the South maintains self-control and governs itself in just manners. His description of his “jack-of-all-trades” in taking care of bushwhackers, distributing corn rations, recording formal complaints, and answering various legal and economic questions implies more of an elder advisory role than a military occupation. He goes further to say that people often relied on him for advice and deeds beyond his control. Overall, I was surprised to see that DeForest spent much of his writing describing the people of the area instead of simply how he expected to manage them.

DeForest goes into much detail in portraying the actions and incidents related to the people of his district, including legal accusations, homicides, and bushwhacking thugs, but he also goes deeper in detailing the characteristics of the various groups of people, especially commonfolk, Negroes, and poor white trash which he ironically refers to as “crackers.” Most of his writings detail an overall clean attitude and lifestyle among the Greenville area, and he is clearly not a dissenter of the South as one might expect, as he describes honest, polite, capable, and self-reliant citizens. He even says the common Southern man holds honor to such esteem that he is essentially more manly than the non-confrontational Yankee. In describing Negroes, he portrays a view of wanton equality but a recognition that blacks were ignorant, dumb, and helpless. He uses this description, however, to show that self-government includes equality of races under the law, and enforces this belief with such instances as Pickens thuggery on Negro subjects. Lastly, he describes “the low-down people” (poor white trash) as uneducated, lazy and begging, noting that they account for much of the requests he receives for undeserved help and charity.

All in all, A Union Officer in the Reconstruction is a fine description of the inhabitants of the Greenville area in post-Civil War times. It does not reveal a brutal description of a Union takeover, but instead the timely re-admittance of civil people back into the country.

Like many others I have a natural fear of the Reconstruction/Gilded Age. The Civil War is so interesting to me it seems a tough act to follow. Before this book I was honestly ignorant on the issue. This book was more interesting than other materials on this subject to me for several reasons that have already been mentioned including the Greenville connection, De Forest's lack of prejudice on either side, and the simple fact that this was the memoirs of a man who was actually there (he didn't learn it he lived it). Before this book I had heard about many of these things, but honestly did not really know much about the specifics. Like the Freedman's Bureau it sound familiar, but before this book I really did not know what it entailed. This book was interesting and infromative on an issue that I had previously been ignorant about.

Like many others I have a natural fear of the Reconstruction/Gilded Age. The Civil War is so interesting to me it seems a tough act to follow. Before this book I was honestly ignorant on the issue. This book was more interesting than other materials on this subject to me for several reasons that have already been mentioned including the Greenville connection, De Forest's lack of prejudice on either side, and the simple fact that this was the memoirs of a man who was actually there (he didn't learn it he lived it).

Edited by author 11-13-2002 11:18 AM
Like most others have said, I have always feared the reconstruction/guided age in US history due to its boringness. However, like sam said, it does have a hard act to follow. A Union Officer in the Reconstruction enlightened my views and my attitude towards the age. Part of this i think is due to the point of view the book takes. Being from spartanburg, it was real interesting to read about this time period in the eyes of someone from the upstate. The accounts were given pretty unbiased however it would have made me a tad bit more interested if a southern view had been given to the book a little more.

it was also interesting to read about the poverty levels in the surrounding area and the measures taken for survival. the book also foreshadows future race relations and what is to come in, particularly, the south.

overall, a good read and enlightening to an important era in our nations history. it made me appreciate the era more and increased my want for knowledge about the period. a lot of this had to do with the point of view coming the area in which i grew up. it gives a great perspective as to what life was like in this area so many years ago.

That DeForest was the Freedmen's Bureau officer in Greenville made this book more interesting than it already would have been because, as Lindsay said, it brings it closer to "home." I guess I shouldn't call A Union Officer in the Reconstruction a book since it is a collection of DeForest's accounts. Regardless of its genre, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised at his objectivity. I'm not saying that his stories we completely free from bias and prejudice, but, given the circumstances, DeForest gave his accounts pretty fairly.

Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps it's "Northern-ness," but I never really knew what Freedmen's Bureaus were. Sure, I'd heard of them in my history classes, but I had no idea what function they served. Now I see that it was an important one in helping foster civil relations between blacks and whites after the Civil War. I was glad to read a perspective of someone who was actually in the South during Reconstruction; it was the first time I have ever encountered anything like this.

I thought that DeForest's work here was thorough and interesting to read. He presented all kinds of information about Reconstruction through an eyewitness account. I am clearly not alone in thinking that A Union Officer in the Reconstruction is an exemplary document about Reconstruction since Dr. Benson did say that it was the most used resource by historians on this topic.

In my mind, Reconstruction and the Gilded Age (apologies to those who think otherwise) has always been the most boring segment of American History. I had never had a positive or negative opinion about that period of history, it was just there. With all of that said, A Union Officer in the Reconstruction increased my appreciation for this era. I agree with the many who have already said that a big contributor to the book was it being the actual memoirs of someone who went through the period and not just some third-person retelling of events. That personal perspective brings the period alive, especially for a native of Upstate South Carolina. There may have been no better comment than "Anglo-Saxons...have been of far greater service in advancing the interests of humanity than Negroes or Chinamen; at least they will tell you so, and whip you into admitting it." I was very surprised that the two races lived so peacefully considering how recent the Civil War had been. De Forest did an excellent job of capturing the relations between the two races in a rather unbiased matter. An interesting read.

I had a really easy time of relating to John William De Forest's account of his reconstruction experience due to the resemblance of his and my background. Like De Forest, I am a native of Connecticut who is living in Greenville and is experiencing the Deep South for the first time. I really enjoyed his manner of describing cultures and people in the South that he had never experienced. For example, on page 52, he tells of his experience with what people in the North refered to as "Poor white trash", the lowest class of whites in the area. De Forest came away with a new realization of them, saying how they are described as the "low down people" of the local area. Furthermore he takes the time to actually research their ethnic and economic origin. Finally i found this passage to be of particular interest due to reference of a small German colony named Walhalla, South Carolina. My mother spent her entire life up until college there and I have relatives who to this day still live there. Small world I guess....

Sam makes a great point in mentioning the skill De Forest has an author. His anecdotes are written in an easy-flowing manner that facilitate the reader's interest in his accounts. This is not an uneducated army private who is taking down a personal journal. It is obvious that De Forest has at least some intention of publishing his accounts and making them interesting to readers. Expanding upon what Sam mentioned earlier, the author did a realy good job of remaining unbiased in his accounts of racial struggles. This ability made the book much more interesting to all. However, I am going to go against popular opinion in the preference of favorite story provided by De Forest. While many so far have written of their interest in the Cato Allums affair (which was quite interesting), my favorite was the anecdote of Uncle Dudley. Here he writes of a white southern Gentleman who had never believed in the practice of holding slaves, and a negro (Dudley) whose master had died and was looking for a local owner rather than being moved far away. He asked a local lawyer who resonded that he did not like owning slaves, but he would do so in a manner that Dudley could pay of the debt himself and earn his freedom. Both men stuck to their agreements and sure enough Dudley eventually gained his freedom. This was an example of a respectable story in an otherwise unrespectable practice. Overall, I enjoyed this book and I think it should be added to the reading list for the next term in which this class is offered.

This book was very enjoyable because of the colorful stories about what DeForest has to deal with. It was interesting how he wasn't very bothered by others actions or dealing with the shooting problems. I also always thought that during reconstruction the military was all over the place and heavily controled the south when in this book it seems like he was an authority but didn't have a lot of control through force. He left most of it up to the local government and judicial systems which were also surprisingly fair. The way he described the society it seems that people got along because in a way everyone knew their "place". Things seemed peaceful in a way after the war because people were going back to the old way of life. Also there was a surprising number of people who didn't want to fight in the war in my opinion. It seems like there were more than several accounts of people not wanting to go and fight. However, he may have spent more time talking about those people and less about the people who refused to be polite to a Yankee. The people in this area seem to be affected by the war greatly and they either wish it never had happened or that they wish they could just go back to normal life.

My thoughts:
I think that David has an excellent point, as a southern male I almost never think about Reconstruction, and if I do it is in a negative sense. The Southern focus tends to be on the lost glory of the war not the results after the war, and if these results are discussed then it is an extreamly negative tone. That said, I found De Forest to have written an extreamly interesting account of Reconstruction. One thing that he does well is to identify the fact that he sees only part of what goes on around him. He talks about how his focus, because of his job, is focused on the lower classes. He makes some excellent predictions on what the race relations of the South will look like in the future.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned Dr. Benson's comment that this is the premire work on Reconstruction from that time. This is interesting b/c it can show us the primary documents that real historians deal with when they are trying to figure out what went on in a time.

 Throughout my education of American History, I have always hated whenever my classes get to Reconstruction. I believe the main reason for my hatred of studying Reconstruction is that it follows my favorite part of American History – the War Between the States. The war is a tough act to follow, and usually anything dealing with Reconstruction bores me like no other historical time period. However, William De Forest’s “A Union Officer in the Reconstruction” actually kept my attention, and I actually enjoyed reading it. There were many reasons why I enjoyed it, but the main one would be fairness to both respective sides exhibited by De Forest. Many of my classmates have already mentioned this, but by him not bashing one side (blacks) or the other (whites), it makes his work appealing to all.

 Secondly, I enjoyed this work, because it dealt with South Carolina’s local Reconstruction. Being a South Carolinian, this made De Forest’s work even more appealing to me, but I’m sure everyone felt the same way. Before, my (as I’m sure it was with my classmates) education of Reconstruction was quite generic, and focused only on a few national incidents. It was a breath of fresh air to see Reconstruction through the eyes of a local, and most importantly, from an unbiased observer. It was nice to hear the local stories of people like Cato Allums, Texas Brown, and numerous other characters throughout the book. I would much rather hear these local stories than learn about Presidential Reconstruction verses Congressinal Reconstruction. It was also nice to get caught up on some of South Carolina’s leaders during the Reconstruction era. The Introduction was actually quite helpful, as it covered all the leaders from James Orr to Wade Hampton and the Bourbon Resurgence.

 Lastly, I thought it was interesting to see how good of a writer Forest actually was. The man tells a good story, while I was expecting some boring writing of the time, which was hard to follow. Forest’s background in his works of fiction probably contributes to his good writing style. Regardless, the book was smooth flowing, and interesting for the most part.

I also enjoyed De Forest's collection of letters during the reconstruction in the south. The fact that De Forest was stationed in the surrounding areas of Greenville made this book very personal for all of us students. Even though De Forest's letters only give us one person's perspective, they still give us a glimpse into what life was like here in Greenville over 130 years ago. Also, the relatively short length of the letters and passages allowed me to really stay interested and focused on the topics that were constantly being updated. The economic devastation felt by Greenville was startling. Before reading this book I had no real appreciation for the poverty level in some areas. An incident that sticks in my mind is when De Forest comments on the poor white aunt and niece from Pickens who are so poor that they shared a home with a black family despite the fact that the "pride of race is fiercer than in any other part of the world." Like many people in this class I had just not thought a lot about reconstruction. This book and its passages were the first time in my life I really was interested in learning about the important and influential time period following the Civil War.

I guess that I always thought that the civil war ended at Appomattox and magically the south joined together with the north and everyone was once again one big happy family. It was quite interesting to read the accounts of people who were actually in the period that they are writing from. The fact that the book incorporates Greenville gives particular interest to those of us who now live here or are from the area. It was quite fun to picture all of the landmarks that De Forest mentions in the book and try to imagine them in the post-civil war period. I thought that his description of the south at this time was fair and unbiased as well as his portrayal of northerners. It is nice to read a book that is fair to both sides of the conflict.

A few more words to add to the discussion....
De Forest's perspective is very different from the other books we have read. He is living during the times and has a personal experience with the subject he is writing about. This shines clear with the numerous stories he tells and the personal involvement that is recorded. He also is very optimistic yet realistic. For example, with Cato's situation De Forest hoped for the best results but was aware of failures in the Southern judicial system. This combination of realist and optimist offered an enlightening perspective.
The other books that we have read during this class offer a different style than De Forest. Most have been simple reports of the times with occassional stories and facts. Instead of the personal involvement in a topic, the books have been written as historical literature by modern day men. Also, most outlooks within the books have been pessimistic, pointing out problems rather than trying to solve them.
Also, I would add that the setting drew me into the book. As many have mentioned, the fact that De Forest wrote about Greenville- Furman and landmarks around town- makes the book all the more appealing. I found myself picturing our modern day city under Reconstruction. Although many things have changed, there is still much equality to be had. Similiar problems from De Forest's time such as poverty and poor education are still present here today. I wonder what De Forest would think and write about if he visited us today.

Edited by author 11-13-2002 07:05 AM
You know, I guess I just haven't thought about reconstruction that much. That's just like a Southern Male isn't it?....can name every Confederate leader but doesn't know a thing about reconstruction. Well, let me say that it isn't as bad as I thought it would be, and I am actually quite interested after reading the book. De Forest is calm when he's writing, as Liz and others have already said. He's also fair in his accounts. He is not loaded down with Southern (or Northern) pride, which does tend to influence my opinion of what I am reading whether I realize it or not. It's nice to have a book set right here in Greenville, that actually mentions Furman! I think my favorite part was the story of Cato. Thank goodness for that story! I think Paul makes a good point by the way that the forecast of current day race relations was disturbing...because it's true.

Hey, check this out. Remember that Catholic "conspiracy" that led to the emergence of the KNow-Nothings? Remember Bedini who was sent to Italy by Pope Pius to kill an Italian monk and everyone hooted and hollered over Catholic anti-freedom, anti-democracy? Well, it turns out bedini came to America (I must have not picked that up), b/c according to the Cincy Enquirere, he came to Cincinnati on Christmas Day in 1853 and these Germans started a riot in the city, in which a couple were killed many wounded, and 63 arrested, including an unassuming colored man they picked up off the street. The Cincinnati Enquirer goes on for several days about the trial of these Germans and the police officers. Well, I thought that was pretty cool. You can throw tomatoes at me in class if you wish. Oh yeah, I don't have anything intelligent to say about the book yet.

De Forest gives a very unique account of Reconstruction in South Carolina. It is very rare that a beginning student in history is able to get a broader view of a topic of Reconstruction other than what is given by the textbooks of a particular class. This has been my experience with Reconstruction in my schooling as a student of history. De Forest's eloquence in his retelling of stories from his experience in the Freedman's Bureau allows the reader to gain a sharper insight into the world of Reconstruction and how it affected the lives of ordinary citizens. I especially liked the story of Cato Allums. Maybe it is my search for optimism in stories or possibly my soft heart that draws me to this story in particular. Cato Allums reminded me that there were some African Americans who were faced with the real-life beauracracy of the United States and its judicial system and were able to come out in one piece. Although Cato Allums occurred at the beginning of Reconstruction, his story is very touching and gives the reader hope for the rest of the stories, although we all know that Reconstruction turned out to be not one of the highlights in American history.

The setting of Greenville, SC also puts De Forest's book close to home. Having lived here for the past 2+ years, I have come to appreciate this town and its heritage. Reading De Forest's book is almost like finding a long-lost journal entry of a close relative as he was able to experience life in this same town. I do find it interesting, however, his mention of Furman in the book. In the author's preface he says, "It [Greenville] boasted...a university (not the largest in the world), [and]a female college (also unparalleled)..." From his words, I cannot tell for sure whether or not he is impressed with the two colleges in town or whether he is mocking or condescending towards them, but no matter, the mention of our fine academy alone is worth a "shout out".
All in all, I found De Forest's book to be very enlightening and engaging and he was most certainly able to flaunt his skill at writing in this narrative format. I think that the best part of De Forest's book is the ability to glimpse into the lives of ordinary people with whom he came into contact during the Reconstruction period.

I thought this book was pretty good, too. The tone was more conversational than some of the others we have read, but I do not think there is a large gap between him and Dew or Masur, whose complexities originate in quotations of other people. I found the subject matter very interesting for the msot part, and Liz brings up a really good point in comparing topics from the book to topics from Dr. McNamara's Social Problems class. The role of reconstructoin in creating the modern economic system of the south was interesting, and made me wonder what all is tied to the Civil War and reconstruction. Many things, I am sure, were tied as well to the pre-secession south as astonishingly as the post-war south, but this connection is hard to discern. Most disturbing is probably the foreshadowing of current race relations in the conflicts between freedmen and whites--rights, jobs, economic prosperity, these are things that blacks suffer over in comparison to whites, whether in Reconstruction or today.

I really enjoyed this read. I felt that De Forest gave a fair view of what was happening at the time- he didn't have the strong southern pride that blinded much of the South from seeing what was/wasn't good for the nation, but at the same time, he wasn't a disgruntled northerner mad that the South had seceded in the first place. It was an even mix of both sentiments, and that made it much more enjoyable to read.
I think it's always interesting to look at the North v. South opinion of the Civil War, and as Ashley pointed out, she was taught a different way about the Reconstruction growing up in the South as I probably was growing up in the North. From her viewpoint, the North was an evil force attempting to limit the rights of the Southerners. I have a whole different view of the Civil War and the following relations between the North and South during Reconstruction. I think it's possible that up north the war is taught more objectively because the North didn't really "lose" as much (i.e.- Southern pride)…or maybe because there really isn't such a thing as "Northern pride," (where as Confederate pride is still prominent in the South today) the war didn't affect (the egos of) as many people. I don't know how historically accurate that statement is, because I'm only speaking from personal observation, but I find it an issue I'm constantly trying to understand when learning about the South and the Civil War.
But now, back to the book…
I really liked De Forests viewpoint on this book, and I thought an interesting point he brought to the table was that maybe the issue facing the time was not how to deal with race relations following the Civil War, but how to deal with the economy following the Civil War, and how race relations play into that. It was almost strange to read about the extreme poverty that once engulfed this area and then look out the window and see what incredible changes have occurred. But I'm going to echo Liz's comments on how although slavery is long gone, there are still obvious remains and sentiments left behind to serve as a constant reminder. Furman itself is an excellent example of the cruel irony that upward mobility creates for the minority race (just look at the tiny minority population that attends). If anyone has ever read the book Nickeled and Dimed (it's a sociology book) you'll know just how unfair life really is for some people. The truth is that once you hit poverty, it is increasingly more difficult to pull yourself out. Without financial security, it's difficult enough to pay for housing, clothes and food, but then a car is needed to drive to work and to possible job interviews, and gas is needed to drive the car, and money is needed to pay for the gas, and time is needed to work for that money and look for better jobs. But when you're working 3 jobs just so you can survive, when do you ever have time to improve your life? It's basically an endless cycle that never works itself out. De Forest wrote a sad but accurate portrayal of this type of poverty, and showed how when everyone is that low to the ground, it's hard to pick on a specific race, because no one is higher than anyone else.
So many more important issues were covered in this book, but poverty was the one thing that really stood out in my mind. I'm really glad we read this book after all, because I think (or at least hope) that it opened people's eyes to the awful stereotypes that were around then, and still exist in today's society.

This book is probably my favorite so far, and De Forest is definitely my favorite author out of the ones we've read. Like those who have gone before me, I love that he writes in such a "chill" manner. I like that even though he is a northerner, he doesn't come across in the way that I would suspect- as a know-it-all who is very proud that his side just won the war, and therefore has the right to hold it against any and all southerners. I appreciated his neutral tone, because I wasn't really expecting it. I also liked that De Forest was so laid back in his writing that he cracked jokes on himself (when southerners would tell him that the name De Forest was unsophisticated).
Does this book have similarities to Greenville today? I definitely think so. I'm taking Dr. McNamara's Social Problems class this term, and while learning about issues such as crime, poverty, education, and racial inequality in America today from that class, I get the same sinking feeling in my stomach that I do when I read De Forest's book.... the feeling that there are serious societal problems that aren't getting any better. The book begins by saying that "The worst social feature is poverty," which is true today in most places in America. Another huge problem today are people who are not educated; De Forest presented the freedmen as ignorant children, who needed help doing everything and didn't understand anything. He was the only person, it seems, that had the job of educating the freedmen about civil laws and in the processes of the world in general, and it was obvious that the job was too big for one man to handle, and that the freedmen didn't usually gain a confidence in civil law after they had left his office- they were often more confused! He also talked about how giving food and provisions to the poor whites and freedman wasn't really helping society as a whole, because then these people learned to be dependent on the govt and not on themselves. The relief that the govt provided just made the overall situation worse, by helping create a lazy class of poor people.
Dr. Benson also asked about hierarchy and upward mobility, and I think todays system of hierarchy and upward mobility is similar to what De Forest wrote. While there have been MANY MANY great advances toward equality, I think that there are definitely lingering signs that slavery existed. De Forest talks about education of blacks and how inferior it is to the education of whites- Just look around Furman, especially in our own History 41 classroom, and notice how greatly whites out number blacks. Or take a look at minimum wage paying jobs, or those that are below the poverty-line. De Forest painted a bleak picture of the future of blacks that showed almost no outs for them, and while it is really cool to think how far the race as a whole has come since then, I think that it needs to be acknowleged, especially in a Southern city like Greenville, that hierarchy and upward mobility often exist in favor of whites, and not in favor of blacks.

I really enjoyed reading this book-what I especially liked was how De Forest seemed to not be the sterotypical "yankee". He didn't automatically condemn the southerners for the war, but instead sought to understand their reasoning, which I feel he did a good job of in the last chapter when he spoke of the chilvaruous southerners. I also thought it was very good of him to want to "bury the bloody past as deep as we can" (pg. 170) because it seems that most, especially a little later when reconstruction became harsher, wanted to punish the south irregardless of the losses they suffered during the war. Growing up in the South, I was always taught that the yankees who occupied this area were cruel and hateful towards southerners. While reading De Forest's accounts, I found that he was only hateful to those who pretty much deserved it(the low-downers). I admire his frankness with which he reported, and the bits of humor infused throughout his recollections.

Like Rusty, I felt that many of the disagreements discussed were caused by economic problems. There was very little reference made to problems caused by direct racism-people who are poor have, historically, bonded together in times of want. I realize Dew believed that the civil war was caused by slavery and racism, but I found it difficult to see this in De Forest's accounts. Maybe Greenville, due to its low concentration of slaveowning people, was just an exception and not the rule.

In terms of the other books we've read, the biggest connection I can see is to that of Schantz. I think Schantz's biggest point was that expansion of a market economy caused racial tensions to grow in Providence. De Forest is the opposite of this- the devastating economic effects of the civil war caused racial tensions to not be such a big issue.

I think it would be fair to say that I enjoyed reading this book more than the others before it. It was an easy read, but at the same time gave me a new perspective on the effects of reconstruction in the south.

My most adament feelings about De Forest's parallel Mike's comments nicely. I very much enjoyed this account, and I was surprised at not only De Forest's nonchalance concerning his duties, but also about his almost nonchalant, easy-go-lucky writing style. I felt as if he were telling me a story, much like a grandfather on a Sunday afternoon. One can easily see the moving away from such intense racism as was evident in Dew's "Apostles". Although whites still commonly used derogatory speech, etc., there seemed to be at least slight attempts at coexistence among the races. As far as the stereotypes that De Forest portrays, I think they still exist in some form today. Blacks are often seen as lazy and wanting of leisure, willing to connive and claw for any cheating gains.

My principal thoughts during my reading were based mostly on economics. Almost every dispute that arose between freedmen and whites involved money and/or supplies (i.e. capital). Not many of the incidences, with the exception of Texas Brown and all that, seemed to be instigated out of pure, unprovoked hatred of a race. More often, disagreements were centered around economic questions, and it just so happens that blacks, still in a subjugatory position, were the most likely to be in a position to encounter monetary disagreements with whites.

I keep debating with myself over that De Forest's main purpose was in keeping these memoirs. Did he want to show that Northern supervision was the driving successful force behind Reconstruction? Did he wish to portary Negroes in a certain light? I think it has to do mainly with the former. His analysis of his job, along with the calm tone in which the stories are told, seem to present the idea that although the Freedmen's Bureau could not solve all problems, its presence was a soothing influence over community dischord.

In trying to make connections to the "Piety" book, I feel that I can make a few strides, but nothing too sweeping. The only thing that comes to mind is the few episodes that De Forest mentioned in which whites considered it totally appropriate that blacks should freely surrender supplies if they were needed by whites, and that blacks should bow in respectful manners when passing, etc. This somewhat reminds me of the way in which wealthy Providence men seemed to enjoy keeping a lower class permanently below them, although this class was not race-based.

Essentially, this book was one that I did not want to think about while reading. I simply wanted to take in De Forest's stories and enjoy the personal, real nature of it all. I am glad that this was not a work that I was reading in the context of some dissertation or massive critique. Sometimes, it is nice to simply take something in and enjoy it for the most basic pleasures that it produces.

Edited by author 11-12-2002 08:30 PM
I think it's pretty cool to read a book where it all takes place within a few miles of where we are. Makes it all the more interesting.
But anyways, I was really surprised at the nonchalant attitude most of the time of De Forest. Despite the huge amounts of paperwork he had to do, imagine if he'd actually filed something every time someone came in with a complaint. He even admits that if he did do that, he would be backed up forever and that Main St. would be blocked off with the line of people wanting to speak to him. One of the funniest things I read was where De Forest admitted to simply making up numbers for orphans and crops, and all that stuff. I mean, if I was under pressure to produce numbers, and there was no way of actually finding out, I might do the same. But to hear this guy admit to it, I found rather amusing.
Another item I found interesting was how De Forest brought out some stereotypes that are still present today. He points out, in his short discussion on transportation early in the book, that it seemed that the blacks wanted transportation, just for the sake of getting it. Most of the time it turned out that the stories they gave were false anyways. He then mentions that whites of similar economic and emotional hardships never expected the government to pay for them to have transportation. In other words, he is saying that blacks didn't want to do anything, but they wanted the government to finance their trips of "leisure." I think that today, although often false, this stereotype is used for African-Americans. Many people on welfare are seen as people who are just lazy and expect the government to provide for them.

In terms of one of Dr. Benson's questions...I think, at this point, in this section of South Carolina, that the feelings expressed in Dew's book have mostly faded away. I mean, clearly the whites and blacks don't particularly like each other, but I think they both recognize the poverty of the other, and themselves. And when two groups basically are as bad off as the other, I think there is a connection made between them. Even the former planters, and those who once ruled the land, were in a very dire situation. Time and again De Forest claims that many of these, who used to have money, were still being charitable to the poor (both white and black) but that they really didn't have the money to do that kind of thing anymore. So, in the utter destruction, destitution, and confusion of the early Reconstruction period, at least in De Forest's region, most of the feelings of the secession commissioners had at least temporarily faded.

I normally avoid contributing to the discussion (on the grounds that it might influence your approach and undermine our collective movement toward self-reliance). However, there are some great opportunities with this book that I think important enough to raise explicitly.

It is especially important for you to reflect upon how De Forest book compares with the ideas, patterns, and processes we have seen in the Masur, Schantz, and Dew books, as well as some of the primary documents. To what extent, for example, does De Forest represent the "new" ideological outlook created by the Providence elites (specifically Francis Wayland)? To what extent are the issues raised by the people of Masur's 1831 book still being thrashed out a generation later? What has changed? Are the values of the secessionists of Dew's book still reflected in Greenville, and has the war tempered or polarized things? Who is in control of all of these communities, and who refuses to be controlled? What does the book tell us about hierarchy and upward mobility? Are the origins of any of the issues which dominate Greenville in 2002 visible in this book, or is ours a completely different world? What is special about this book as evidence, and how would you compare its evidentiary richness with that of the other books we have encountered so far?

Edited by author 11-12-2002 11:30 AM
   Being a born-and-raised Greenvillian, it was very interesting to me to read about a Union officer here in town. I had always heard of military occupation in Columbia (thank you, General Sherman) and of General Sickles' temporary residency in well-to-do Charlestonians' homes, but I had never really thought about the Union army being in the Upstate. De Forest's descriptions of the "classes" in the area were interesting, and not too far off base from the way many locals also felt, and, in fact, the "poor white trash" label is still widely used, not only here in Greenville, but in other states as well. Overall, I enjoyed De Forest's stories very much and found them very easy to read and follow because of their conversational manner.
   The section on Cato Allums was surprising to me, though. To me, it seemed odd that a community which wouldn't see its last lynching until 1947 would, in 1866, find that a black man killed a white man in self-defense rather than stringing him up from the nearest tree for killing someone "better than himself." De Forest calls this a "triumph of justice," and I have to agree with him. Rather than the radical reconstruction proposed by some, perhaps letting reasonable people monitor situations like this in the South would have been a better solution. When presented with the facts in a calm, rational way, even these Confederate rebels were able to see that the black man was not automatically guilty because he was black. To me, that says a lot about the state of race relations in the South, that they weren't always as bad as we think them to be.
   By the way, I think the courthouse De Forest is referring to is still standing, and is located on South Main Street between the Westin Poinsett Hotel and the Peace Center.

After reading "A Union Officer in the Reconstruction", which I found very interesting, I was shocked by the partisan and hatefule tone of the time. However De Forest stood out for his freely descriptive and well-written descriptions. With De Forest's 15 month term in Greenville he witnessed Southerners cooping with defeat, reconstruction and racial equality. He in turn wrote down these daily struggles between the Southern ideals and Northern reconstruction, such as the Fourteenth Amendment and new elections.
Interestingly enough De Forest witnessed 48 whites and 76 negroes being elected as representatives to the new constitutional convention. He describes this as "quiet and orderly as to be almost lackadaisical". De Forest however was unable to see the less stable years that lay ahead because soon after the election he left South Carolina.
De Forest's accurate portrayal of the Freedman's Bureau and Southern society was very interesting to me. The setting especially drew me in seeing that we live in or near areas mentioned in the book. It was thought provoking and mentally challenging to imagine this area under Reconstruction ideology and control.

Edited by author 11-05-2002 05:18 PM
Does anyone else have a problem with the Union's mixed interpretation of the relationship between slaves and the term "property"? Before the shots rang out at Sumter, Union politicians arguing against secession and abolitionists arguing against slavery hated the fact that slaves were considered property, and used the inhumane label as a means to show Southern slaveholders to be unchristian and uneducated. But some years later, during the actual conflict, they termed slaves as property through the emancipatory Confiscation Acts in an effort to help their war cause. I guess I can't complain of the irony too much; there are no real rules in wartime, and if I've learned anything about political battles, lying, cheating, and manipulation are excellent ways to "win" a war.

I agree with Nathan that Dew set out to prove racism and slavery as the causal factors of the Civil War. In the end he only proved that they were only among the causal factors, and even that conclusion is not solid. I propose that the reason his thesis and conclusion do not match up is that the evidence never pointed to racism, or even really slavery, as the cause of the war. He tried to make several quotations sound like it, but that was only discrediting to him. He did have quotations (and quite a few) from the commissioners that definitely sounded racist, but I do not think he ever succeeded in making that seem the cause of the Civil War. Besides, he never really answered the fact that most Northerners were racist as well--perhaps it was Southern perception that Northerners were not, but Dew never said that.

Edited by author 10-29-2002 01:08 AM
Dew's work attempts to connect secession and racism. It attempts to show that white supremicist opinion formed the CSA. In a valiant effort, Dew shows that Southerners were, on the average, bigots. Big deal. He didn't show much past that.

I do renig on several harsh comments that imply that Dew sees racism as the sole cause of the war. I did not intend to say he was completely one-sided and ignorant of other possible factors. He does, in fact, admit to the practicality of various scholarly works linking the great conflict to "slavery, the Southern electorate...notions of honor" (p.3) etc. However, his main goal in Apostles of Disunion IS to link racism directly to secession, and he makes that clear in his opening statement. Dew does not claim slavery to be the cause of the war; he says it is racism, which is inevitably woven into the issue of slavery, but at the same time devoid of it. Quote him differently, and I'll renig on that as well.

In reviewing everyone's response to Dew's efforts, I continue to struggle with the actual content of his work. We continuously debate over slavery and racism, but as I mentioned earlier, Dew's thesis statement says he is attempting to link racism to secession, plain and simple. In his conclusions, I am not sure that he accomplished that. His major point (p.81) refutes that slavery and racism had nothing to do with the secession of the Deep South. Perhaps I am misguided, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Dew's major flaw here is that he did not link his thesis statement and conclusive statement correctly. Call it a writing error, but Dew's mistake of proving something he originally sought to disprove (slavery as cause of war; he said it was racism) wastes 100 pages of work.

Commissioner papers had many elements of racism interwoven in them and their battle cries often involved bigoted remarks and fears of an equal-race world. Dew shows that Southerners were overall prejudiced to black people, something we already knew. I know I sound overly critical, but of what value is this? Does he offer us anything we didn't already know? I don't think he does.

I'd like to take back my indications that the civil war from my standpoint was mainly caused by race and slavery. I realize now that it may have done more with the election of president lincoln, coinciding with D. Gladden's point. The north had its share of racism as well as i thought about during class today so race didnt make much sense. but the election of lincoln, if i were in the south at that time, would have ignited a fire inside. I experienced that fire when i saw that Gore had a chance to win the presidency in 2000.

I, like Charles Dew, was very saddened when I read what he detailed in his book. I have a great deal of pride in my family and in my past, but the conclusion that Slavery and therefore the ideas of racism and inequality and hate were the sole motives for my great, great grandfather and his two brothers to risk their lives at war creates in me feelings of embarrassment, sadness and regret for my family. So, I must disagree with Dew about the role of Slavery to "The War." I will concede that for most people in the south, those with or without slaves, the role of slavery in their society was important. But as every one of my classmates had illustrated quite well, it is rather foolish to blame an entire war on one issue.
In my opinion, the South, from the top of society to the bottom, was most afraid of being overwhelmed by the North and slowly losing all of their power, not just of losing slavery. It just so happened that slavery was the issue that Lincoln and the Republicans were most vehement about. The statement by John Archer Elmore regarding Lincoln’s election as “an avowed declaration of war upon the institutions of the South” perfectly describes the sentiment of most of the southerners. Although this statement is addressing slavery as the “institution”, I propose that southerners would have reacted exactly the same way had the north had attempted to assert it’s authority towards another institution of the south. The south was not willing to fight a war simply because of slaves. They were willing to risk their lives to defend their ability to control their own lives and govern themselves as they saw fit. Slavery was merely the vehicle through which southerners felt they were losing their ability to regulate their own affairs.

Edited by author 10-28-2002 11:37 AM
I found this to be the most enjoyable book we have read thus far this semester. I would say that I agree with Dew that race was the main cause of the Civil War, but I would also include that slavery cannot be blamed as the sole reason for the war. Three things in this book I found to be particularly interesting. The dispatching of the commissioners, the fear that accompanied the election of Licoln in 1860, and as Jake mentioned the difference between Negro Equality and slavery.
South Carolina's method of rallying support by dispatching commissioners was something that I was unaware of before reading this book. This method was a savy tactic on the part of the first state to secede. The speeches of these commissoners were fascinating to me.
One fear of southerners expressed throughout the book dealt with the election of Lincoln and the emergence of Black Republicanism. I think that Dew did a good job addressing the concerns of southerners with a Republican victory in 1860. Many southerners were frustrated with this election because they felt that the electoral college system allowed the north to win the election without even worrying about the south. This issue relates directly to my point about the difference between Negro equality and slavery. Southerners not only believed that a Republican government threathened the institution of slavery, but almost as scary to them was the potential that blacks may accomplish social equality with whites. The commissoners used consistently used this fear to ignite the masses.
I felt that this book brought about new insight to this subject for me, and even though I feel that he oversimplifies some of his explanations this book was still very enjoyable.

I would have to agree with many of my classmates in saying that Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion was the most interesting class we have read this term...possibly because it was a fairly easy read. I went into reading this booking thinking that Dew was going to try and convince me that slavery was not a true cause of the Civil War, but I realized that he was just trying to show that it wasn't the only cause. I actually didn't know that there were Commissioners appointed by some of the southern states, South Carolina and Alabama for example, that went around to the other southern states to convince them that sucession from the Union needed to happen. Almost all of the Commissioners stated that to protect the southern identity and ideals the states needed to leave the union. They needed to leave to protect their state's rights.
Automaticly when I hear the phrase "Civil War" I think of the issue of slavery. I do, however, remember my 11th grade American History teacher tell us that state's rights was also an issue, but just not as important. I found it very interesting that many of the Commissioners saw the removal of slavery from the south as a huge threat to the economy of the region. I remember reading that one of the Commissioners, I don't remember which one, said that if slaves are allowed to be free men then they will over take the population and eventually wipe out the white race. I found this amazing. Amazing that many "upper class" whites feared the end of slavery so much that they believed it would be the end of their race.
As a few of my classmates pointed out racism was not just found in the South...there were plenty of Northerners that were just as racist as those in the South and I'm sure there were a handful of Southerners that wanted to abolish slavery. I know for a fact that even after the Civil War there were plenty of problems with racism in the North. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement some of the worst race riots that they were happened in Baltimore and Boston. Although race and slavery were a huge issue in the Civil War Dew did a great job pointing out that it wasn't the only issue that needs to be looked at. There are other issues that were important such as state's rights.

I would definitely have to say that the book Apostles of Disunion was an incredibley interesting read. In the intro to the book it describes how influential the commissioners to the Confederacy were and how they have yet to be fully tapped into and utilized by historians when describing the causes of the Civil War. My first inclination was one of skepticism because how could such an obvious form of information toward the thinking of the Southern states have been forgotten for so long. If this information is so trustworthy and valuable how come no one has used it before? Well I think that the answer is obvious. Dew states, as all of my classmates have picked up on, that race is the major issue for the cause of the Civil War. Although through the speaches of the commissioners you can clearly see that there is a bias toward the race issue, in no way was racial tension the main factor for the secession of the Southern states; which is how Dew makes it sound. Despite my skepticism I do agree that this book was very well-written and researched and the idea of coming up with a thesis based on commissioners speeches made for an interesting read. I also found it intersting that Dew mentions that "Lincoln's despotism" was a factor, but he downplays it, althought it is present in most of the speeches given by the commissioners. I also noticed that almost every commissioner was used to go to states that they had some previous affiliation or connection to; which is obviously a good move politically. Such as the example of Jim Calhoun's son being South Carolina's commissioner to Alabama, since he was a prominent cotton planter there for years and was respected and held in high esteem by the people. Overall, I thought this book was very interesting although like most of the class I did find it a little misleading and generalized in terms of race causing the Civil War. It was, however, an interesting discussion and stance to take and through these very fiery speeches you can see that race was a factor to be dealt with. The very radical commissioners saw the black race as inferior and the "Black Republican" presidency as a means for creating a Haitian like uprising among the slaves to overthrow the South and infringe on their liberties. I liked it because it was an inside look at the feelings of the most radical members of the South and was an insightful look into the psyche of the Seccessionist leaders and their reasons for the break from the Union. It's an outlook you don't often get when studying about this topic.

Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion was far and away the most interesting book that I have read this term. Being from Connecticut, I'm sure it is fair to say that I have a much different perspective on slavery than some of my peers at Furman. Although I do not hold the romanticized opinions of the "peculiar institution", this book really made me see where the Southern politicians were coming from in their secession attitudes.
It seems as though much of the class agrees with me so far in enjoying the book; however, I am going to break from what appears to be the popular opinion up until now and agree with Dew's arguement: that slavery and fear of "Negro Equality" were the main causes of the Civil War. Though relatively similar, I think it is very important to distinguish between the two. The South's fear of losing their economic interests in the removal of slavery was overshadowed by the fear of becoming politically and socially equal with the African race. Because slavery held the status quo in check, southerners believed that it had to be upheld. As David and Nathan have mentioned before, racism was definitely not isolated to the South, so I can see how many Northerners that were called into service to fight were outraged at the thought of dying for something that a) did not affect them, and b) they very probably agreed with. I can not really see a poor subsistent farmer from Plainfield, Connecticut particularly caring if the state of South Carolina broke away from the Union, especially in the 1860s when the local economies were much less dependant on other areas of the country.
I also really appreciated many of the quotes that Dew was able to find that helped his thesis. Regarding South Carolina's refusal to accept Republican idealogies: they would not accept "the abolition of slavery...and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality wiht ourselves and our children" (50). Another quote that I liked was the prediction of Alabama's commisioners to North Carolina that their children would be "compelled to flee from the land of their birth, and from the slaves their parents have toiled to acquire as an inheritance for them, or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to an equality with them, and all its attendant horrors" (77). Wow...these commissioners sound as though that would be equal to being enslaved themselves. As I noted earlier, I agree with Dew's thesis that the Southern white men's fear of being placed on a social and political equilibrium with the negro race was the largest contributing factor to the Civil War.

I think I will have to agree with what most people have been saying: Slavery cannot be blamed as the only reason for the Civil War. Issues that we have talked about in class, such as states rights vs constitional rights and the vast differences industrially and culturally between the North and the South, need to be taken into account. However, it most certainly can be blamed as a large reason for slavery. I think the book does a good job of showing that the Lincoln election was the first major break towards secession. David mentioned that the election increased the fear in the South that the Republican party was going to dominate politics. I think it is safe to go one step forward with what David said and argue that slavery played a part in the South being afraid of the North's domination in politics. I agree with what Andy said. If I was a Southerner, especially a Southern politician, I would be scared that my part of the country (the South) was being ruled by a president that hardly any Southerners had voted for. It would be hard knowing that the votes of you and your neighbors counted for nothing. However, where it gets a little shady for me is the South's assumptions that Lincoln is totally out to get them. They kept playing the card (hey, everyone else is making refrences to games in their postings!) that Lincoln and his followers wanted to totally integrate blacks into American society; "It was unthinkable that South Carolinians would accept a president bent on the abolition of slavery... and the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children" (50). Equality??? I am not too sure where they got that idea from, seeing as the Northeners were plenty racist themselves.

I enjoyed Dew's book. He kept my attention throughout the whole thing, although there were several times that I felt like he was saying the same things over and over again. I do no completely agree with what his book says, but I do like how he pulled in several speeches from many different politicians to support his point. Reading his book made me want to know more about the Northern side- what they thought about the South's arguments towards secession, what their speeches were like concerning secession, how they viewed Southerners, etc.

     I love the title Charles B. Dew givese to his book: _Apostles of Disunion Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War_. I think that the title could not be more fitting, and that it would sum up the entire content of the book if it just included an additional phrase to the effect of "...and the Causes of the Civil War, the Most Significant One Being the Racism of Southern Whites." Like Nathan Crum and others have stated, racism and the fear of the end of slavery were not the sole reasons the Civil War, but there was also the related fear that ending slavery would destroy the southern economy and it's entire way of life. As Jefe and others pointed out, the election of Lincoln and his party of "Black Republicans" was tantamount to a declaration of war to the secessionist southerners who saw this as the initial event in a now inevitable chain reaction that would certainly kill them all, if not their actual bodies then their southern pride, unless they seceeded. Leonidas W. Spratt's interpretation of the election of Lincoln, as conveyed to the Florida convention, struck me as novel then, because he turned it around to be a positive thing, stating that "there is and must be an irrepresible conflict between (two distinct and profoundly different civilizations), and it were best to realize the truth (43)." Spratt was also probably one of the most vocal supporters of re-instituting the African slave trade, which not all secessionists were for, but I still think his argument illuminates the thougts of Southerners at this time who are pro war. Just like I think these men honestly believed what they were saying, I think they also felt that once they seceeded they would either just be left alone to live in their own way, or they would fight a quick, decisive, little war with the puny men of the Union and win, not unlike the American patriots defeating the British in the Revolution. Also similar to the Revolutionary War are discussions about Constitutional rights of southern states being violated by the tyrranical north through tarrifs and, more importantly, limiting slavery. So I would argue, with some of my fellow classmates, that slavery is the foundation of the southern argument for seceeding, but it is that system which supports their economy, culture, and government making its destruction profoundly threatening to the south for more than one reason.
     I agree with Mike Orr that some of the commissioners' arguments seem absurd in contemporary society where all kinds of races co-exist without "full-scale, hatian-style bloodbaths," but that at the time they were delivered they were completely logical. Stephen Hale's assertion that "the slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate (54)" is especially important to me, because it shows how slave-holders realized they had to appeal to all whites to join together, like all the southern states, to suppress the "inferior race." Like Sam Wells I would find it very intesting to read a primary source account of the feelings of the non-slave owning Confederate soldier and why they said they were fighting the war. Would it really be because they wanted to defend their rights, or would it be because they ultimately wanted to guarantee their dominance over at least one group of people, like the Mudsill thesis suggests.
     I enjoyed reading this book and thought Dew made a convincing argument for the reasons behind southern secession. Like anything, I do not think there is one simple reason behind the entire Civil War, but I think racist issues probably formed the basis for the conflict and that they exist today all over the nation. I would suggest Tony Horwitz's book _Confederates In the Attic_ to anyone interested in reading a travel-logue/interview type book about why southerners, and other people seemingly unrelated to the Civl War, are still so interested in it. I read it for the History of the South class and it was a fun read as well :)

I think that this is the best written book that we have yet read. Dew does an excellent job of presenting his arguements, arriving at his points quickly, and providing strong support for his ideas. I found this book to have a lot of interesting material contained in it. I had never heard of the idea of Southern Secession Commissioners before I opened this book, and if that little bit of history was all that anyone gets out of this books then I still think reading the book was productive in some way. Dew presentation of the facts is quite strong and he has an interesting thesis. This book tends to make me feel that slavery was a much more important to the South than I had previously thought. Andy mentioned how he thought that the cause of the Civil War could not be narrowed down to one thing and was in fact a combonation of many things.
The most insightful part of Dew's work, to me, was his discussion of the speaches given by Southerners after the Civil War had ended about the causes of the war. A good example of this is Preston's speech (75). I have heard the phrase that the winners write the history books, but that may not totally be the case here. The effort by strong Confederate supporters to shape the way the South was and is viewed today is a interesting one. These men who spoke so well in support of slavery that they made people cry, quickly changed their course after losing and spoke on how the war was all about states rights.

 I really enjoyed Charles Dew's book. The book was very direct and to the point. I was very interested in the sections of the book that dealt with Virginia since I have lived there my whole life. I remember vividly the debates over the Lee Mural and the controversy sparked by the naming of "Confederate History" month in April. Dew does a good job of emphasizing the importance of the events that occurred in the brief time span of 1860-61. The only possible concern I have with the book is what Corey mentioned earlier about not being able to view the documents used by Dew in his arguments. This is a problem however that we encounter with every history book we read in which the author's argument relies heavily on other speeches and writings. In conclusion this is a book I greatly enjoyed since it helped to give me a more direct insight into the months and events leading up to the Civil War. Despite all of that, I still feel as I did before I read Dew's book, that the Civil War was the result of many issues that are impossible to identify with absolute certainty this far removed from the event itself.

"Apostles of Disunion" offered a new perspective on issues of the day. By showing the motivations behind commissioners, Dew argues that slavery was the reason for secession. He makes very valid points and sound arguments but I am hesistant to buy everything. Racial issues were dominant in Southern thought that is no doubt, but is that the only thing that played a part? As some of you have pointed out, I don't think that we can accurately say slavery brought about secession. It definitely played a dramatic role, but other deeply rooted differences played a part as well. Issues such as agriculture vs. industrial, developed vs. rural, immigrants vs. closed off, etc. mark vast chasms between north and south. From lectures in class, I have gathered that secession was a result of multiple problems that were left unresolved between bickering areas. Slavery, as I see it, simply acted as the catalyst and headline issue for the deeper hatred that mutually plaqued both regions.
Dew makes very valid points in arguing the importance of slavery. I found the South Carolina chapter very interesting since being here at Furman. The Mercury, the Charleston newspaper, is a newpaper that I am utilizing in my paper. It was interesting to see how they played into the secession of South Carolina by claiming that Lincoln wants "the ultimate extinction of slavery" (62). Seems that was a common idea of the day and led to the hurried movement away from the North. Commissioners were sent out in a hurry to proclaim the slaveholding gospel but I feel that their true message was motivated by much deeper issues than solely slavery.

Overall, this was a very interesting read to say the least. I do believe, as many have hinted that this book is my favorite of the many we have read. Though I totally disagree with nearly everything said in the book, I do have a desire to understand the “other side” of the argument, so I guess it was good for me to read about slavery as the chief cause of the Civil War, pardon me... “The War of Northern Aggression” (9). (Ok... I took that totally out of context.) A number of examples were used early in the book. One close to all South Carolinians’ hearts (I’m from North Carolina, but I care too!) was the Confederate Flag flying over the State House issue. I think Ian is right on the money...it’s hard for me to think of the Confederate Flag as a symbol of slavery. There is so much more to the story! Good point about the British flag. The Confederate Flag certainly belongs in a museum. I must say that when reading, I found Senator Arthur Ravenel’s comments on the issue absolutely hilarious. I’m not saying I agreed with them, I just think it’s funny that this man cares so little about what people must think about him....is this guy still in office? But you have to love the compromise which was reached... “sure, we’ll move the flag from the top of the dome where it is barely visible to the naked eye, to a tall, brass flagpole in front of the capital for all the world to see.” Who in the world reached that decision? That may be the only place where it looks even more gaudy. If I were in the NAACP, I would be outraged...but I am not, so I enjoy South Carolina’s sarcasm. Man, it’s fun to go to school in such a controversial state.
 Now, this may come as a shock, but as a southern white man, I disagree with the notion that slavery was the key issue in igniting the Civil War. (Wait, the wasn’t shocking at all.) Ok, here’s the deal...slavery was a very important issue, that I will not deny. However, to blame an entire war on one issue is lunacy! Regional ideologies were quite vast during this time, and needless to say, both sides had more to worry about than slavery. Fulton Anderson commented that Northern people held contempt for Southerners, believing “that we are a race inferior to them in morality and civilization” (63). Wait, didn’t Southerners feel the same way about slaves? Well, if the truth were told, as Nathan pointed out quite well, RACISM WAS NOT REGIONAL! Northerners hated black people just as much. Let us remember: the North invented segregation! Sounds more to me like they wanted to remove slavery to take the clear economic advantage. So don’t pull the racism card...that’s a two way street. Anyway, the idea of political dominance, I have always believed, was the central issue, if one must be laid down. The election of President Lincoln was in fact the first major issue which led to the break. I am convinced that it had more to do with the South’s fear that the Republican party would continue to totally dominate politics, thus kicking the Democrats out of power for a long period of time.

I was very impressed at the Dew book, not only because it kept my attention quite well, but also because it gave me a perspective that I quite enjoyed. Being a New Englander I have always figured the South in the 1860’s to be a place of slow, lazy hillbillies who can’t work for themselves. It has been an interesting experience throughout this whole course to get some perspective about the mindset of the southerners and perhaps some reasons for secession.

The election of Lincoln in 1860 was clearly one of the straws that broke the camel’s back. But after reading this book, I am having a hard time believing that it was one sole factor that caused the civil war. The slavery issue, as we have discussed in earlier classes, might have been able to be worked out through some sort of a gradual emancipation. So, having slavery as the total issue for secession is not an argument that I’ll go along with. I think that it is quite interesting, as others have pointed out, that when the southern states use states rights as the issue for secession they sort of package slavery along with it. The aggressive moves by the North are just another factor that seemed to have pushed the envelope and made “The Perfect Storm” for secession.

This book is to the point, presented in a logical way, and gives a lot of information and different views in less than 100 pages-- I like this book even though I wonder about some of the stuff in it. Why is there a question about whether the commissioners really believed what they said? It seems to me in these times when men stood by their words with the force of a dueling pistol, this kind of debate seems pointless. I know I wouldn't put my name on something that did not accurately represent me, and I doubt anyone in these time would either.
   Another thing, I'm not comfortable picking just one of "slavery/state rights/northern aggression" like it was a backyard game of rock-paper-scissors. I think all three of these could be the answer depending on who you ask, but choosing just one doesnt really lend much to an understanding of the history of the breakup of the Union. One thing I thought to myself while reading: labeling it a "state rights" issue instead of the slavery issue raises some questions about the Southern states. As Jefe points out, it seem a lot like a euphemism for slavery than anything else. But why use a euphemism? Do they not think slavery is something worth leaving over? Do they realize that seceding for just slavery makes them seem morally deficient, so they make up the other reasons?
   If I were a Southern slave owner, the election of Lincoln would have scared the crap out of me too. Dew attaches to this and tries to explain it. Works for me.
   My limited knowledge of the whole issue, expanded by this book, leads me to believe that slavery wasn't the cause of secession. Instead it was the way the Southern way of life was so rooted in slavery and thus a polar opposite of the North. Slavery involved? Yes. But its more of a difference of culture problem than anything else, and I think Dew's book, though it grabs from a number of places, tries to support that.

Edited by author 10-28-2002 02:01 AM
Couple comments.
one. My mom always told me when you break up with a girlfriend you gotta make it a clean break. Like, total separation. None of this "let's stay friends" stuff, at least not immediately. This is not unlike seceding from a union: "secession was irreversible, that, in Preston's words, 'there can never again be a reconstruction of the late Federal Union.'" (71)

two. Lincoln's election was evidently the immediate cause, according to Dew's portrayal of all this. pp. 27,31,33,27,54 evince this among many others.

three. I had a tough time understanding what he's speaking against. I took AP US, but that was 5 years ago, and I got a 2 on the test (good ol' high school days), so the states' rights defense was a bit intangible to me. THus, it sounded like Dew just had a lot of the same comments repeated by 40 different people. Well, now that I think of it, yeah he did really. This isn't a complaint really. Charles Dew, like all the historians we've read so far, must have missed a lot of evening TV dramas for time in the library gathring TONS of support for his claim. These are the history books I want to read!

 four. Most folk here have given their opinion on which it was: states' rights or slavery. So I guess I ought to give mine. Slavery. If we were playing charades and states rights was the clue, I'd give the sign for "sounds like", and then act out "euphemism!" Yeah, sounds like a euphemism for slavery to me. Like when the kid eats all the cookies in the cookie jar against mom's orders and mom says, "Billy, did you take the cookies out of the cookie jar?" and Billy says, "No they just fell in my hand and my hand accidentally moved to my mouth." okay, bad example, but it still sounds like a euphemism for something horribly evil. And Dew shows this by telling you about the changes in the commissioners' attitudes after the war, veering away from discussing the slavery thing, now that it was not PC to talk about any longer.

five. I wanted to say something about identity. The more you see someone identifying themselves as a certain type, the less you expect him to be malleable with his beliefs. Like the "well-known Mississippi Democrat" Jacob Thompson (30) or various intensely pro-secessionist folk. When you identify yourself as something, you necessarily act on that identity. And your identity is often not what you perceive yourself to be, but how you perceive OTHERS perceive you to be. (does that make sense?) I bet there were at least some "pro-secessionists" or "Pro-slavery" folk who weren't necessarily for it at heart, but once they were convinced that others saw them as such, it was close to impossible to change their attitude (even if they thought they needed to).

 When reading the introduction to Charles Dew’s “Apostles of Disunion”, I found myself to be eerily similar to Dew in my own education concerning the Confederate States of America. I grew up in a small South Carolinian town that has deep sentiments towards the Old South and the Confederate States of America, and whose inhabitants hold to the beliefs that the reason for secession was “for one reason, and one reason alone: state’s rights” (2). Maybe the belief in the state’s rights argument stems from an embarrassment for the horrible aspects of slavery, or maybe it’s from the post war justifications for secession from the likes of Alexander Stephens and Jeff Davis. Regardless of the reason, one can hardly whole-heartedly disregard the role slavery played after reading the words of our own former leaders in Dew’s work.

 Of course, I was immediately drawn to the chapter on South Carolinians, and I was surprised to hear the call against the “Black Republicanism”. It is obvious that before Andrew Pickens Calhoun went to Alabama, before Spratt went to Florida, before Burt went to Mississippi, before John L. Manning went to Louisiana, and before James Orr headed to Georgia, the South Carolina commissioners came up with a campaign that would rally the Southern States behind South Carolina’s lead – anti-racial equality. Amazingly enough, state’s rights were hardly mentioned by South Carolinian commissioners (at least from what Dew gives us). It was a pretty smart approach; because the fear of white men coinciding on an equal basis with black men was shared by all Southerners (slave holding and not) after Abraham Lincoln’s election win in 1860. The argument for the state’s rights advocates has always been that seventy five percent of Southerners did not even own slaves, so how can anybody say slavery was the cause for secession? That is a good point, but all Southerners were terrified of “the elevation of our own slaves to an equality with ourselves and our children” (50). That fear, which was reinforced with the rhetoric of these Southern Apostles, has been frequently said by scholars to be the driving force to secession in the Southern states (among non-slaveholders). With state’s rights having been threaten throughout the history of the U.S. (tariffs, nullification, ect.), why would so many southern states so quickly jump for secession now (two to three days after opening discussion usually) if state’s rights were the sole reason for secession? Dew, through looking over forty-one commissioner’s speeches and through quoting our own Southern leader’s words, proved that wasn’t the case. Through fear that Lincoln and the abolitionist minded Republicans would “desolate the Southern country” socially and economically, the other southern states quickly jumped on board with South Carolina.

 Although Dew makes a good argument with the sources he provides, I, like Nathan, am still unconvinced. One can hardly base a thesis on the cause of the civil war, and narrow it down to racism - or even slavery for that matter. What Dew provided us with was the excerpts of speeches from men who owned hundreds of slaves (ie James Orr). I would actually like to see historians focus more on the common southerner who fought and died in the trenches, and see why he was fighting. Also, I highly doubt that the common Union soldier would be quick to say he was fighting to end slavery and promote social equality. I believe most would say they were trying to preserve the Union. It kind of reminds me of the scene in Gettysburg where two Confederate soldiers are caught and tell a perplexed looking general that they are fighting for their rights.

I don't know if anyone is saying that the racial issues were the only causes of secession and the Civil War. However, I think Dew is trying simply to refute the claims of post-war CSA leaders and consequently most hardcore southerners, that race had nothing to do with it. I agree that race was not the single driving force behind the secessionist movement, but I have to agree with Dew that it was far more influential than most would give it credit for.

Edited by author 10-28-2002 12:37 AM
       I am a Southerner at heart, and I always will be. On top of that, I am a born and bred South Carolinian, and I will always be proud of that as well. As one can imagine, I was very apprehensive about reading Charles Dew’s “Apostles of Disunion” and his theory that purports racism as the driving force behind the War Between the States, a clear opposition to the Sandlapper version of economical struggles and states’ rights.

 Needless to say, I am saddened when I see documents that refute what I would like to read when studying portions of the South’s history. Some of those documents were included in Dew’s work, with blatant references to the black race as being “inferior” as well as statements that showed a white man’s burden over the threat of being placed on equal standing with the Negro. These are horrendous statements, and I agree with the abolitionist appeal to a “higher law” that extinguishes those statements’ validity as well as the integrity of those who said such words. However, I do not feel that Dew has shaken the historiographer’s world with his “new” theory on race and the Civil War.

 It seems true that race relations between light and dark shades of melanin in the nineteenth century were not exactly peaceful and joyous. (Come on, are they even that way now?) White men were always worried about protecting the “chastity” of their women, a precursor to a major excuse for the mass lynching of the post-war era; they always had a Klansman sense of superiority and purity as compared to the “ignorant, stupid, impure” state of those darker than themselves. I don’t hear too many historians and/or common folk denying that. But to argue that race was the prime force behind the war is simply taking too much for granted. Racially appealing arguments, among others, (insults from the North, Haitian style bloodbaths, etc.) were used by Confederate commissioners to help convince other states to secede, but perhaps they were mostly used to strike personal biases in the prejudiced minds of the secessionists' audience. To neglect the fact that race relations are a mere byproduct of the peculiar institution of slavery itself is simply bypassing necessary steps.

       Dew has done an excellent job of gathering primary documents and analyzing prejudices within the arguments of secession messengers and their home states, but I simply can not forgive complete negligence of slavery itself. If Spaniards had been used to pick cotton instead of Africans, a plain result of the nation’s money-making agriculture would have been a sense of degradation of the bronze Spanish skin. That principle applies across the board. Deep prejudices and white supremacy over Negroes was a result of their enslavement. Those feelings may have existed before colonization of America, I cannot deny, but they were majorly illuminated in the economy of the “United” States, and to a degree large enough to blame the institution for the war instead of the simple race factor.

         As I mentioned earlier, Dew’s collections of documents are insightful and interesting, but his overall argument is neither monumental nor convincing. He uses selective arguments of secessionist commissioners to claim an overall cause and effect relationship. Do I disagree that racism could have been a factor in any case or level? No, I do not. It did in fact help sway votes toward secession. It was an incredibly evident characteristic of society, and even after the South’s eventual loss in 1865, sheet-clad idiots on horseback rode around towns proclaiming white supremacy and burning “light of the world” crosses. Racist thought and ideology most likely added fuel to Southern fire when citizens were deciding to rebel against the Union, touching their personal prejudices in a “threatening” way that propelled them to solidify their choice. Do I disagree that racism was the major engine that ran the wheels of secession and stitched the flag of Dixie? Yes, I do. You see, Northerners hated the black race just as much as anyone below the Mason-Dixon, but they weren’t seceding over Black Republicanism. The Southern heart of secession was based on economics, and slavery was the institution that held the money of the plantations together. Racism was propelled by slavery, but it was not the cause of the Civil War; it was simply touched on to further gain momentum behind the idea of secession for the Confederate States of America and influence the votes of those state representatives who made the final decision.

I thought that this was a really good book. Not only because of its brevity but also because of its thought provoking thesis. I agree with Dew that racism and fear of black equality were the main driving points behind the states' desire to secede. It makes perfect sense because the slave owners not only lost their property but the non-slave owning whites lost their dignity in a way. It is also not so much of an issue that the southerners lost slavery as a way of life as it was an issue that the black man would become equal. The white southerners were aware that they were a minority and they truly believed, in my opinion, that the blacks were inferior and if freed would do a significant amount of damage to white society. These strong fears propelled the southerners to fight to keep the way they wanted to live. They believed that they had a right to fight for what they were terribly afraid of. I do think that the commissioners did believe in what they were saying at the time. Most of them were hard core secessionists and why chose someone that is unsure of his point to convince others. The change of view after the war was probably due to social pressures. The opinions of white southerners towards blacks were still the same after the civil war but they were pushed underground and made more socially acceptable. It's like the north with racism. It was there without a doubt but it was something that was seen and not talked about. It was not a very pretty wonderful thing so people pushed it away and pretended that it wasn't there.

In reading Dew's book, I believe that in order to trule critique the book, would be to read the speeches and letters of the commissioners myself. Although he did quote many of the commissioners, I find that in order to get the total effect of the works, they should be read in full. From this book, we only get to read a handful of commissioners thoughts, and all of which, that supported Dew's point. Can we ascertain the entire truth with this limited amount of information given? Do the beliefs of a few rich, white politicians, lawyers etc., reflect those of every person of the South? Dont get me wrong, I believe that Dew's message is strong, and does have truth to it, but we should always consider all of the facts.

Dew continually drives home his point that the secession was brought on by the fear of whites losing power, or at least Southern whites. In the last chapter, he even broke it down into three fears: that of racial equality, a race war, and racial amalgamation. This seems to be the most powerful segment of the book. These three fears are those that have probably fueled racism since before the Civil War, and are still around today.

Drew's book, Apostles of Disunion was, as some have said, the best one we have read thus far. Although this opinion is tainted by the length of the book, it was an enjoyable read. It makes clear that race is the leading cause of the secession movement. The south lived by slavery and the north wanted to take it away. I find it humorous that southerners used the constitution as there basis of their argument for slavery. However, they dont agree with the whole constitution, just the parts they like. I really love the intensity the southern peeps bring to the table when talking about abolition and those northerners. "Emancipation, in turn would bring 'degredation', 'final subjugation', and 'annihilation' to the white south." Wow, what powerful words from the south describing this freedom movement. These words are as bold as the "Brett Favre is soft" statement made in recent Farve/Warner/Brunnell(???) arguments. I particularly love the quote on page 54 when talking about Lincoln's election being "nothing less than an open declaration of war, for the triumph of this new theory of government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans." WOW! The spawn of Satan has arrived in America. Another line i found great was when they were suggesting a Sumner or Douglas Presidency and Benning responds with "I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that". These guys are really hard core.

Another issue mentioned towards the beginning was the one of the Confederate Flag over the state house. As a resident of this great state, I remember hearing about that mess every day. First of all, i just cant bring myself to believe that the confederate flag represents slavery. give me a stinking break. it represents a separate nation which has slavery as an institution. crime exists in america. does this mean that the American flag represents crime. should the flag be flown over the statehouse? my opinion: NO. The CSA is gone and we are in the United States these days. I mean, do we still fly a British flag over Capitol Hill since we were once a part of that country. I think not. Are any of us offended by the British flag? i dont think so. Should any of us be offended by the Confederate flag? NO. Does the flag belong in a museum? sure. Another rediculous thing that happened because of that was the boycott by the NAACP of SC. Well, that was the most rediculous move ever if you wanted to make changes by action. Mainly because some of those in support of the flag probably didnt want them in the state to begin with.

I grew up in southern Georgia. Reading history books as a child (I know, I was a nerd--but hey, look at me now!) I came to the conclusion that slavery was the driving factor in secession, only to be taught by teachers all the way through AP US that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and that the secession was a result of Northern agression. I never really bought into the idea, but I never completely tossed it out--well, I tossed the Northern agression thing, but not the states' rights bit. Through anti-states' rights stands, like the Fugitive Slave Law, we can see that the Southerners are not nobly defending the rights of states against a monolithic, totalitarian federal government, but defending their own selfish interests.

Having said that, I do not agree with Dew's portrayal of the commissioners. He makes quite a few unwarranted assertions, I think because doing so makes the reading more interesting. It also sensationalizes, and therefore, caused me to question the legitimacy of his argument. I began to pick up on it early, but it became readily apparent on p. 29, when he says that "every other issue paled in comparison to the South's racial order." Nowhere does he quote a commissioner as saying that, or at least nowhere in that quotation's immediate vicinity. Most of the other unwarranted assertions and hyperbole did not seem quite as bad, but it still gave me the impression he was sensationalizing. That impression led me to wonder whether he was doing so stylistically or for the purposes of deception. I think it was probably a stylistic choice, considering the evidence is almost as strong as he makes it sound (haven't we all done that to some extent--or am I just alienating myself?).
I think the question of the genuineness of the commissioners is an interesting one. I'm fairly confident that some of them were completely genuine, perhaps most. Since they were picked for the loyalty, rhetorical powers, and political sway, I think it is probably a mix of all three. I'm sure the governors and committees had a wide enough choice to pick men that were strong in all three suits--I would wager that the majority of them truly believed in something pretty similar to the arguments they make, though I would not be so foolish as to assert that their arguments were the thoughts of their heart--they were, after all, essentially politicians.

In my opinion, Apostles of Disunion is the best book that we have read thus far. It was short and to the point while at the same time providing the detail and sentiment vital to an accurate telling of the events that lead up to the Civil War. I also liked this book because it made clear and direct statements about the cause of the war: RACISM. Forget "states rights," forget "Constitutional rights." Dew concludes that the primary reason that the Deep South seceded from the Union was over the issue of slavery. In essence, the South wanted to continue their "peculiar institution" and the North was determined to stand by their abolitionist ideals.
One point I found interesting was how the South hid behind their platform of "Constitutional rights" of states rights and property rights, but when it was pointed out that the constitution also advocated equality of all men, Southern leaders decided that the constitution was inaccurate…but only at the one place. On page 14, Alexander Stephens of Georgia defends the Confederacy by claiming that although the "Founding Fathers had believed 'that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature [and] that it was wrong in principal, socially morally and politically…those ideas were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races. This," he claims, "'was an error.'" To me, this statement undermines the whole Southern platform of succession. It's as if they were saying, "we firmly believe in the constitution…except for the parts saying that all men are equal, those parts we just cut out." If you want to think like that, the North's platform could have been, "we firmly believe in the Constitution as well, we just don't think that human beings are considered property, so we're going to cut that part out." In my opinion, Dew made the South seem extremely hypocritical.
Another part of the book I found interesting was the first part of the first chapter when Dew discusses the issues behind flying the Confederate flag over South Carolina's state capitol. Now, I'm sure that I'm treading on thin ice with this topic considering many of my classmates are probably from South Carolina and own some form of confederate flag, but not once have I understood the reason behind it. From what I understand, Southerners feel that it is a symbol of their "southern heritage", but to me all it symbolizes is the glorification of slavery and racism in the south. When I think about the differences between the Union and the Confederacy (especially after reading this book), the biggest issue is slavery (i.e. "states rights"). So why would anyone want to display something that may as well say, "my ancestors had slaves and I'm damn proud of it"? If you are proud of your southern heritage, why can't you display the South Carolina state flag (or whatever part of the south you may be from)? That way people know that yes, you are from the South, and yes, you are proud of it. The Confederate flag conveys racist undertones and, in my opinion, is extremely inappropriate for this day in age.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Dew's book. I felt that he made excellent points, almost all of which I agreed with, and did a good job of diving into the mess of information surrounding this topic and surfacing with a clear cut answer, which he supported well throughout his writing.

   I found Dew's book extremely interesting, and would also like to force-feed it to not only my personal high school teacher but others in the profession who I feel would benefit greatly from reading it.
   While I think that the ideas of secession were already firmly rooted in the minds of many people, I have to agree with Mike about the effectiveness of these commissioners. Without them to voice what many of the people were thinking, many would not have had the courage to stand up for their cause and vocalize their opinions themselves.
   I also agree with everyone else that it almost seems as if the commissioners were trying to convince themselves along with their listeners that secession was the right move and were using the fervor created by their rousing speeches to rally open support for their cause.
   I think there was also some confusion of fact, as previously pointed out, not deliberate abandoning of logic and reason. Given the time and circumstances in which these decisions and speeches were made, I find it easy to believe that they made perfect sense to the people of the time.

Phew! For a tiny book of only 100 pages, a lot of very interesting and thought provoking information was included. The discussion thus far seems to have focused on whether or not the commissioners and the southern people believed what they were preaching. On this thought I am still undecided. However, what struck me more as I was reading Dew's book was his thesis itself. As he mentions in the beginning of the book, historians have been grappling for years the question as to whether the South seceded because of states' rights issues or because of slavery and the accepted view has been that states' rights outplayed in importance the issue of slavery. We have been taught in school that the South left the Union because of the North overstepping it's boundaries on state's rights and that their liberties were being infringed. Dew's thesis was to show that the slavery issue, in fact, was the driving issue behind secession and from my own personal viewpoint I think that he succeeded in his mission.

Like I previously said, I found the thesis to be the most thought provoking and possibly controversial part of Dew's book. By looking at evidence that has been overlooked over the years, Dew has hit upon an interesting chord in the secessionist doctrine. In looking at the speeches and letters of the commissioners, Dew has discovered what lies at the roots of the secessionist movement. I emphasize this point because of the fact that in each of the commissioners and speeches that he examines a tone is carried that the slavery issue is at the core of the debate. I find this interesting since, as I previously stated, that scholars and students alike have thought and been taught that state's rights and the infringement on personal liberties was the greater question than slavery. Yet, it is clearly shown that slavery was the predominating motive. Why then have we been taught the former? The crux of my thinking revolves around a point that Dew makes both at the beginning and end of his book, that secessionist leaders and southerners alike seemed to have changed their thinking after the fact. For example, on page 13 Dew points out that in his inaugural address Jefferson Davis says nothing of slavery as the cause of secession but that "...Northern tyranny and a defense of states' rights were the sole reasons for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy." Even following the Civil War, former commissioners like Preston and Curry argued that it was caused by states' rights. (75-6) I find it interesting that it was these same men who a few years before were ardently speaking about secession because the possible outcome of the abolition of slavery.

Dew does give a couple of reasons as to this change in opinion after the Civil War is lost that I find interesting. Dew states on page 75 that "Like Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens in their postwar writings, Preston was trying to reframe the causes of the conflict in terms that would be much more favorable to the South." Dew goes on to say that in the commissioners speeches in late 1860 and early 1861 "...they were not talking about constitutional differences or political arguments. They were talking about the dawning of an abominable new world in the South, a world created by the Republican destruction of the institution of slavery"(76). This switch has left me wondering what the true cause was. Although I believe that Dew has presented a well organized and a very good argument I have started to wonder if the commissioners presented slavery as the main issue because it presented a more serious and violent threat, as they consistently stated another Haiti, and this would lead to a greater need and a much quicker move to secede. Whatever the case, I find Dew's argument for slavery as the main cause of secession as very thought provoking and an interesting point upon which scholars and students can continue to contemplate.

On a final note, in the past week in class we have seen the nation grow from a nation divided along party lines to one along sectional lines. As Sam and I were just discussing, Dew points out that the South had an aim to become divided along a sectional front and used commissioners of different parties and one's who in the past have had different agendas from each other to emphazise the importance of coming together as a Confederacy along a united front. This further represents the move toward a sectional divide which appeared in the years just prior to the Civil War.

Apostles of Disunion is a book I would very much like to give to my AP US History teacher who referred to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression". On the issue of whether they really believed what they were saying and the logic of their statements, I believe that the majority of what these commissioners said can be accredited to fear. It is very obvious that fear was a driving factor behind the commissioners' charged words. Fear sems to paint anything in a rational light. The fact that the fear struck at the way these people lived only heightened the urgency for the South. No wonder FDR said what he said (or at least what one of his speechwriters wrote) about fear. It skews the perspectives of people. So, I think that these men did believe what they were saying and that these statements were logical to the people of the South even though we scoff at it today. It was quite interesting how harmonious the speeches of different commissioners from the same state were. A good job was done to present a united front. The apocalyptic visions of the Alabamian speeches were surely designed not to appeal logically to its listeners, but to tap into the darkest fears of the Southerners. The ideas of racial equality, an ex-slave uprising, and the mixing of races frightened the Southerners in a profound way. I also found it interesting how nearly every speech referred to the Republican Party as "Black Republicans". By referring to them in this way they did a good job of portraying their opponents in a negative light in the minds of their listeners. I found it ironic too. More interesting was how quickly Southerners changed their tunes after the Civil War. Alexander H. Stevens and others that painted the conflict as black and white in 1860 and as states' rights v. tyranny years later...like true politicians. It would be interesting to see what their line on secession would be if they were alive now and found the nation in a non-apolcalyptic (i.e. good) state with racial equality. Overall, I enjoyed the book and I think my home state needs to find something other than being first to secede from the Union to boast about.

I, like the others who posted before me, found the question of whether or not the commissioners truly believed what they said plaguing me while reading Apostles of Disunion. While it doesn't make their cause any less wrong, I think that the commissioners(and most southerners) truly believed that their lives and, perhaps more importantly, their way of life were being seriously threatened. I'm sure, as Christan mentioned, that a lot of their haste(especially in SC) was tied to the fact that more than one state would be needed if a war was to break out. But, if anything, this rush to gain support caused them to become more firmly entrenched in their racial beliefs.

There have been several references made to the lack of logic shown by the commissioners. I think this is a bit harsh. I would agree that they didn't always have their facts straight(Preston's contention on page 71 that the South "happily bore" the increase in tariffs and taxes-did he just "forget" the whole nullification crisis?), but I think, in their minds, they were being perfectly logical. They had seen/heard of the massive killings during the uprising in Haiti, the Nat Turned rebellion, and the more recent raid on Harper's Ferry. Southerners were terrified(you'd think that maybe they would just end the whole institution in order to prevent the possibility of an uprising, but I suppose that's besides the point) and the commissioners did a good job of using this very real terror to support their cause.

I found it interesting that the commissioners, and most prominent southerners for that matter, changed their minds about what the war was really about after the fact. Maybe it was just hurt pride-not having their atrocious prophecies of what emancipation would bring come true.

Just kind of a side note-as I was reading I couldn't help but remember the article we read by Richard Furman-specifically where he mentions that maybe the black population would be freed in time. If the commissioners' rantings are to be believed, and I think they should be, was Furman's statement just a way of appeasing the more moderate abolitionists or is it just a sign that the Southerners became even more racist as time progressed?

I suppose I disagree with Dew in that I don't think it's even relevent whether or not the commissioners really believed what they said. The important thing is whether or not the people that were spoken to accepted the arguments of the commissioners. It isn't important if the commissioners actually believed what they were saying. They had meetings with others and decided ahead of time what they were going to say. These arguments seemed to be pretty standard across the board. The people that agreed also seceeded, those who did not, did not. In other words, I feel the most important force in this whole process was the people. I think Dew's book is written to show that the words of the commissioners represented the feelings of the south in general. That does not mean that each commissioner completely bought into what he was saying. The point was, again, to simply supplement the movements already happening in the states by giving strong oratory for the secessionist cause. The final decisions came down to the people and the states themselves, not the secession commissioners.

As a side note, I think I have to disagree with Christan that the arguments of the commissioners were absurd. They seem quite absurd to us today, but clearly if 7 states seceeded form the Union before any military force or even threat was given from the north, then the arguments must've been making some sense to the people of those states. The commissioners were simply giving the arguments of the day for slavery. I completely disagree with every argument made in those speeches, but I cannot deny that millions across the south in late 1860 and early 1861 accepted these arguments as reality. So, to say that this is absurd in the context of today does not seem to make much sense to me.

As I was reading Apostles of Disunion several questions crossed my mind. The most compelling was one Dew struggles with in the conclusion of the book. Did these guys really believe all the stuff they were saying? Or was it a propagandist attempt to rally the other Southern States to join their cause? Did they see the absurdity in their arguments? And why did they change their tune after the war?

Dew presents the arguments of the secession commissioners in such a way that persuades the reader that there was really only one reason for Southern secession: maintenance of slavery and white supremacy. These men were sent to their fellow slave States to spread the secessionist cause. Throughout the book, Dew cites them as saying that the election of Lincoln was the rise to power of “Black Republicans.” The Republican party had one goal, and one goal alone – to abolitionize the South and make blacks equal to whites. Clearly this was not the entire truth, but these men argued for their cause with such passion and fervor that they must have believed every word of what they were saying. However, to me their reasons for believing these things are not completely clear. Maybe they really thought “amalgamation” of the races was heinous enough to leave the Union, and genuinely wanted to ensure the safety of their “wives and daughters” and sister States. But it is equally plausible in my mind that, after South Carolina abruptly quit the Union by herself, the people of that State realized they couldn’t go it alone. They needed support, both morally and physically, in order to stand a chance against the United States. So perhaps all this anti-Republican, anti-black rhetoric was just a powerful and effective tool used to gather this support and form a confederation of the slave States.

Regardless of the reasons for the claims brought by these ambassadors, one thing that disturbed me was the complete lack of logic they displayed. Obviously I’m imposing my beliefs on them in my interpretation, but I cannot fathom how the secession commissioners, and many other Southerners for that matter, were able to make these racially based arguments for dissolving the Union and preserving their way of life. But, as I said earlier, these men were ardent about their cause, and where there is passion there usually isn’t reason. After the Civil War, however, these men changed their minds. They still supported their original disunionist cause, but with different rationale. In their postwar writings, they acted as if the coming of the conflict and the necessity of secession were rooted in matters of the Constitution. But there is no denying that, as Dew says, “slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war” (81).

Apostles of Disunion is a great book to me for two reasons: first, it isn't very long. second, there is no question as to what the point Dew is trying to make.
This book appears to be a reaction, not only to the neo-confederacy groups, but also Dew's own impressions of truth. By giving us the speeches by Jefferson Davis and others, from after the Civil War, he shows us what direction the southerners wanted the conflict to be remembered in. However, he shows the claims that race and slavery had nothing to do with this monumental conflict are completely false.
One thing I noticed while reading was that even though Dew took the time to chronicle the different commissioners from different states at the specific state conventions, there was really no difference in the message they conveyed. To me, it was not important who was speaking, but rather what they were all saying. Each and every one of the commissioners made very specific racial claims. These included the threat of a "race war" that would completely destroy all whites in the south, whites having to "stoop" to political equality with blacks, simply refering to the Republican Party as Black Republicans, etc...
These kinds of comments alone point towards a very racially based argument for secession.
I also found it intesting how quick and effective most of the commissioners were. Although some failed in states like Kentucky and Missouri, most were able to either quickly stir up support for the secessionist cause or supplement the already rising tide of secessionist activity. It is clear that these guys were handpicked for their oratorial abilities.
But I don't really think it mattered whether or not they were originally from the state they went to. I mean, each of them said the same thing. There weren't any arguments concerning the specific states, just that each one was part of a greater being, the south, and should stand up for itself and prevent the black Republicans from taking away their livlihoods or even lives.
In conclusion, I really think that Dew has found somtehing extremely important and telling of the times. The speeches by these secession commissioners completely blow away any notions that secession was not rooted in racial ideology. Like Dew, I think reading these has to completely change my ideas and perceptions of the south during this time period.

Edited by author 10-27-2002 01:09 PM
     Dew, in "Apostles of Disunion", takes on an interesting format in that he generally presents a bulk of information and then later presents the interpretations that he wishes to borrow from said information. From the beginning, though,it is not difficult to decipher Dew's chief claim: race played an immensely important role in Southern secession, or at least in the rallying of Southern secession. My initial reaction was this...did the commissioners really believe what they were saying (over and over again), or were they simply employing rich, powerful rhetoric in order to elevate a fixable conflict of interests into a full-scale withdrawal from the Union? Much like Dew, I feel that the same words, phrases, and ideas were used far too often for this to be just an emotional rallying cry. The men who went from state to state in hopes of championing secession were firmly chained to their beliefs and worries, and they honestly thought that Lincoln's election would lead to a racially amalgamated world. Now, that is not to say that this view was not terribly naive or hasty. Regardless, no matter what the level of hurriedness or naivete, secession commissioners and important Southern leaders BELIEVED in everything that they were arguing about. When push comes to shove, ther validity of a belief is not what matters; the most important thing is how fervently someone holds to that belief, and in this case, there was no turning back.
     There were a few interesting parts of the Dew book that particularly struck me. This line, for example, made me giggle..."There was no need 'to wait for an overt act'..." Essentially, Southern leaders saw Lincoln's election--in itself--as a sign that the North had lended its allegiance to a party of Black Equality. So much for any kind of "let's wait and see how it goes" strategy.
     Also, I love the way that post-war speeches by former commissioners portrayed the 5-year struggle as some sort of battle over constitutional liberty. Granted, a part of Southern discontent was rooted in the fact that they thought Republicans did not value the Constitution, but before the war, secessionist speeches did not seem to be focusing on the Constitution. THEY WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT BEING ON LEVEL GROUND WITH BLACKS!! But, hey...Preston and others had to shed the South in a glorious light after the War; they could not just say, "We fought to save slavery and keep blacks suppressed, and we lost...so they are equal now." Could they?
     On a final note, I thought it was interesting that Stephen Hale referred to slaves as an important "source of political power". He acknowledges that these un-people are directly responsible for any Southern stronghold that may be gained in Congress. Thus, he has unabashedly conceded that Southern political power is undeniably linked to NON-representation. Oh, the contradictions...

Along the way somewhere, I think I missed a posting. But instead of going back to rehash what everyone has probably already said, I want to talk about last night’s reading.

As I was reading H.R. Helper’s The Impending Crisis of the South, I was first struck by his audacity; he easily claimed all non-slaveholding whites in the South as his supporters. I wonder if this was true. I would tend to think that many of these poor whites would have loved to own slaves; in fact, they might have preferred it to abolition. Regardless, Helper himself was a very adamant abolitionist, or at least gave a good impression of being such. In paragraph 10 he declares that “nothing short of the complete abolition of slavery can save the South from falling into the vortex of utter ruin.” This is a much more radical approach than many Northern abolitionists we have discussed had taken.

What truly fascinated me were the numbers. I was intrigued that Helper calculated how much he believed the slaveholders owed the non-slaveholding Southerners. My main concern with his figures, however, was their source. I wonder how convincing this argument was because he seemed to pull the numbers out of nowhere. Yet the amounts of money were phenomenal; billions of dollars the slave owners should have paid him and his comrades. But Helper knows that all the slaveholders could never pay this sum, and he is “willing to forfeit every farthing for the sake of freedom” (paragraph 27).

If the Republican party distributed this work as campaign literature, I can understand why their candidates were not placed on the ballots in the South. Southerners more than likely viewed Helper’s writing as treasonous. But it must have been powerful in the North; Lincoln did win the 1860 presidential election with absolutely no support from the South.

Edited by author 10-23-2002 10:25 AM
The Helper exerpt is great, and it makes me want to read the whole thing. I love the way that he begins by attacking "the institution of slavery itself", then falls into calling slaveholders such things as "political vampires" and saying that pro-Slavery men should not be recognized but as "ruffians". Moreover, the brunt of his argument is so clever--he tries to tickle the slaveholders right where they itch...in the POCKETBOOK. Helper's calculations are monstrous (and ridiculously dreamy and impractical). I think he uses these numbers not to actually assert that this money will ever change hands, but to illustrate to slaveholders that they have not been economically shafted, that they are profiting more than nonslaveholders, and that they would profit even more without slavery. Too bad no slaveowner would ever believe that...you would have a better time convincing someone today that the proposed war against Iraq is justified ;-)...

Edited by author 10-22-2002 11:09 PM
Just to make Rusty's statement comply with contemporary elections, think of all the Naders and Perots that throw shifts into national elections. A Republican nation in 1992 saw a Democrat move into the Oval Office, and a Democratic nation at heart saw a Republican (the 1992 defeated one's son) candidate take the Chief Executive role in 2000, all because of third parties. Would we be in this conflict with Iraq or would we have taken the terrorists so seriously if Gore was in office? In a time where elections are dominated by an electoral college and low voter turnouts reflect the attitude that one's vote does not matter, it is necessary to be reminded of historical situations not unlike our own that show drastic effects of election results to let us realize that sometimes, our ballot really counts.

Maybe it is just the math-lover coming out in me, but the table of election results shown in class today spawned a huge drive for interpretation and speculation within my head. My main thought was that, too often, we tend to think that a politician's election illustrates the fact that a considerable majority of the nation was in agreement with said politician's values and ideals. Such, however, is not always the case. A few thousand swing votes in 1856 could have put Fremont in the White House, essentially changing the entire course of events from then on. Suddenly, a Republican is president 5 years before the Civil war would have happened. Something tells me that secession would not have followed from Fremont's election as it did from Lincoln's. Thus, an interesting question: how does the nation look in 1860 if a Republican has been president for 4 years? Yikes.

Alright...I thought it was cute...

Anyways, Dr. B. has been gracious enough to allow some of us more slack-@&# class members to repost from earlier discussions.

Mine was from the Amistad showing (I think we all remember that night, don't we?). All I was basically going to add to the discussion was that, even though the quality of the picture wasn’t all that good, I could still tell differences in the use of light and dark throughout the film. For example, in the beginning, Cinqué and the others are seen only as flashed of eyes and teeth. Then, when he is in his cell, he is shown in an almost divine shaft of light. And finally, at the end, when he is standing on the front of the ship headed back to Africa, he is shown in the full light and bright colors of freedom.

Hey all you others who missed assignments: I think we all owe Dr. B a big one for allowing us to make these up!

Amistad:
One of the scenes in Amistad that I thought were definitive to the movie was the very first scene. In the belly of the ship, we see darkness, and the occasional lightning flash illuminating Cinque's face. He is prying out a nail from the ship to pick his lock. After this the Africans take over the ship. This signifies the lengths to which people must go in order to preserve their freedom. To be willing to die, and to kill for it.
I think that the portrayal of Calhoun probably wasnt too fair.
Another scene is the one from the Spanish slave ship- ?taccora? The whipping of the slaves, with the blood hitting Cinque in the face, and the dropping of the slaved into the water, all chained together, and to a load of rocks. This entire sequence on the slave ship was the most powerful and raw of all. It had to be this way in order to show the horror of the slave trade.
As far as Spielberg emitting certain events, and placing the abolitionist Jodson into the film, this was necessary I belive for the sake of the viewer. Jodson was a former slave, and it was important to get that point of view into the film.

Edited by author 10-21-2002 02:29 PM
Fugitive Slave Law, Stump Speech and Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I found the fugitive slave law to be interesting in that it was pretty tough on the marshals. If they refused a warrant, or if a fugitive escaped from them, they could be arrested and fined. The wording of the law seemed to just drag on and on, all of the sections were confusing in a way.
The fifth chapter of Uncle Tom's Cabin showed a dilemma between the male slave owner and his wife. The financial problems of the home were put ahead of the relationships developed with the slaves. The book showed the female to be the moral voice, the voice of reason, much like what we have discussed in class many times.
I really liked Douglass's speech. I was interested in reading his thought on politics. His idea was slavery was being essentially pushed aside, or being avoided. This reminds me of some politics today, and how candidates seem to focus on a certain topic, and tend to shy away from hotter debates.

A really late posting...
As I think back on Amistad and look over my notes that I took during the movie, I can't help but think about the articles I read earlier this afternoon dealing with the canning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. The images from Amistad of hundreds of black bodies cramped into a slave ship come to mind, as does the image of live bodies being drowned in the ocean all tied together. When comparing those images to the picture we looked at of Sumner being canned, I almost want to laugh. I do realize that Sumner was beaten pretty badly, but the pain that he felt from a cane is nothing when compared to the torture that men and women went through as they were taken forcefully from their homes and sent in horrible quarters to America (the land of the free!) to be owned unfairly by strangers who often abused them. It just seems odd to me- a white girl living in the 21st century- that the torture of one man brought about so much attention (I mean, look at all those articles that we read dealing with incident!) while the torture of many slaves went unnoticed, or at least unspoken about, by so many.
I really enjoyed watching the movie Amistad, and there are a few lines that really stuck out to me, such as "give us us free," "this is where we're going when they kill us," "what kind of place is this? Where things about work?" However, I would have to say that the part of the movie that got to me the most was at the end when Cinque gives Jodson (was that his name?) his lions tooth and tells him that it is "to keep you safe." Cinque knew that the black Americans, his "brethren," were going to have to fight a hard, long battle to achieve freedom. I liked that part of the movie because it admitted that even though this one situation had turned out well, the long road of abolition wasnt going to be so pretty.

I have a couple comments more, now that I've read some more material, whether anyone cares to read or not and whether I get graded on it or not, I'd like to still add to discussion.

A couple things with Uncle Tom. First, we notice at the end of page 88 that the slaves were given some considerable breathing space, offered them by the masters. And totally, I was thinking the same thing, Nathan: The female character had the moral driving force, a voice of conscience. Were Stowe's female characters conformed to her sister Catherine Beecher's model? Sounds so! Third, LUXURY the shackle. P. 89: MASTER GOT INTO DEBT, and did he stand up for his political platforms? No, he couldn't, b/c he'd lost the independence of the yeoman farmer (he likely never had it) that would allow him to resort to subsistence if he didn't agree with what was going on. Instead, he had to break his bond with Tom and Harry in saying he would set them free one day (100 times over, it appears) b/c in his quest for luxury he had fallen into debt. I also was intrigued by Tom's willingness to "lay down his life" for Mr. Shelby, later shown when he was willing to be sold in the place of all the rest of the slaves. Christlike.

Fugitive Slave Law: I can only agree with what someone said a while back that man, what a load of words for something that could be said in a sentence.

Fred Douglass: We had the opportunity of reading his autobiography in HST 21, and it's a delight to read such well-written material from an ex-slave, to know how he started and grew up, and to see him taking political action in these debates. And he always puts forth a modesty characteristic of his talent: "I am not sensible of possessing any special aptitude or qualification..." This attitude was put forth in his autobiography as well. He is verily flustered by the state of slavery in the US and the resolutions of the 1850 compromise.

man, what happened to the view all option?

The link for this week's presentation is located at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/pivot50.htm)

In Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the female characters are portrayed to be compassionate driving forces behind opposition to slavery and the sale of humans on a personal level. They are, as has been stated in class, the spiritual heads of the household, seeking to purify unrighteousness and uphold true Christian ideals, of which slavery has no part. However, I feel that in our initial responses to the excerpts of this society-changing work, we are too harsh on our judgment of Mr. Shelby. In agreement with Jake’s comments, the sale of his slaves was necessary at that time to keep the family above starving. It is not the character of Mr. Shelby that is the antagonist of the story, but rather the peculiar institution itself. He was forced to make the sale because of financial reasons, the economic situation of his nation, and not those to strictly make a profit off of human lives (like Haley, the real bad guy). The institution of slavery was so interwoven with the society of that time that it was simply impossible to avoid, for both good and bad, for both those who agree with a ranked society and those who do not, and for both slaveholders and abolitionists.

Mr. Shelby did not make this decision without much thought, stress, or heart. He made it because he had to, and because slavery was such a legal part of life, HIS life depended on it. When it comes down to the core root of things, one’s own life is what dictates any practice, even if they don’t agree with every part of society that affects that issue of survival. I don’t like pollution, but I live in a section of a country where it is necessary to burn gasoline to travel and make a living. I don’t like ranked systems either, but I attend a university with strict admissions criteria and one that also gives out grades that dictates some stupid thing called a GPA. Sometimes systems contain things we don’t like, but in one way or another, we’re forced to deal with them, and most of the time, we can’t avoid supporting it in at least a minute way.

Edited by author 10-16-2002 01:50 PM
Consecutive days with "Trading Places" and Mark Brunell references were classic. WHOA!

I believe I gained much from reading the Fugitive Slave Law, chapters five and nine from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Fredrick Douglass' Stump Speech. The ideas concerning the returning of slaves and assisting in their escape were passionate issues of the day, as was indicated in all four documents, especially the Fugitive Slave Law. The Law laid down harsh penalities for assisting a slave in escaping, however it gave little reward for assisting in returing a runaway slave. I, like many of my classmates had a hard time reading the document. It seemed to be tied down in so much legal jargon that I believe the typical US citizen at the time would have had a terrible time trying to interpret the law. Chapters five and nine from Uncle Tom's Cabin shine a personal light on the happenings of the day. I felt that chapter five was particularly moving as it told the agonizing story of a master "forced" to sell his slaves. The value of human life seems to mean little to those involved in the slave trade, especially Mr. Shelby. Finally, I was touched by the speech delivered by Fredrick Douglass. He, in an extremely passionate speech, calls on the major political parties to examine the issues of day, especially slavery. He is disgusted that political nominations are made by parties who don't even know what their candidate stands for. He believes that much reform is needed in party platforms, especially concerning the practice of slavery.

First, sorry about the double post.
    I, like everyone else, was impressed by the perspective that the experpts from Uncle Tom's Cabin displayed. It is very different than a text or reading arguements by rich, white politicians.
I was also amazed by the fugitive slave slaw and the stiff requirements it placed on the marshalls. It doesnt seem to give any incentive at all to want to perform this task for the government. If a marshall succesfully returns 100 slaves but one slave escapes the marshall's custody, then the marshall is back where he started. That seems very unfair and the southern influence shows through fugitive slave law.
The most interesting part of Fredrick Douglass' speech in my opinion is his criticism of the government for separating church and state, whether it was on purpose is another question. He seems to expect and demand the government to create laws that appeal to Christian morals. His arguement is so different from the arguement that someone today might make. He thinks it should be understood for the government to be protective of Christian interests. This was interesting because it made me think of how long our modern ideas about separation of church and state have actually been around.

I found the excerpts from Uncle Tom's Cabin to be very interesting. It was amazing to see the different view points that the families had. I found it interesting that Mrs. Shelby cared so much for Eliza and her little boy, while Mr. Shelby sort of took it as no big deal and all part of business. I, like Leanna, found it very touching that the senator's wife so cared to help the slaves that she was willing to give up the clothes of her dead son to cloth them.
I also would have to agree with some of my other classmates in saying that the fugative slave law was hard to read. I did find that I would lose my place alot and have to start over because the sentances were so long. I think the part that I found most interesting was that there was such a high penalty for helping a slave escape, but the reward for returning one was so low. I think it shows that maybe peoples reliance on slaves wasn't as great as their desire to keep others down.
Finally, I found Frederick Douglass' very passionate and inspiring. He called on both parties, Whigs and Democarats, to stop naminating candidates before they figure out which issues are really the important ones. Its like Cal said, he pointed out the difference between voting for a candidate and voting for a platform. He discussed that the parties need to take a hard look and change the platform that they are running on to focus on the issue of slavery.

It seems as though I am going against popular opinion here somewhat, but from my perspective I found the Fugitive Slave Act to be the easiest work to read and also the most interesting. As Nathan just said, this should definitely be attributed to being one of the leading causes of the Civil War. I can easily see how many Northerners would be outraged at this: Common men and women were expected to aid in the capture of any and all fugitives (interesting that the word slave was in fact never used), an institution that much of the North disagreed with. Furthermore, they could have been subjected to large fines and even jail time if they refused to cooperate. Another interesting point I found though, local law enforcement could be rewarded five dollars for "capturing" a person who they thought was a "fugitive". With the value of five dollars being what it was then, I can see how this could easily have lead to a conflict of interests....

Wow...what a heart-wrenching tale the passages form Uncle Tom's Cabin turned out to be. After the first time reading through it I was initially amazed and shocked at the seemingly thoughtless sale of Mr. Shelby's slaves to the trader. However, as much as I felt for the slave families in getting broken up, I unfortunately realize how necessary the sale was for the family. Though the character Haley was never really personally introduced, I'm sure everyone who read the passage comes away with an immediate hatred of him. To me, he personified everything that was horrible about slavery: A man who was purely out to make a profit by ruling, buying and selling of humans. It was also interesting, but not altogether surprising, the role the wives played in the story. Both Senator Bird's wife and Mrs. Shelby come across as the benevolent characters appealing to their husband's compassionate sides.

Although I said that the slave law and passages from the novel were the easiest to read, Frederick Douglass's speech was equally powerful. Written in a more basic English than any of the three we read last week, Douglass gets his point across well without saying anything that is unnecessary, which I felt at times that Davis and Seward fell victim to. His first hand account of slavery tells of what the "peculiar institution" was truly like, instead of the sugar-coated versions that Jefferson Davis and John Calhoun spoke of in their speeches to Congress.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 11:02 AM
Frederick Douglass' speech in Ithaca, the Fugitive Slave Law, and the chapters from Uncle Tom's Cabin all helped me to understand the struggles of this time in different ways. Frederick Douglass' speech gave me a better understanding of what was going on politically. The Fugitive Slave Law showed the reasons why their was some tension between the law of the nation and personal morals, and the chapters from Uncle Tom's Cabin did an interesting job of showing the struggles and relationships of not only the slaves, but also their masters.
I found Frederick Douglass' discussion of the Whigs and Democrats to be fascinating. On pg. 14 he mentions that the parties tried to nominate canidates before principles. "But the South scouted this as a cowardly principle, and it failed. They cried principles and not men and that ultimately prevailed." Then on pg. 14 "The canidates are therefore, subject, not superior to the platforms." This was interesting to me because their are still issues that people try to stay away from in modern times.
The Fugitive Slave Laws gave a glimpse into the moral dilemma that many people of this time faced. They didn't agree with slavery, but they were obligated by the law to report runaways (with the risk of a 1000 dollar fine if they broke this law). This law not only applied to the lawmakers, but to citizens as well who only knew about slaves who had escaped.
The fifth chapter from Uncle Tom's Cabin displays how emotions and financial issues often had to be worked out in regards to the selling of slaves. The slave owner has just decided to sell a slave named Tom (much to the dismay of his wife). This chapter was good to read because I felt that it helped to get a more balanced represenation of slave owners. It showed that they did have feelings for their slaves and it was a hard decision for them to make. This chaper also displays that financial issues often seemed to take precedent over feelings .

   Wow. I had never read _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ before, but these two excerpts were so full of emotion, which I can see especially appealing to women, that I would have to agree with Lindsey and say that I would want to read the entire novel for it's "soap opera" like drama. My eyes especially filled with tears when the noble senator's wife sacrificed her poor, dead son Henry's clothes for the comfort of little Harry, but explained to her other sons that Henry would be looking down on them from Heaven and smiling at their good deed. This novel comes very much from the perspective of a "Christian woman" appealing to other such women who would consider themselves Christian before they would consider themselves abolitionists I think to erase the stigma that would be attached to that word. By pointing out what a Christian duty it is NOT to support the Fugitive Slave Act - in which I saw great room for false accusations and unsubstantiated evidence to be used to the detriment of all African Americans, even those who were free. I particularly responded also to this reading, because Stowe portrayed the "fugitive slave" not only as those which the senator associated the term with, the runaway male, but as women and children, too, who escape not because they despise and want to confound their masters, but because they are left with no choice, because otherwise they would be sold separately due to their good master being in debt. I also did not think about the Fugitive Slave Act affecting this type of person, and I think that using a woman and child was the best way to appeal to readers and show them that just as the women and children of both races need to be protected African Americans need to be protected, too, from the wrongs of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 10:40 AM
I agree with a couple of other people who said that this set of reading was the most interesting that we have yet read. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a book I have never read, but these selections were quite interesting and they had some well written sections. One of the best parts about Stowe's work was the excellent job she did in creating and bringing life to her characters. In the two brief sections, the reader can quickly begin to empathize with the fugative slaves and see the pain in their owners who are forced to sell them. Stowe is writing an emotional plee to her readers regarding slavery and she does a good job at tugging at peoples heartstrings.
The Fugative Slave Law of 1850, as Sam remarked, was very hard to read. The section that dealt with the penalities for helping a fugative slave was interesting in that the penalities of up to one thousand dollars in fines is quite harsh for the times. To put this in perspective the reward for bringing in a slave was only 10 dollars. This shows how much the lawmakers were trying to dissuade people from offering assistence to fugative slaves. Someone remarked in their discussion how the slaves were never refered to slaves in the law itself but only as fugatives. This can provide a unique insight to the time period.
Douglas made an good point in his speech when he discusses the difference between voting for the canidate and voting for the platform. This is an issue that is still important in modern American politics, and Douglas makes some good points when he talks about how people are rationalizing their votes, something that still occurs today.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 10:30 AM
I wanted to say words about the articles on women's rights. What a bold move. Elizabeth Cady Stanton's address to the NY govenment is bold and biting and the response she received was something else. The honesty of the legislature's response was notable but amazing. Did you all see that? They said, "Well Ms. Stanton, we all laughed at you!" Who says that?! But the line following that claim was most notable and prophetic: "" well, something to the effect of, the things we laugh at today could well be regarded as fact in many years, and we understand that. (I can't find the article at this moment). I don't know if I've ever heard about a statement like that before, acknowledging the possibility of being completely wrong in the future. These days we'd barely admit to even possibilities of falsehood.

Also, these ladies appealed to higher law. Like Seward, they appealed to a law that governs mankind, beyond the constitution. Using this, they stormed for women's equality with men, that the current place for women was subversive and "arrogant."

E.C. Stanton was not afraid, saying things both boldly and respectfully (for the most part). And to me, even though they included the bit about laughing at Stanton and the women's address and they didn't support many or none of the women's measures, I thought the govt's response was professional and rather curteous through disagreement.

I would have to agree with Andy, and say that Douglas’s speech was much easier to read than the other two readings. With the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, I would start a sentence and within a half a dozen words I would be lost. However, I was able to pick up a couple things. I think this law opened the door to a lot of criminal activity in the way of picking up free men and acting as if they were fugitive slaves. Section 10 dealt with the legal matters involving reporting a slave missing, but it seems as if it really didn’t take much, therefore it would be easy for some fraud. The incentive for fraud is there, considering you will get twice as much money if the you bring in a person that turns out to be a slave (ten dollars as opposed to five). Frederick Douglas is concerned about the possibilities of this, and also finds it dreadful that men of color are going to have to hunt down men of their own race if the government tells them so. I have to agree with Douglas when he says that to make men of honest jobs leave to go out and hunt down fugitive slaves is wrong. I also found it interesting how Douglas referred to slavery as “national” instead of “sectional”. He talked about wherever a flag flew, slavery would be legal underneath it, and bashed Northerners for giving into the South. Douglas says himself that the only issue dividing the country seemed not to be there anymore, so was sectionalism not a factor when dealing with slavery anymore? Obviously with what was coming in ten years, there still had to be at least hints of sectionalism. He also bashed Whigs and Democrats alike, but why would he want to alienate all the bases of politics? Did he truly believe this to be a “final” solution, and was he just saying his peace? I don’t necessarily think so, because I just think he is showing the frustration of coming closer to abolition, then having a law like the Fugitive Slave Law go into effect. More and more people were calling for abolition, but it didn’t seem as if it was coming any time soon, and I think that just added fuel to Douglas’s fire on the issue.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 09:54 AM
 The Fugitive Slave Act – add it to the list of Civil War causes. The more I study and the more I research, I discover there are countless causes for the war between the states. The Fugitive Slave Act, with its immense implications and sparks of controversy, belongs near the top of that list.

 Douglass’s speech in Ithica centered around this document, rallying cries for a truly united fight against corrupt government and ignorant voters. The power of the ballot and the office is key in 1852, and Douglass, realizing this, brings out the many flaws of voter behavior (voting for candidates who don’t agree with one’s platform) and government positions (For example, South Carolina’s ten-slave requirement to hold state legislature position). His appeal to the personal emotions of his audience is the central method he uses to convey his point. By making it known that Ithica’s citizens’ voices are not truly heard through the current “democratic” party elections, he invokes a feeling of misguidance and anger in the hearts of those men. By convincing them they have been coerced into supporting slavery, the very thing they hate, through their ballot, and further pointing out that the current law is aiding in the “damning of souls,” Douglass immediately invokes negative feelings over the Fugitive Slave Law. “3,000,000 of God's children are bound in chains and are murderously robbed of all their dearest rights,” and by centering his thoughts on that statement, he leads freemen to an overall opinion that something is not right and should be done. When a man feels tricked, he is automatically ready to win back in his pride – in this case, Ithica men can find it in abolition.

 In a similar way, Stowe in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, takes the personal account of runaway slaves to appeal to the emotion and heart of her readers. Hitting someone’s key emotions is an effective tactic in invoking support for a cause, and by displaying the horrors of selling friends, Stowe “aids and abets” the abolitionist cause, especially in her attacks against The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Popular prose is an excellent marketing strategy of these ideas, and by appealing to a common reader, combined with Douglass’s appeal to the common voter, mass audiences are better reached.

 By the way, did anyone notice that the name “Van Trompe” is the name of both the abolitionist supporter in Stowe’s story as well as the name of the family in “The Sound of Music” who fled Nazi totalitarianism. I’ve never thought of it in those terms, but fighting against totalitarianism and supporting slavery is perhaps the major paradox of our “nation”’s history. I guess that’s why that whole conflict in the mid-1800’s started.

     These works represent a clear contrast in beliefs. Both Frederick Douglass' speech, and Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" are efforts to promote the abolition of the slaves, and refute such policies as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. I find it interesting that the Fugitive Slave law was passed so near to the Civil War. When examining the chronology of events that occurred leading up to the Civil War, it makes perfect sense that both pro slavery individuals and abolitionists would be making more extreme decisions in favor of their causes as the war approaches. It is these escalating debates that will fuel the beginning of the Civil War in a little more than a decade.
     The speech and the novel are both emotional pleas to our conscience. Douglass as was strongly in favor of abolishing slavery as early as possible. I agree with what Liz said about how Douglass tried to make the issue of slavery a religious one that would appeal to the noble Christian people of America. Appealing to the Christian people was exactly what Stowe attempted to do in her novel. Most of my classmates have liked the passages so far, yet some have pointed out that at times the book resembles a Soap Opera. My feeling is so what. Stowe's main goal was to appeal to our emotions. The emotions are intended to inspire a more concentrated effort to abolish slavery, much in the same way Spielberg appealed to our feelings with his film "Amistad." My only problem with the book is the feeling of self righteousness that several of the characters posses. Mrs. Shelby refers to the slaves as being "good faithful creatures" at one point, much like a noble pet. And Mrs. Bird seems to have an attitude that says If I don't help the slaves as a good Christian woman, than who will? In conclusion though, I find it very hard to criticize the book and speech a lot since they do appeal to our emotions, and most likely inspired increased efforts to abolish slavery.

I was a little taken back by the readings that were assigned for this discussion. I must say that not drudging through two or three hundred pages of speeches was quite refreshing. The speech by Douglass was the least interesting of the three pieces and was not particularly easy to follow.
I did, however, enjoy the pieces from Uncle Tom’s Cabin I had never read that book before and was quite intrigued by it. I was particularly interested in the way in which Stowe communicated to the reader. It almost seemed like she would show the scenario of a particular slave and then would almost step outside of the story and talk to the reader, as if to say, “what would you do?” or “what do you think of this?” A certain part in particular when the senator is debating whether or not to take in the slave, Stowe almost is asking the reader to question him/herself about the action that should be taken. I just thought that it was an interesting point of view to take.

As Megan mentioned in her post, Frederick Douglass spends a good deal of time talking about party platforms and the voting process in his speech. The other readings for today were interesting and not very hard to get through, but this focus on the political structure of America in the middle of a speech against slavery really caught my attention. He asserts that people vote for a candidate not because of his popularity (like high school student council elections), but instead for the opinions he represents and the platform upon which he was nominated. I had never really thought about this exclusively, but for a candidate to make decisions strictly based on personal preference seems to be a real violation of the trust of the citizens who form his constituency. This creates a conundrum for Douglass, who talks to people who call themselves Free Soil Whigs, yet they still vote for the Whig candidates who support slavery just for lack of a better option. I won't say that a creation of a 3rd party candidate, as Chris was discussing with Nader and Perot, is a viable alternative, but something should be done, as Douglass realized, about the lack of consistency from the ballot box to the political offices.
The fugitive slave laws seem like some sort of Greek/Pig Latin hybrid language, but the idea I got from them was that EVERY person who encountered a fugitive slave was compelled by law (and perhaps punishment by law) to either assist in their capture or notify authorities. In the back of my mind I couldnt shake the image of the final Seinfeld episode, where they were thrown in jail for not helping someone. Anyway, something like this sounds good on paper to the slaveholders, but enforcing this law is an entirely different story, as shown by Mr. Bird in Uncle Tom's Cabin.

The three readings were fairly interesting. I definitely have liked these the best so far!
    Uncle Tom's Cabin was a great story that helped to show people's thoughts on what was going on all over the country. Everyone who could read in America bought this book and a southerner could read about the issues a northerner had with slavery and see the emotions behind it and vice versa. This book told an important story in such a way that everyone would read it through and think about the issue a little more, as well as she definitely placed anti-slavery propaganda in it. She also appealed to the Christian in everyone by having characters admonish slavery by saying it was unchristian like and using words like heathen for the slave trader. It also may be dramatic but there's a reason for it. The story raises important questions and no one's going to read it if it's boring.
  The speech that Douglas delivered was impressive because it asked for honesty from the candidates and the people voting in the government. It asked them to think about what they were doing when they were playing politics. They were not voting to achieve the greatest good for the nation but to achieve political success. Too many politicians of this era said they were voting for the candidate and not the policies but it doesn't quite work when after the party elections the candidate must adhere to a certain platform. It's truly unfortunate that the politicians don't spend more time thinking about what they're doing to affect the country and less time thinking about their political career. Then he appeals to their christian values and tries to guilt them into the right decision as Harriet Beecher Stowe did to the readers of her book.

First off, what is it with all the newspaper editors having slimeball names? If a guy's born and he has a slimebucket name, does he inherently decide to become a newspaper editor? Probably.

I thought Douglass' speech was interesting, mostly because of the way he manipulated the thoughts of the audience. He tries very hard--and succeeds for the most part, I should think--to make Northerners feel tricked and betrayed, by their party and by the South. He tries to make it sound like the parties have agreed to not bother with slavery at all, struggling only with governmental authority over port renovations--an issue his listeners would likely have thought of little import, in comparison to the issue of slavery. He uses Christian appeals to support his side. It seems like the "higher law" argument is seeing more and more use as we get closer to Civil War.

I, too, have not read "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Well, with the exception of the bits we read tonight. I don't think there is much left to add to what my classmates have already said concerning the emotion and Stowe's knowledge of slavery. The one thing I can add is that Stowe seems to esteem the frontier--and frontier-people--greatly. The backwoods frontiersman is represented by the six foot some-odd inches Van Trompe, with his red flannel shirt, fierce independence, and plenitude of able-bodied sons. She creates in Van Trompe not the noble, if flawed, character of the Senator, but a brave and sovereign man. Why does she do this? I think it has to do with providing alternatives. Aside from the personal struggles of slaves, Stowe argues against the corruption of the political system, and a man like Van Trompe, with his hard to reach home, abolitionist tendencies, and arsenal of weapons, provides an excellent alternative--an embodiment of an ideal that Stowe promotes.

Edited by author 10-15-2002 12:17 AM
I agree with those before me that have said that Uncle Tom's Cabin is heart-wrenching propoganda that no doubt had a huge impact on people of the North and South. The christian characters of Mrs. Shelby and Mrs. Bird intrigue me, because they make all those against slavery appear to be christian saints. Mrs. Shelby bears with the institution of slavery in her household by caring for, instructing, watching over, and sharing her faith with her slaves. She treats them as if they were her own children. She loves her slaves to the point that she says, "If I could only at least save Eliza's child, I would sacrifice anything I have" (4). The timid Mrs. Bird goes as far to argue with her husband that slavery is wrong because it goes against the Bible and is unchristian. She says that she will follow the Bible, meaning that she will not follow the fugitive slave law. Even Eliza is seen as God-fearing and saintly as she askes God to bless and reward her missis for all the kindness she's given to Eliza. Eliza claims that God is on her side and the only reason why she has made it to the Birds house. Uncle Tom's Cabin suggests that all christians should be against slavery.
Frederick Douglass continues this line of thinking by claiming that God is against slavery. He says that America, because of slavery, will be "liable to the judgements of a righteous God" (5). He referes to the slaves as "God's children bound in chains" (12) and says that the "guilty slaveholder could have no pease bubbling up from the depths of his sin-darkened soul" (13). He claims that the fugitive slave law tells Americans that their "religion is a sham; your faith in God, and love of Christ are things having no connection with your daily practices" (16). Douglas seems to want to rile up christians so that they will back him in his fight for abolition.
It seems to be that much of the propoganda we read tonight was targetted specifically to christians, calling America unchristian if they did not support the abolition of slavery.

Rusty made an interesting comment about Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin." He said that he wanted to continue to read it solely for it's soap opera value. As a first time reader of this novel, I was drawn into the drama of Eliza's escape from the South and the finding of the Bird Family home at such a key moment just following their conversation about the newly enacted Fugitive Slave Act. Of the three different articles I found this one to be the most appealing to my tastes. However, returning to Rusty's point of it's soap opera value, I must agree. Although, as Rusty further points out, that Harriet Beecher Stowe probably never saw a plantation in her life, I don't believe that the true meaning behind her novel was to accurately convey the true story of plantation life. All of we readers found her story moving and were conveyed to sympathize with Eliza and her plight and the abolitionist/slave helping movement. Was this not her point in writing ther novel? What I gained most from this short excerpt was the powerful influence that this novel must have had on the nation as a whole, both North and South. Never before had I read something that had such an appeal to the masses, not just to the political arena and the educated elite. Every man, woman, and child, whether white or black, must have been profoundly impacted by this story.
Now having spent much of my time reflecting on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" I have a few insights and comments in reference to the other two documents. First of all, I found the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 to be very interesting. I believe that it stands in stark contrast to the words of Frederick Douglass in that the Fugitive Slave Act was an effort to compromise or even give into Southern threats and/or desires. On the other side stands Frederick Douglass. As I previously stated, his stump speech in 1852 stands in contrast with the Fugitive Slave Act. Reading Douglass' words, one finds an entusiasm and fiery attitude toward abolition. Of the readings that we have had so far in class, I believe that Douglass' speech is the first to convey a radical desire for abolition (especially in comparison to Seward and S.A. Douglas). Overall, I found the documents to be enticing and enlightening as to the mindsets apparent in the 1850s.

Out of all the readings we've had to do in this class, I definitely found this group the most interesting. I'll admit that most of that interest is due to the high level of dramatics portrayed throughout the tales, but I think, in a way, that was the point of writings. Everyone keeps complaining about the historical correctness and the over dramatization of the characters and the issues, but think about it. How many people actually read every single word of these documents instead of skimming through some parts? It wasn't the historical accuracy that caught your attention! It was the drama…what was going to happen to the run away slave and her son? Would they make it to freedom? Would the senator be punished for his hypocrisy and blatant disregard of his own law? Books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and even the movie "Amistad" that we watched in class catch our attention and make us want to know. They get us interested in the idea and force us to dig deeper. Back when this book was released it was huge and so controversial because many people didn't know the atrocities of slavery unless it was happening in their own backyard. "Uncle Tom's Cabin," whether it be historically accurate or not, is important because it opened people's eyes to issues that they may not have previously seen. I think the point was not to give all the boring details that people had heard over and over and not paid attention to, but maybe to make them realize that the issue of slavery wasn't as cut and dry as they had once thought.
In terms of the documents, though, I found it really curious that the women in both parts of the story were portrayed as the Christian abolitionist figures, and the men, both strong leaders of their families, knew what was "right" but went against it anyways. They never wanted to rid of their slaves because they were "coldhearted" or "evil", but instead because they had tried everything but were left with no choice in the matter. Douglass' speech fits perfectly into these excerpts. In paragraph #24, Douglass reprimands politicians for feeling one way and voting another: "We know you hate your platform in your hearts; but we complain that you do not in your votes," argues Douglass. "You love liberty and vote against it. You hate slavery and the fugitive slave act, and then vote for the twin abominations." This was the case in chapter 9 of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" when Mr. Bird had voted for the Fugitive Slave Law, yet was morally against it himself. I can't help but wonder if the representatives had all voted they way they believed, and not the way their party believed how much of a conflict this act would have been.
Oh, and did anyone else find it funny that Mr. Bird continuously addressed Mrs. Bird with the exclamation, "I say, wife!"? It definitely got a laugh out of me.

I found the fugitive slave law interesting to some degree. I believe that i could have said what they did using about a 1000 less words. but i guess it is good that all the right wording was used to include all of the specifics. i also found interesting the politically correct term for slave which was a person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States. i suppose thats a nice way to put it. it makes sense that such a law would be enforced. it seems to me that if this law would not have come to pass and not have been enforced, then civil war could have happened a lot sooner. honestly, i think that these laws are a good thing. even though the views are distorted, slaves are property. i compare it, using the distorted view, to a pet that ran away. if it runs away, that person is gonna want it returned and is going to offer a reward for the return for the pet. same thing with slaves, if one runsaway, the master wants it returned. why? first off because slaves aren't a dime a dozen. they cost lots. second, they work in fields and pretty much keep the white owners going. (note: i, in no way, shape, or form, believe slaves are the same as a pet dog).

as for uncle tom's cabin, i was a bit disappointed. i agree with rusty that it is a little soap opera like. unlike rusty, however, i did not find myself wanting to read the rest of the thing. i just really doubt stowe ever went to a plantation. i dont know how this aided the spark of the abolitionist movement. perhaps it gets a little more intense later in the book.

Abraham Lincoln once commented to Harriet Beecher Stowe that her book started the Civil War. The book evoked emotions in many people and led them to take up the abolitionist cause. Although, I am not doubting the cruelty of slavery and the pain that separation caused, I wonder how much Stowe researched the topic of slavery. What Becky said about "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin" is interesting. But I still wonder if a New Englander could really know that much about the lives of Southern slaves. Obviously the book is propaganda. It is propaganda for a good cause, but propaganda nonetheless.
I was amazed by the eloquence of Frederick Douglass. His speech, again full of emotion, was still very thought out and logical. His point about "final" human enactments tying the hands of politicians in his day hit the nail on the head. Sometimes we give so much credit to our forefathers that we don't stop and think whether those decisions were or are still for the best. Just a thought. Also, I wonder in an age dominated by two party politics if a third party is the wisest way to get your platform across. Obviously Douglass felt that way, when he railed against those like Horace Greeley who had anti-slavery views but supported pro-slavery views with their Whig votes. But history mainly tells the story of third parties taking votes away from the party they have most in common with, like Perot and Nader have demonstrated recently.
Finally, how on earth can these people memorize such long speeches?

   After years of hearing about the widely hated and burned in the South abolitionist work "Uncle Tom's Cabin," this was the first I had ever read of what was actually in the book. Chapter 5 made me want to read more to find out what happened to Eliza and little Harry and whether they escaped to freedom. Then, after reading chapter 9, I still wanted to keep reading to find out whether they ever made it to Canada, and I also wanted to read the chapters in between to get the details of their journey from Kentucky. I agree with Rusty that this impulse is most likely a purely emotional, sentimental reaction, but it is my reaction nonetheless. I also found it interesting that Uncle Tom held his master in such high regard that he would not break the rules even in the face of being torn away from his family and being sold. Tom said that he had never abused his master’s trust and was not about to start now, and that he’d rather be sold himself if it would save the rest of the slaves from being split up and the whole place being sold off.
   Mrs. Shelby's distraught exclamation, "Abolitionist! if they knew all I know about slavery, they might talk!" is very telling, to me at least, of Southern opinion of Harriet Beecher Stowe herself. When the book was first published, many in the South claimed that Stowe knew nothing of slavery because she had never spent time in the Deep South slave states and seen the real treatment of slaves on a plantation. They refuted Stowe's work as make-believe, slanderous fiction, leading her to publish "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin" a year later. "A Key" explains her background with and knowledge of slavery, drawn mostly from her childhood experiences in Cincinnati, across the river from slave-state Kentucky. She was familiar with freed slaves and the Underground Railroad and formed some of her ideas about slave life from these people she encountered in her own hometown. In "A Key," she supposedly proves many of her earlier claims, which Southerners had tried to dismiss as melodramatic and categorically false. I personally haven’t read this book, so I’m not saying that it proves every one of her opinions; I just came across it while checking into Ms. Stowe’s background and thought it might lend some authority to her position.
   Overall, I enjoyed finally getting to read parts of the book, and it was definitely easier to read than the speeches!

I found the Fugitive Slave Law pretty interesting. It basically just says that whatever you have to do, as a white in a free state, to get that slave back, you are allowed by law to do. I find it amazing that laws this blatantly absurd were passed. Granted, the views of the day were very warped, but still, where were the Northern naysayers to at least make the laws a little more fair. Of course, it could never be fair, but the law, as passed, is rediculous. I mean, allowing use of unlimited force for the capture of these fugitives blows my mind. Also, I wonder if local officers would simply find local blacks and turn them in to federal authorities, and in doing so get the 5 dollar reward for finding a black, but not the right one......who knows if that actually happened, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyways, in terms of Frederick Douglas, I think he is amazing. For a black man to say the things he does, attacking both political parties, in the era in which he lived, was really a gutsy move. A great line, which I'll paraphrase, is there's never been a time where justice, liberty, and humanity were in more imminent peril than his present time. That idea not only defines the struggle of slaves against their white owners, but also of the nation as a whole, especially the South's constant argument that their rights were being trampeled upon. I can easily see many of the great Southern leaders of the day using the same language to describe the conditions on the national political scene.
As for Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was very disappointed. All I've ever heard is that this is a very important book with important effects on the people of the United States at that time. However, I can't get past the rediculous sexism that Harriet Beecher Stowe fills her story with. For every white male discussed, save the dude at the end of Ch. 9, they are at least once described in horrible ways. She makes the white male seem the enemy of all humanity, even white women. The white women are shown to be goddesses of mercy. Like Rusty I can't help but wonder if the author carried this rediculous stereotype throughout the entire book, or if it is just evident in these two chapters. Anyways, in general this book is clearly fiction. I mean, I've never been to a plantation either, but I just don't think that the conditions in which the author seemed to describe were at all accurate. I mean, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that this book alerted everyone to the horrors of slavery, yet in these passages at least, all the slaves encounter are white folks who aren't trying to do them harm. I'm not arguing the affect of this book, because clearly it did wonders for a lot of people, but I wonder if that is simply because no books before it had ever even tried to see things in terms of the slave as opposed to the master. I guess, even though I don't think it's very good, it served it's purpose well.

In closing, I agree with Rusty that the Don King look is a classic

I think the dominant theme throughout these readings was hypocrisy. It seems to me that there were a lot of people saying one thing and then acting in a completely contradictory manner.
  
As Rusty pointed out, the word "slave" is not used in the Fugitive Slave Act, but they are instead referred to as a "person held to service or labor". If the politicians agreed enough with the idea of slavery to pass the fugitive slave act, they might as well call it by what it really is.
  
Then, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, not only is the slaveowner hypocritical, but so is the senator. Even though the senator helps Eliza and her son escape, he votes in favor of the fugitive slave act. I know that Senator Bird is a fictitious character, but apparently this was not unusual for people in power, as Frederick Douglass points out in his speech. Sticking with Uncle Tom's Cabin, just from the two chapters we read(and I don't know if this is an adequate representation of the rest of the book) I don't understand how it helped spark much with the abolitionist movement. Perhaps in later chapters, Stowe discusses the evils of slavery. I can also see how the teachings of her sister and the idea of the domestic sphere played into the characters of Emily and Mrs. Bird. They definitely represented what was considered to be "proper" women in that they were even tempered, Christian, morally conscious, etc..

Overall, I found the readings to be informative, if a bit disturbing due to the levels of hypocrisy.

Fugitive Slave Law: It greatly annoys me that slaveowners fought so ardently for their cause, yet cannot seem to use the word "slave" in a legal document. Quite an interesting paradox...they passionately defend such an inhumane institution, but they feel the need to cloud all legislation with terms such as "fugitive". Also, it is always fascinating how people on all sides of every argument always find a way to use the Constitution to justify their opinion. If one can pull the Ole' U.S. Constitution into is corner, he is destined to prevail. Right?

Douglas Speech: While reading the first few paragraphs, I thought that Frederick Douglas' entire speech might actually be about political platforms. However, I was glad to see that he eventually fell into his old, trusty Mr. Fiery Abolitionist character. F.D. is one of my favorite historical figures, and I love reading his blazing oratories concerning the many evils of slavery. Along with Martin Luther King Jr. and Harriet Tubman, one could argue that Douglas was one of the most important black Americans who ever lived, as far as rights, freedom, and general human progress are concerned. Moreover, his hair kicks ass.

Uncle Tom's Cabin: I find myself caught in an odd dilemma concerning the book. I find myself wanting to read the entire thing, but I know my only reason in doing so is for the sentimental, soap-opera value. Harriet Beecher Stowe most likely never saw a slave plantation. She may never have even been into the "hardcore" slave states like Georgia and South Carolina. I have to disagree a little with Brittany. I think that slavery was a little more brutal and monstrous than we have deemed it in class. Such fictional novels as Uncle Tom's Cabin--single tales about people who never existed--tend to cloud us into forming rosy notions about human bondage. A bit of caution is required.
I very much enjoyed the character of Tom's former owner's wife in chapter 5. She is unabashedly portrayed as the prototypical 19th-century Christian woman. Moreover, she calls her husband "Mr." So different from today. This book is definitely saturated with several stereotypical drama-situations that persist even today...the aforementioned woman, the dramatic slave escape over ice, the noble Tom deciding to be sold and not risk his family's harm...
I will probably read this novel just to see if I get a different picture of the whole.

Doesn't the name Simon Legree just sound inherently evil?

Yikes.

Goodnight all.

I found these reading particularly disturbing. Seeing the personal side of slavery in Uncle Tom's Cabin coupled with the legislative aspect was concerning. Uncle Tom's Cabin displays slaves treated well by their owners but owner's that were not person enough to stand for what they believe. For example, the senator aides a slave which is in direct violation to laws that he voted for. He even admits that helping a fugitive is Christian life but laws must be set against such acts for the good of the country.
I would have to agree with Douglas that law makers hate their platform in their hearts but not in their votes (3). This seems that slavery was maintained for the sheer joy of bringing political parties closer together. This inhumane act of party-indulgence violates all that our country stands for and should rightly be argued against.
However I don't think Douglas is faultless. He descibes slavery as "barbarous, monstrous, and bloody". No doubt that was the case in certain circumstances, but in our reading that has not been a constant theme. We have seen instances such as Uncle Tom's Cabin where slaves have been treated and fed well. In turn they interacted with their owners in kindness and loyalty. This is a far cry from the words that found their way out of Douglas' mouth.

William Henry Seward, Stephen Douglas, and Jefferson Davis' speeches on slavery were tedious to read, but provided a good insight into how different arguements were formed from different politicians at this time. Two things that struck me (and have already been mentioned) are the eloquence with which Jefferson Davis speaks, and how each man is portraying themselves as patriotic.
Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederate States speaks with an eloquence that I was taken aback by. Many people in this time period claimed that Southerners were characterized by emotion and did not rationally think arguements out. This is clearly not the case with Jefferson Davis.
As Andrew also said earlier in his post I too found it interesting that all of these men try to portray themselves as patriotic. It is also thought provoking to think about the fact that these men where relatively moderate in their views and in no way extremists.

Dusty has brown hair and brown eyes

I thought that the three speeches were very good and very well said. Once again it seemed that the main issue was slavery which makes very good sense. It was the driving force in the southern economy and the possibility of the freedom of slaves struck fear into many southerners.
Seward takes the most radical side for antislavery. He uncompromising ways express his belief. He believes that war will happen. This whig doesnt make many happy and creates some enemies in his speech. Douglas's speech was, well, very long and he said the same stuff over and over again. I admire him trying to take away the notion of a 'north' and a 'south' and trying to preserve the union namesake. I enjoyed Davis's speech the most. I liked the way he turned the tide and made the claim that the north was the agressor. Overall these speeches were interesting but i dont think i would like to be in attendance when they were given. due to the length, i would probably kick back and nap. but i do find it interesting how different views are taken on these subjects and how they back themselves up very well.

I thought one of the most interesting aspects of these arguements, something that was very evident in interaction between so many politicians of the day, was the politeness and the deference that these men seemed to have for one another while essentially mocking the other mens arguements. It is so hard to tell that they are actually belittling each other because of the verbosity of their speech. Even when Davis misrepresents Doulgas' beliefs on the wilmot proviso, the politeness in which they argue over it is almost laughable. It is so different than how we are today.
   Another thing I thought was interesting about their arguements is how they all tie their beliefs about the conflict into some kind of patriotism. They all claim that the arguement they are making shows their dedication to the union and the best interests of the nation.

 These three speeches were very impressive and the politicians articulated their points eloquently. They backed up their arguments well with ample evidence and they were not going to be proven wrong.
 William Seward seems to be the most extreme of the two anti-slavery people. He staunchly believes that slavery is wrong, but he is very unwilling to compromise. His stubborn stand seems to aggrevate the southerners as well as the northern democrats. He says that slavery should be abolished entirely and that below the 36th parallel all the newly aquired states will be slave states because people have the choice. Giving a choice to the people and allowing southern states to have their rights will preserve the union and Seward doesn't seem so concerned with that. He believes that war is eminent and shows a lack of concern because of this. It also seems that the northerners and southerners are on the same side but the party lines in the north divide along the ideas of how to go about changing slavery. Seward is a Whig who offends the Democrats and creates more enemies with his words than friends. He does have very good points and he's committed to doing the right thing, but when it comes to politics and getting something done it seems he has placed barriers in his own path.
   Douglas on the other hand is a norhtern Democrat who is taking a position of states rights. He believes that since slavery has always been a state issue it should continue to be one. Douglas seems to be more concerned with preserving the union and coming to a better decision than to go to war over it all. Douglas also shows the party divisions when he criticizes Seward for attacking the Northern Democrats. I agree with Douglas that it is low to attack someone in their speech and be as partisan as Seward was. It is completely in appropriate and not necessary. Douglas also makes good points he not only says that slavery should be abolished but he also talks about the right the states should have to make this decision on their own. This way the southerners can't argue as much about not getting their rights because they use that arguement to take attention away from the immorality of slavery.
   Jefferson Davis' speech for slavery is very interesting. He makes a lot of points but he doesn't back them up with valid evidence. He just makes assumptions about slaves' behavior and how they lived in Africa. It is the bias and descrimination towards blacks in all of America at this time that allow for these incorrect facts to be used as evidence. When speaking about states' rights to deflect from slavery he discusses morality and asks Congress to be moral in thinking about southern states and how they should be able to make their own decisions. He also believes it takes morality to recongnize that there are numerous wrongs heaped upon the south that if the northerners understood them there would be peace and harmony once again. He has many more ideas similar to this one taking terms in the constitution and Bible and twisting them to support what he believes is right. His arguments tend to progress this way and they are completely invalid. They don't count because they are absurd.
  These three orations show the way that people were thinking in the 1850's about slavery and how different party and regional lines can divide a group of people.

Having read the three speaches, I like many, are impressed with the passion that they contain. Each individual speaker was encompassed in his viewpoint, sharing it with excitement and vigor. However, they were not simply emotional but factual. Many times they quoted statistics, various authors or personal cases. This coupled with their deep conviction made each argument convincing and interesting.
Douglas, I feel, was the hardest to grasp. After making one point he would then contradict himself. His desire to abolish slavery and then the statement that states have sovereignty were hard to reconcile. Throughout his argument though, he made various points worth noting, such as North and South differences were being exaggerated in order to form parties according geographical lines (36). Although this may not be the only reason for this debate, I do agree with him that politicians did use certain issues to promote their ideology.
Seward I thought was the most interesting to read. His higher law argued that slaves were indeed people. By quoting founding fathers, debates at conventions, philosophers and the Bible he establishes a case that is convincing. He states that "no other Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery" (5). This statement struck at the heart of some listeners calling into question their religious committment. This illustrates the breadth of the slavery debate. The whole person was determined and catagorized by their stance on this one issue.
Jefferson Davis saw the "gatehring storm which threatens to break upon us" on its way. He called the government to action in directing territorial establishment. He wants to the government to be familiar with who and what is occuring in a territory before it is "conceded to them to determine the fundamental law of the country" (30). This is in direct conflict to Douglas' statements made earlier and thus continued to storm that was raging.
Off to class!

   Along with the rest of my classmates, I was also amazed with the length and passion of these important men's arguments. And while I agree with Catherine that Dubya may not be up to a speech this long and involved and with so many multi-syllabic words, I daresay that, in his day (about 1200 years ago!!), our own Strom Thurmond could have knocked these guys flat on their tails.
   I also found it interesting that these men like Seward, for example, making their arguments so many generations ago, used some of the same techniques used by politicians today. Anyone following the senatorial and gubernatorial races in South Carolina right now would realize that mudslinging, personal attacks, and name-calling do nothing more than distract the public from your original message. I think politicians today are just as passionate as those before them, but they're just passionate about the wrong things. Instead of being impassioned about the issues facing our country today, and I think that the issue before us of war with Iraq is just as important as the issue of slavery was to these speakers, politicians today would rather smear their opponents and distract us from their stances on the issues and their past voting record.
   Stepping off my soapbox now: I also think that it sounds as if Jefferson Davis is trying to justify slavery as much to himself as he is to others, and I have to agree with Cal at the shock of Davis' language and attitude towards the slaves. With his views, as they were expressed here, it's no wonder that people thought of the South as a land of ignorant, racist bastards who brutally enslaved and demoralized an inferior race. While not all Southerners shared Davis' exact mentality, it's still shameful that they would have placed so much trust and faith in a person like that to lead the new Confederacy.
   I also think that it’s interesting that all political issues of the day, regardless of their relevance to slavery, somehow ended up being about slavery.
   Although it took several hours to read all these pages, I’m glad they were assigned because I think their reading offers a better understanding of the stands people were taking on these issues.

     These three speeches by the politicians of the 1850's have already been analyzed quite accurately by the other members of the class. Jefferson Davis, the future leader of the Confederacy, defends the southern states that still practice slavery. As David has said, Jefferson Davis recognized that it was vital for his argument to associate slaves as the private property of the southern owners. Davis hoped to take some of the emotional and moral questions out of the argument by dehumanizing the slaves. Davis felt that he could prove slavery was beneficial to the slaves, while at the same time making the non slave holding members of Congress think of the institution as a fair practice for all parties involved. For the time, Jefferson Davis' strategy was well thought out. Only in retrospect do we find it impossible to agree with his remarks.
     Seward was probably the most realistic and accurate in terms of recognizing the coming events in the near future. Seward attempted to do the exact opposite of Davis; he wanted to appeal to the emotions of the members of Congress. As several other people have already said, Seward also recognized the coming war and end of slavery.
     The most interesting and outspoken of these men was Stephen Douglas. I am still trying to figure out how this man had any political friends after some of his speeches. After blasting his opposition, Douglas then attempted to prove that the decision of slavery should be left up to the individual states. Once again as many other people have noted, Douglas' own personal stance on slavery remained a bit ambiguous. These three men were all very animated and passionate about this subject. When studying these works it is important to attempt to read them in the proper context. The question when looking at these speeches is not how we would react today to hearing such remarks, but rather how the voting members of congress reacted to these particular arguments that represented both sides of this heated debate.

Edited by author 10-11-2002 11:07 AM
Clay's proposed compromise on the Texas issue was controversial! We see that in the speeches here, Jefferson gettin' all fired up about the 'high and holy purpose of the preserving the union,' and well, I mean Douglas and Jefferson and Seward, fighting Texas, Slavery, Texas, states rights, Texas, texas, slavery slavery...

Check out some of the other issues going on in the background of Clay's Compromise, feeding this controversy: "According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery....Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html) Here, we see this Fugitive SLave Act as a means to pacify the slaveholding RIGHT that the South purports.

 But Wm. Seward isn't a fan of slavery, and it's pretty cool how he shows it, he uses what sounds like Calhounite reasoning for states' rights boldly to defy slavery: "But assuming the same premises," he proclaims, talking about regarding states as coequal just as MEN ARE EQUAL under law, "that all men are equal by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the ground." SLAM! What a smack. Anyway, that was the coolest thing I ran into in the reading. HOpe that historical stuff above is helpful. Hey, when was this Seward speech written? Same time as Douglass and Davis's?

As i was reading Douglas's speech and came across his line that says, "Was there ever such a torturing of language-- such a perversion of meaning?" I had to give him a hearty amen. Seeing as I had previously been reading the other two articles before I got to his and had an earfull of three different views on slavery, I was amazed at how whole documents and words can be twisted and bended to make them mean whatever you darn right want them to believe. It's interesting to have opposing sides both citing the same Constitution to make their case (something that we saw in the debates in class the other day- how opposing sides both sited scripture to makes their case). I can easily see how a powerful speaker can draw in supporters by "torturing" his words. Like Ashley and Chris, I found Jeffersons words convincing. While reading his article, there were several times when Jefferson was talking about the role of the government and governing in the interests of the people that I found myself thinking that he had made a good point for slavery, and then I would catch myself and be surprised that I had thought that. But I guess Chris is right- Jefferson was obviously a powerful speaker seeing as he was the president of the confederacy!
Going along with what Lindsey said about the fact that civil war didnt break out in the 1820s because there was no large movement to the west, I liked what Douglas had to say about sectionalism. On page 4 he says,"...but there is a power in this nation greater than either the North or the South-- a growing, increasing, swelling power, that will be able to speak the law to this nation, and to execute the law as spoken. That power is the country known as the great West." He goes on to say that the US fully intends to follow, navigate, and use the West. These articles made me realize how many political steps had to be made before the US could fully take advantage of the West, by showing the disagreements and arguments and personalities behind the different beliefs that had to be worked through.
I liked how Seward pitied the institution of slavery against the institution of freedom. He says that while slavery is "temporary, accidental, partial, and incongruous", freedom is "perpetual, organic, universal, and in harmony with the Constitution" (4-5). I liked his point that South Carolina would continue to exist even if slavery ended, but that SC would fail to exist if freedom ended. When put so generally and basic like that, it just makes a whole lot fo sense to me...

These three speeches are an intriguing look into the oratory of the 19th century, especially that which deals with slavery. I was amazed at the length of these speeches, to be able to stand and deliver speeches of this length took great skill, and I can only imagine what it was like to actually sit down and listen to them. Is there anyone who could speak like this today?

Although Davis' speech did have some good points, like the laws of Mexico. Not only was the war won by the US, the land was also paid for, and therefore the laws of Mexico would have no power. I agree with Ashley on the subject of paragraph 70 in Davis' speech. Saying that by bringing slaves to a more civilized and Christian land "would elevate and diginify his nature" is just so ridiculous.

I found Sewards speech on higher law to be interesting. Like Mike, I found Seward's point that the south had "no adequate cause" for revolution ridiculous. The people of the southern states believed that their power was being taken away, and thats all they needed.

Douglas' speech was unclear to me, he seemed to keep going and going, just finishing it took some real concentration. The point of his speech was mostly on how the states should decide on the issue of having slavery.

It is interesting to see how politicians, both during antebellum sessions of Congress as well as in today’s debates, use the same elements of society and culture to support their differing arguments. They merely present contrasting interpretations and opinions of those elements to propel their own ideas and philosophies. We constantly see this in the Supreme Court, the classroom, and the daily news.

Douglass, Seward, and Douglas show this element of debate to be so in their bickering over the issue of slavery being admitted into the territory of the newly-formed Texas, using both the Constitution and geography as their supportive statements. The future president of the Confederate States argues that the Constitution specifically endorses and encourages slavery, while Seward and Douglas, using the same quotations, argue that it does not. They even go further to imply that the absence of mentioning the peculiar institution in the supreme document meant the founding fathers were against it and its implications against liberty. The Constitution is vague in many areas, and it seems as though slavery is one of those areas. I don’t endorse slavery, but I also don’t endorse the pure acceptance of the Constitution’s pro or con support on the issue, as it is non-specific and open to interpretation. I realize that denouncing some uses of interpretation may threaten the very essence of our justice and legislative system, and I’m not trying to get ultra-philosophical in a simply online discussion. However, I think that in dealing with primary documents that are open to interpretation, the decisions that are made in regards to using that document for support are not based primarily on the work, as they can’t be, and are strictly “interpreted” according to personal opinion and selfish motives.

The second element these three Congressmen point to is physical geography. In mentioning of the Missouri Compromise and the 36° 30’ mark of division in free and slave states, all three argue that geographical provisions define the existence of slavery in Texas. Douglass slants that the direct division implies that slavery should be permissible in any territory below the Missouri line and should therefore be allowed in Texas. On the other hand, Seward argues against the generalized, blindly-accepted terms of “north and south,” stating that the overall grouping of states is ignorant and that Missouri provisions do not exclude westward states, even if it implies northern and southern boundaries.

The ethics of slavery are heavily debated in these arguments, pointing to rights of transporting property, degradation of humans, and profit vs. true liberty. However, I chose not to go into this issue, because I feel it is overemphasized, not in the sense of unimportance, but in the sense that I am increasingly developing a personal problem with stubborn pro-slavery arguments with little basis. It gets old hearing irrational statements over and over. I am not ashamed of my Southern heritage, but I find it more and more disappointing to realize the non-validity of the past’s so-called great arguments.

I don't think that I have anything of value to add to this conversation, but since I am required to try...

The eloquence of Jefferson Davis surprised. It shouldn't have because it makes sense that one of the reasons he was elected President of the Confederate States was his diplomatic skill. But it did, surprise me because I always saw Jeff Davis as your stereotypical southern gentleman from Gone With the Wind, a movie of which I am not a fan. I believe that the reason that Davis gave arguments against slavery was so he would be able to counter them. Many people make arguments by pointing out negative aspects and then try to crush them with positive aspects. A good move by a good, but very misguided, politician.

W.H. Seward was optimistic in his belief that the Southerners would not revolt. Today, we look back incredulously and wonder what he was thinking. However, it is understandable how someone like Seward could not see a violent settlement. The country, thought to have the greatest system of government, was not yet 100 years old. Grandfathers and fathers of Southerners and Northerners had fought side by side in several wars. He may have been overly optimistic, but who can blame him?

Stephen Douglas has always fascinated me as the guy who beat Lincoln (and later lost to Lincoln). He was a shrewd politician. His unclear stance on slavery proves that as it seems he may have been trying to play to both sides. But, man, was his speech long.

I wish sometimes that we could experience history as it happened with no preconceived ideas. If many thought that these speeches were eloquent from reading them off a computer, I wonder what we would think if we were Congressmen of the day hearing them.

    Wow...how about Catherine just going after George W? Anyway...I think it is safe to say that I gained much from reading these three incredibly long speeches. As Andy pointed out, it must have been horrible to sit through their filibusters. Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas taught me something that I had never realized before: In the 1800s, politicians were much more passionate, or so it seems, than most of those today. It is quite apparent that, though slavery in the territories most likely would not have directly affected the lives of any of these three men (other than keeping slavery alive in the United States) all three are quite passionate about the issue.

Basically the issue is divided two ways: person vs. property. Jefferson Davis's speech was laced with racism as he defended the rights of Southerners to "enjoy" slavery anywhere they so pleased, other than in states in which the state government had outlawed it. His basis for making these claims is that the Constitution protects personal property to the highest degree. He considers slaves property and therefore the practice of owning them is protected by the United States federal government. I think Rusty summed up Davis's point well with a modern adaptation (which I won't repeat). William Henry Seward spoke of slaves quite differently. He states that the Constitution refers to slaves as people. Therefore, slavery is an illegal practice because the rights of people are being compromised (to say the very least). Seward makes a point that it doesn't really matter what is decided on this issue, because abolition will eventually occur. He claims that the southern slaveholding states should keep their institution of slavery if they so desire, but should not push it on any territory. He invokes God's "Higher Law" to give his points legitimacy.

Finally we come to the fun part...Stephen Douglas...how funny is this little guy! As perhaps one of the most long-winded characters in American History, Douglas does not disappoint as he delivers 34 straight pages of oration. After publically blasting every politician known to man in the 1800s, he finally makes a case for popular sovereignty. States should choose individually on the issue of slavery...and leave the federal government out of it, according to Douglas.

Though this assignment was long and tedious, I feel that I now understand the mentality of politicians of the 1850's much better. I found it shocking how incredibly passionate they were compared to those of today, though we have had our fair share of great orators in the not so distant past. George W. may have stumbled on a few pronunciations, but Ronald Reagan would have taken all of these politicians to school in his prime.

The length of these speeches made me wonder what it would have been like to hear them delivered. They were eloquent, as many have already commented, and showed that these guys knew what they were talking about and actually cared about the issue at hand – slavery. The passionate arguments put forth by these men were impressive, to say the least.

One point that struck me in Jefferson Davis’s speech was the fact that while he was very much in favor of preserving slavery, he also presented arguments against it. I have to agree with Paul that this was more a measure of vanity than of justification. Davis knew he was a powerful and convincing speaker and probably caused some wavering congressmen to seriously question where they stood on this issue.

William Henry Seward was trying to focus on a “higher law” than the Constitution, which Davis had quoted in his effort to support slavery. Southerners had no sufficient reason to threaten revolution, said Seward. What stood out to me is how he downplayed sectional disputes. Was the man living in a dream world? Did he really believe they weren’t an issue?

Now, Stephen Douglas was an interesting character. It was unclear what his true feelings were on this issue, except that he wanted the States to be able to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery. I thought the way that Douglas sneered at his colleagues took away much of his credibility.

Overall, I was impressed by the eloquence and thought put into these speeches. These were passionate men to be sure. Their speeches foreshadowed future conflict.

There’s no real point in saying what everyone else in this discussion has already said, but I am going to add my two cents in about how wonderfully eloquent and succinct these speeches were. It is no mystery why these men were such great leaders and inspired such support and loyalty. The arguments themselves were very well organized and communicated, even if some of their points turned out to be wrong.

I, like Ashley, found it interesting that in Jefferson Davis’ speech, he almost seemed like he was trying to rationalize slavery, not only to a country, but also to himself. He took the stereotypical slave owner’s argument about detrimental effects of abolition and how the south would suffer. The argument probably made a whole lot more sense in his day than it does in ours.

Seward definitely seems to be the optimist in the group. His ideas about how the two divisions of the country, we’ll call them the north and the south, will not have to go to any violent means to solve their problems. Seward, however, does not give any concrete means to solve the problems of the American people. His argument is certainly a little “pie in the sky, by and by.”

Douglas definitely seemed to be the most confident one of the group, even if he had to justify his confidence by belittling every politician he could think of. In the arena of slavery he did make in interesting point about the new territories and their decisions about slavery. He points out that it was their decision not to have slavery as opposed to northern influence. Douglas, like Seward, is trying to lean away from the division of the country into its two main regions. In hindsight, though, he is “polishing the brass on the Titanic, it’s all going down.”

The Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas helped to give me a glimpse into the thought of 19th century politics. As Ashley notes, the writings all are supposed to be about the Wilmot Proviso, yet they all come back in the end to salvery. Of the 3 arguements the one I found to be most strinking was William Henery Sewards's speech on higher law. His arguements in regard to the Constitution were very clear and well thought out. He makes a good point when he disusses the three fifths clause of the Constitution. His point that the Constitution mentions slaves not as slaves but as persons is a very strong point. Also, his use of John Jay's arguement fits in well with the rest of his message.

Jefferson Davis' speech is almost shocking in it's blatent racism. His remarks on page 70 about how the slave trade was a blessing to the African people stunned me. I find it hard to accept that people believed that they were helping people get closer to GOd by chaining them up on ships, sailing them across the ocean, and working them brutally. Davis argues that the British attempts to stop the slave trade are resulting in an increase in the slave trade because their attempt has been partially a success, and that in order to transport the previous amount of slaves that were being moved before the ban was instituted more people must be enslaved. Davis describes this as odious to him and decrys the African slave trade after these statements, but I get the sense that he feels that the slave trade is not actually that bad because he is such as strong supporter of slavery in America.

Davis and Seward both make points regarding slaves and climate. I found that Seward's point was much more astute. Davis discusses on p70 the the introduction of slaves to a new territory and he says, "... but if it prove to be one in which the climate and soil are opposed to their [slaves] use." This statement rests on the idea that slaves are not capable of working in certain climates, and is blatently untrue. Seward points out how the line drawn in the NW Ordinance of 1787 is an arbatrary line and that not having slaves above that line has not basis in the slaves themselves.

I argee with Rusty and his point about the politics of the 1800s. The amount of time that it must have taken to stand before a group of people and issues addresses such as these must have been immense. This granted me an insight into the importance of politics during this time and allows me to gain a better understanding of the weight of these issues for the people of the time.

If these are their speeches, I'd hate to sit through one of their filibusters...But seriously, the eloquence of the three speeches, duly commented on by everyone else, reminds me that even though they were debating the most heated and important issue of their day, these men present themselves with dignity and honor and a respect for even their bitter political rivals (not so much Douglas, but Seward and Davis.) With the kind of language and diction they were using, I'd imagine that delivering a speech like this would take much much longer than it would take to read (or skim over). Maintaining composure in a speech like that is quite impressive as well. Though I can't really say they stayed on topic the whole time, for the most part I understood where they were headed. I'm not going to comment on every detail of each speech because theres been a lot of details already mentioned in the previous posts, but I'll share what I thought were the highlights or lowlights of each.
   For Davis, I thought he presented an argument that, though I do not agree with, I found to be well thought out and delivered with moderation. He seems quite conciliatory and non-confrontational, which surprises me coming from the future president of the Confederacy. For me, the most shocking part of his speech came in part 107 when he said "slave labor is a wasteful labor" and then stated that paid labor is more productive. WOW ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you know that slave labor is not only dangerous to your society, morally wrong, and wasteful in production, then why is it being defended as a life or death issue? I also liked his case for slave labor in Washington DC and the fact that southerners would feel its not shared properly if they are limited in their nations capital. Not right, but a good point.
   The Seward speech, to me, made the other two quite boring in comparison. I could almost picture this man standing before his fellow legislators, knowing that he fights for a morally and democratically superior cause, spewing forth history, philosophy, religion, and blatant challenges to the legitimacy of the South. Paul's comments about Seward were just about the exact way I felt about it, so I guess, way to go Paul. Most impressive in Seward's speech to me was the implication that we might turn out like Russia with its obscene serfdom rate. The numbers themselves were just staggering. The best line of Seward's speech would have to be the challenge to the South: "Can you propigate slavery then, by the sword?" He basically says 'screw you, you dont have the cojones to do anything about it, so put up or shut up'-- I loved it. I'll have to disagree with what Mike said about the aggressiveness of Seward...does it get more aggressive than that?
   I was not too fond of Douglas' speech, personally. First he claims that the frontier northwest is more powerful than either the north or the south, then he proceeds to make a number of self-aggrandizing moves in conversation with the other members of Congress. He just seems like a conniver to me whenever I was reading his long statements, even though they were quite well written.
  Did anyone else find it funny that Davis used passages from the Constitution and other nitpicky wordings of laws more than anyone else, while Seward makes a number of statements saying that the Constitution is flawed in several ways? Davis is the one who vaguely threatens to secede from the Union established by the Constitution. So why cite something so frequently that you will probably have to disown in the future? Its 6:00am, I'm going to bed.

The first thing that I noticed after reading these speeches was how defiantly politicians of the day stood behind their positions. I almost respect more the congressmen from the 1850s who had views that I don't agree with than congressmen today who will not take a stance on anything. I also like how the issues taken by the conflicting parties are so opposite, compared with the modern system where the line between Republican and Democrat is extremely blurry. That being said, it's important to realize how extreme some of these men were in their views. Another aspect that I found to be interesting was the almost eeriely correct references that the politicians made regarding the secession and a possible Civil War. I also wonder how slavery made other foreign governments regard the United States in 1850. I remember in Amistad when the British Naval officer was called as a witness, he made a distinct point to remind everyone watching that slavery was outlawed in Britain or any of its colonies, and made a not-so-vague reference that he thoguht slavery in the U.S. was a ridiculous concept for the time.
Jefferson Davis made an extremely interesting comment by refering to the South as a Confederacy, at a time well before anyone was certain of where the road to war was heading. I fully agree with Paul's statement that many of these slave-holding southern politicians could have been extremely difficult to bargain with due to their unwavering stances on slavery. Seward's abolitionist speech on slavery was written to be extremely strong and, not surprisingly, the most interesting because of his many references to historical events and quotes that he segued so smoothly. Also helping his argument was the concise manner in which he presented it (especially when compared with Douglass). Furthermore, I found it particularly interesting how he distinguished between African slaves and slaves of other countries of the time, such as the peasants enslaved in Russia. I don't fully understand how this can be such a large difference in his mind, but the only thing I can think of is by enslaving a entire race specifically, you in turn limit the amount of freedom possessed by those of the race that are in fact free. Obviously, he is very conscious of being politically correct. He addresses each of the Senators in very formal tones and is not out to offend anyone. As has already been mentioned by a couple people on the board earlier, because of his long winded points, Douglass' argument was not presented in as strongly a manner as Davis' and Seward's. It appeared that he possessed many of the same political ideals as Seward and beleived that ending slavery was the political issue of the day that needed resolution, not annexation or tariffs as his rivals argued.

 After finishing the reading for tomorrow, Sam and I soon found us engaged in a discussion over the essence of the material. As we discussed the three different speeches, we were reminded of a discussion that we had in class several weeks ago. Following our discussion of the Missouri Compromise, the question was raised as to why there was no Civil War in 1821. One of the reasons was the lack of political parties and party advantage. As Dr. Benson stated, it takes party politics to have secession.
 Upon reliving this statement, Sam and I found ourselves placing this same question into the context of the three speeches that we read for today. The overall theme of each of the speeches was the rise of sectionalism in the United States and the rise of the different parties across the nation. Sam and I concluded that these speeches symbolized the party politics and party advantage that was necessary for secession.
 To explain, an examination of the three different speeches and their sectional differences is necessary. To begin, William Henry Seward is the Senator from New York. In addition to being from the Northeast, Seward is also a Whig. His speech shows very clearly his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories and his want for the abolition or emancipation of slavery. From the South, Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi is a Southern Democrat and his stance on the expansion of slavery is the opposite of that of Seward as he is for the expansion of slavery. Finally, Stephen A. Douglas from Illinois represents the Northern Democrat piece of the political spectrum. From his speech, I have found that Douglas is neither for nor against the expansion of slavery. In fact, he seems to be questioning as to why this argument is taking place at all. From his perspective, he sees the acts that abolish slavery in the territories (like the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise) as only signed pieces of paper. He noted that even with these documents, the expansion of slavery still took place with the emigration of men and their slaves into the territories. He goes on to say that it is the territory’s right to choose whether or not to abolish slavery when forming a Constitution and applying for statehood. He notes territories like California, Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the like, all of which chose to abolish slavery in that particular state. Therefore, Douglas has taken the position that the state has the right to choose whether or not to abolish slavery and that the South had just as much a chance at expanding slavery into the territories as the North did in abolishing it.
 This then brings me to the issue of the appearance of sectionalism in the United States. It is clear from these speeches that each section has it’s own specific perspective on the expansion of slavery into the territories. The North (represented by Seward) is clearly opposed to the expansion of slavery, while the South (represented by Davis) is for the expansion. In the middle of this coalition stands Douglas in Illinois who is for the state’s choice as to whether or not to allow slavery. I also find it interesting that Douglas from Illinois is also representing a former territory. Unlike the spokesmen from the North and the South, Illinois faced the question in the 1820s of whether or not to abolish slavery, and the fact that the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 had a direct impact on the state of Illinois. On a final note, the two party system is very apparent in the speeches as we have representatives from both the Whig and the Democratic parties. However, I believe that it is possible that a three party system may be in the playing cards. Although, both Davis and Douglas are both Democrats, Davis is a Southern Democrat and Douglas a Northern and there are vast differences between these two areas of the same party over the issue of slavery. In fact, in the late 1850s the Democratic ticket will split along these lines, which helps to give rise to a new party whose platform is abolition, the Republican Party.
 I have found that my conversations with Sam over these speeches has led both of us to a great deal more insight into the character of these speeches and the rising sectionalism that surrounds them. As Sam too stated at the end of his post, it is amazing how the outlook of politics in American history can change so dramatically in a mere 25 years.

After reading the three speeches by Douglas, Davis, and Seward, the first thing that came to my mind is we have finally hit true sectionalism in our course. Lindsay Keaton and I were sitting around discussing the speeches, and we looked back upon the notes we so thoroughly learned for last Tuesday’s exam. When we were talking about why there was no civil war over the Missouri Compromise in 1820, we talked about four specific reasons.

One was the lack of popularity in political parties. “Without political parties you can not play the sectional card” are the words I believe Dr. Benson used. Now look at our three speakers. We have W.H. Seward; a pro abolition Whig from Auburn New York. We have Stephen Douglas; a Northern Democrat from Illinois, and finally Jefferson Davis; a Southern Democrat. These three men represent three very different views on whether slavery should be expanded into the territories, and I find it interesting that Dr. Benson gaves us speakers from the three different regions of the U.S.. Why? Because the sectional card is finally being played in politics. Jefferson Davis said himself that the reason for the new concern “is for the purpose of political power”, and by the mid 1800’s we have the popular party system for these sections to voice their opinions through with the Whigs and Democrats. All three of these men are voicing the opinions of their own section of the country. Seward is voicing the growing abolitionist feelings in the North. Jefferson Davis is voicing the growing concerns about the end of slavery and submission to the North politically. Lastly, you have Douglas from out there on the frontier saying that the individual states should have the choice of whether or not they want slavery; thus exhibiting the West feelings of wanting to be independent, and having the power to do what they see fit to do in their own homelands. Kind of reminds me of the booster speculators in the fact that boys from the east are effecting the frontier and don’t even live there.

Also, another reason there was no civil war in 1820 was due to the fact that slavery was still able to expand west. These new resolutions would end that possibility, and thus drive a bigger wedge between the North and the South. It was inevitable with the end of “property” rights in the new frontier that the end of “property rights” would extend South. The South indeed was seeing this as “the non - slaveholding states declaring war against the institution of slavery”. Jefferson was voicing the concerns of most slave holding southerners, as Seward was representing Northerners.

It just amazes me how in 25 years this sectionalism developed, and was getting to be pretty intense.

Paul--I just had to commend you on the Brit/CSPAN comment. I love Tony Blair, and I love watching British men laugh at ideas. And then there is the Will Ferrell/Teletubby skit...classic...

I too was impressed first by the length of the speeches, especially Douglas' speech. I would like to know how long such a speech would have taken. I was also impressed by the eloquence and good grammar used in the speeches--Congress today isn't as much fun (but at least we have the Brits on CSPAN!). Jefferson Davis' argument was interesting. Others commented on this, too, I think, but Davis not only defended slavery, but went on the offensive as well. Ashley pointed to the defensive and offensive sides as being indicative of an attempt at self-justification. I think he, like John Calhoun in his letter to the British Ambassador, was acting more from arrogance than from a need to feel better about himself. The language in his argument led me to think that he felt no need to justify himself. Perhaps I read it wrongly, but I doubt very much Jerfferson Davis was the humblest man to grace the steps of the Capitol building. His argument for slavery in the territories was convincing to an extent, but I am convinced that a good orator can make any side of most issues at least marginally appealing.
On Seward--oh wow, the quotation from page 3 was tight. I think I found his oration most impressive, and his argument most persuasive. His appeals to empirical evidence (e.g., the relationship between slave and free states when the nation was first founded), intellectual argument (whether his own, or the arguments of Enlightenment thinkers), and a Higher power give a depth to his argumentation. The logic, the catchy phrases, the parallel structure and masterful diction--these things made Seward's argument all the more impressive to me.
Finally, Douglas was long. Very long. I did a lot of skimming. He, like Seward, emphasized the metaphysical aspects of the Constitution. He argued that freedom and liberty outweiged complaints from the south concerning slavery and the annexation of texas, and the admission to the union for republicans/whigs. He did an excellent job of answering the arguments coming from liberal Whigs and abolitionists, whic makes me wonder how and when he wrote the speech we read.

First off, I'm just going to echo the rest of the class in commenting on how incredibly eloquent and powerful these speeches were. It might have taken me half the day to get through them, but they definitely made a lasting impression in my mind of how different it must have been back then as a politician. Sure, there was the same old mudslinging that we see today, but I was really impressed at how the speeches were so complex, yet flowed together so perfectly. I mean, look at politics today. Can you really see our current President standing up in front all those important people and rattling off a speech that well spoken (and actually pronouncing all those words correctly)?
As far as the actual documents are concerned, I felt that each was constructed with excellent ideas, all of which made me stop and think at one point while reading. Surprisingly, the document I enjoyed the most was the one by Jefferson Davis. Like Ashley, I felt that his arguments for slavery were concise, to the point, and extremely convincing. Davis was obviously an advocate for slavery and states rights, and therefore felt that the newly purchased territory from Mexico should allow slavery, as it's citizens desired. In his speech, he incorporated various reasons as to why the white man had the right to continue this horrid institution, economic reasons being most important, second to controlling African population and uprisings. But the point that stood out the most to me was his accusations that it was the North that was creating all the problems in the Union, and if they would just mind their own business, everyone could be happy (can't we all just get along?). The North, of course, would have fought back to say that it was the South that was creating all the commotion by enslaving human beings in a cruel institution. The more I read about this topic, the more I see that both sides were extremely stubborn and wore thick blinders, that let them only see within their own opinions. If only both sides had taken the time to look outside the box for a moment, a lot more could have been accomplished, a lot faster.
Neither of the other two documents made a huge impression on me. Seward's speech was incredibly long and repetitive- but like someone commented before me, it probably was key to his tactic. He did make an interesting correlation, though, with America and freedom. He commented that America has always stood for freedom and independence, so therefore things would work themselves out to support that ideal (a.k.a. abolition). I disagree with this comment, maybe because I have the advantage of hindsight, or maybe because considering the times and the situation that was occurring it's just a stupid idea, but obviously the issue wasn't working itself out on its own, or everyone wouldn't be so up in arms about it…literally.
I don't have much to say about Douglas, really. It's apparent that he was all for letting the states decide on slavery themselves. But besides that, I had a hard time understanding his true feelings on the matter. He sure found a lot of ways to belittle every politician in the room, but I felt like he went back and forth on the issue a lot and never really found a point of his own to stick behind.
Overall, the speeches proved to be fairly interesting, even if they were extremely long and often drawn out. And sorry if I offended anyone with the Bush comment…I just couldn't help myself.

First of all I would just like to say that all three of these speeches were well thought out and extremely passionate. I’m with Rusty; it is amazing to me that that these speeches were made so eloquently and with such great grammar in such a large-scale setting. Aside from just the pure exceptional deliver of the speeches I did find them all interesting in their own way.

Douglas’ speech I thought was a little long winded, seeing how it was 34 pages of oratory. Douglas also re-emphasized himself a ton in his argument. It just seemed a little redundant, but perhaps that was the purpose of his speech. Douglas pounds into congress as to the evils of the Wilmot Proviso, and he tries to show over and over again how inconceivable it is to have voted for such a proposal. He also wants to show the “impractical” proposal of Calhoun towards the annexation of Texas. Douglas also tries to defeat the idea of a “north” and “south.” He wants to show just the strong Union of America and avoid any divisions that might arise from the situation at hand. Toward the idea of keeping the slave and free states equal Douglas contends that this is a “moral and physical impossibility.” In his opinion America has always leaned toward liberty, and freedom has steadily advanced in the Union.

Sewards’ speech was a little different. He too tried to de-emphasize the idea of a sectional war and instead of focusing on diplomacy he focused more on God and the “higher law.” Seward says that he sees no animosity or conflict between the two sections; he says that all are focused on the “fortunes of the Union.” In my opinion this is a little ridiculous and shortsighted by Seward. He seems to attempt to ignore the very real disputes between the regions and legitimize his claims using God’s “higher law.”

Jefferson Davis’ speech is probably the most interesting because he is openly attacking the north as aggressors in the conflicts of the north and the south. Davis, since he is going to be the leader for the Confederacy, feels strongly about the subject of states’ rights. As he calls it the “prompting of one portion of the Union to war upon the domestic rights and peace of another.” Davis does not skirt around the issue and attempt to find a common ground that does not involve slavery, he dives right in and lets the North have it, “although it seems through his words to be very gentlemanly and respectful, with all his sirs and gentlemen, and his thanking of the president for the time to speak.

I agree with Rusty that it is amazing that these men were able to speak in such an eloquent and intelligent manner for such a long period of time. Even calling out other members of Congress along the way, simply to further prove their points is to me, astounding. However, as material with which to try and understand better the political and social conditions of the age, I found these very difficult. All three speeches touched on many subjects, and often times I fould myself confused as to what exactly the speaker was getting to. I cannot even imagine sitting in the room with these men, trying to comprehend what they were saying. Without having it written in front of me to continually reread and go back over, I would have been utterly lost. That being said, I think each man makes very interesting cases for the arguments they give...

I, like Ashley, found some interesting passages in Davis' speech that almost lead me to sympathize with his argument. The most notable example of this is where Davis claims that if slavery is not to be allowed in the former Mexican land because of the laws previously governing Mexico, then the same must be said for all other property. Of course he is arguing with the presupposition that slaves rightfully should be property, and is not even arguing that point. However, it is interesting to think of the country overlooking some potential barriers, while attempting to strictly adhere to others from the same source. He does an excellent job of making those in favor of denying the new territory slavery seem hypocritical and nonsensical.

I find it interesting that Seward claims that Southerns have no "adequate cause" in threatening revolution. He simply rebukes the idea that the South losing influence is reason for revolution, because, he says, "the slave states have always been losing political power, and they always will be while they have any to lose." Though this is a very small portion of Seward's speech, I find it remarkable. Here Seward is standing in front of some of the most respected men in the nation, and really in the nation's history, and bluntly says their claim is not grounded in anything substantial. Overall Seward seems to be the least aggressive of the three, but I find this particular part very pointed.

Douglas, to me, seems all across the board. His speech is so long, that I just got lost time and time again. I thought it was funny, though, how he seemed to go after anyone he could find. Every time he directed his speech at another member of Congress, they always had a short answer, and he immediately turned what they said around on them, and often even used previous statements of theirs to refute what they'd just said. In other words, Douglas just made everyone he talked to look terrible and contradictory, and made himself look far superior to anyone else in the room. One of the more interesting instances of this is where Douglas calls out Daniel Webster. Douglas basically shows Webster to be a confused idiot, when he explains his own prediction of the result of the opportunity of slavery in California, compared to that of Webster's. He is essentially showing off his idea of popular sovereignty. In this case he is showing other northerners that given the choice of slavery, the new territories will not always pick slavery. In fact, he even points out that the climate and landscape of most of this area is not even conducive to the institution of slavery at all. And, the only area in California that could support slavery, he claims, rejected the idea unanimously. So basically, Douglas just uses California, his guinea pig, as an example to show that the new states should be given the choice, and will most likely make the "right" decision.

Although it was tough to pull out what exactly was going on in these speeches, I think they give a great outline of what thinking and arguments were flying around in 1850.

I found it interesting that, while these speeches technically were about the Wilmot Proviso, they always ended up being a discussion about the moral/political issues surrounding slavery in general. That just goes to show that Seward was correct in his assesment that every issue was somehow related to slavery(the Wilmot Proviso was obviously pretty directly connected to slavery).
 
Jefferson Davis' arguments in favor of slavery in the areas ceded to the US by Mexico actually made sense to me in a way. I didn't really follow his idea that Mexico wasn't a conquered nation seeing as how there was a war and all, but the fact that the US bought land from the Mexican government(versus just claiming it as a spoil of war)does create some ambiguity as to the actual nature of the relationship between the US and Mexico at the end of the war. With a conquered nation, it might be understandable that some of the laws of the previous government would remain in effect, but if one country pays for land, then they should have absolute jurisdiction. It is in this way that Davis' argument seems somewhat reasonable to me. He loses me, however, when he begins "preaching" about the benefits of slavery in paragraph 70. To me, he just sounds like he is rationalizing slavery to himself-moralizing it. But I suppose this was the typical southern slaveowner argument.

What I liked most about Seward's arguments was his point about the southerners' fear of a slave uprising(p30). If they were so scared of this happening, it makes absolutley no sense for them to want to spread slavery, thus increasing the chance of a slave revolt. I also liked how he systematically reviewd the Southerners' arguments and logically proved them wrong. I suppose this is fairly standard in politics, but it is effective nonetheless.

Douglas also made some good points regarding slavery, my favorite being the fact that prohibiting slavery in new territories was not an act of northern aggression since the people in those areas freely chose to not institute slavery.
 
More than anything else, these three arguments foreshadowed the coming war. While Seward didn't see war as a necessity, or even as a likely occurence, he still recognized the tension created between the regions over this issue. This tension had been rising since the beginning of abolitionism, but it is easy to recognize that the civil war was more of a reality as opposed to a threat at this point.
     
Rusty pointed out in his post that the views expressed by Davis, Seward, and Douglas were "saturated--in conventional rhetoric". What else would they be? The arguments reflect the nature of society and the fact that religion reigned supreme and it is only natural that politicians made reference to religion during their speeches. It is easy for us in the 21st century to look back and find faults with their 19th century logic , but that is a luxury only granted in hindsight. The references to what was considered "holy" and "divine" do not taint their arguments, but rather makes them more authentic.

In reading the speeches from Jeff Davis, W.H. Seward, and Stephen Douglas, I was somewhat hoping to encounter some sort of new insights into the 19th century slavery argument. In hindsight, however, I fear that my hopes were grossly naive. All 3 speeches were engrossed--nay, saturated--in conventional rhetoric. The continual usage of phrases such as "holy", "divine", etc. taints the entire slavery debate with a false sense of adherence to natural law. Upon further inspection, however, it is entirely evident that each speech was rooted in political goals and strategies. Jeff Davis, for instance, tried to drench his words with notions of majority government, property rights, blah blah blah. Intially, these sound like legitimately principled arguments. However, when translated into practical language, his speech could be summed up as such: "We (the South) will not accept any goddamned governmental attempt to limit slavery. These monkeys make our money, and any efforts to limit the spread of our economic system is a direct slap in our face and an indication that we are somehow ignorant or less qualified than Northerners to run things". As far as Seward's speech is concerned, the brunt of it seemed to hinge on the issue of Southern/slave-state resistance to abolition or limitations of slavery. His main point was this: "Why try to resist the limiting or banning of slavery in territories? Abolition is coming, and liberty follows the sword. Keep your slaves where you have them, if you want, but do not try to impose your peculiar institution on new territories in which the people have spoken." Stephen Douglas (who happens to be one of my favorite historical figures of any era) had the most...hard to dissect...speech of the 3. I am not sure that I fully understood the crux of his argument, but I took it to be, essentially, popular sovereignty. Douglas, in later years, proves to be uncompromising in this view, practically (I would argue) costing himself the presidency. Anywho, though Douglas the racist of racists, he held true to the belief that functional governments in territories and new states could decide on slavery for themselves. Thus, his speech seems to be the most...what is the word?..."genuine" (I hesitate to use this work when speaking of a 19th century politician who had huge aspirations, but hey...once will not kill me).

Looking from a different angle, I would just like to say that the fact that these long pieces were speeches in incredible. The fact that one person could deliver such a grammatically sound, passionate oration in one standing is amazing (regardless of motives). Politics during the era of the slavery dispute were undeniably more passionate, fiery, and loud than the media-guided, money-driven banter we play witness to today. Despite who I agree with principly or morally, I respect each of these 3 men for their fervor and unwielding confidence in their own interpretations of the Truth.

A nugget for thought: If at least one state generally recognizes slaves as "property", then is not the banning of slavery in any state essentially the restriction of owning certain types of property (like guns or crackpipes), and thus, would not antislavery legislation have to address the issue in a property sense? Or, was legislation simply carrying out a shift in the status of slaves from "property" to "person"? Essentially, what I am saying is that, it seems to me as long as slaves were "property", then the practice was not ever justifiably banned anywhere. Accordingly, its restriction implied "human being status" to slaves, very much killing a large part of the pro-slavery argument. I guess the opposing sides could never even agree on what slaves were. Reminds me of the abortion debate, and when "life" begins. Underlying premises or principles can definitely determine substantive debates...hmm.....

Goodnight.

The test will be in Garrison, not FH 204. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yeah, so I thought the "discussion due by classtime" thing meant by class on Monday, since we're having class. Maybe not. I enjoyed the movie, though I must echo the responses of everyone else (mostly) by wondering what from the movie was historically accurate. Did John Quincy Adams really give that speech in front of the Supreme Court? One thing I bet really did happen was the message the British commander sent to America about there not being a slave fortress. That sounds like the sort of jerk thing a British commander would really have done. I would like to comment on the lighting, but I can't because I don't really know what the lighting is really like on that movie.

The staging was discernable, though, and many of the scenes were staged beautifully. For example, the scene that transitions between the judge in prayer and the two prisoners discussing the pictures in the Gospel one of them had received, or the scene were the lawyer and Cinque try to communicate the distance the distance the Africans had to travel.

What was Spielberg trying to communicate in the end? Cinque wins the case and goes home to find a wasteland--where does that leave us? Why tell the story at that point? The entire movie moves us to despise slavery (especially the slave trade) and at the end we find his capture is the only reason he survives. Cinque and the others travel home, clothed in white, symbols of redemption, but the redemption they won in the US leads them back to an Africa that hardly sounds worth returning to. Why include it? Other details were cut and added throughout the movie to aim toward one goal, and those final captions seemed to me to dash it all against the rocks.

Okay, so I don't really understand how this editing of your entry works- so instead of having an edit I'm going to add on to the first one that got submitted- I hope that is alright!
     In addition to symbolic lighting, there is obvious religious symbolism included, which I think is pertinent to the film's message stressing the moral problem with slavery and the Christian argument for abolition, and it serves to create an emotional response in the viewer by showing that the slaves were humans and not just hethens doomed on earth to servitude and doomed in death to damnation. The crosses, David and Goliath analogy, and juxtaposition of Christian hymns with African chants - both forms of sacred music to their respective cultures - are other examples, as has been stated by my classmates, of the religious connection included in Amistad.
     I also appreciated how Speilburg films his movies with the ability to activate all human senses and not just sight and sound. He accomplishes this through graphic details so that, when the slaves are on the Amistad for instance, the claustraphic, dank feeling of the hull; the searing pain of the whip; the foul smell of pestilence; and the stomache-churning taste of slop (I am sure I do not want to know what that was) become real and bring physical discomfort to the viewer. The issue of slavery is self is one that continues to make people uncomfortable, and so I applaud Speilburg's techniques. I also liked the greenhouse scene with Adams and Cinque where Cinque smells the African Violet and one can tell he is recalling memories of his home, because that fragrance has stirred something in his memory; I expected there to be a flashback to his wife or Africa, but there was one and now I think that having one was not neccessary, because one still knows what is going through Cinques mind. I became completely engaged in the film as a result of these inclusions.
     My main criticism of the film are the attempts at humor which, to me, just seem out of place in a historical film about the horrors of slavery. I can see where the filmmakers would want to lighten the mood at times to keep the audience from becomming entirely depressed, but this is a depressing issue so maybe we should just be left with that. I do think the end of the movie was appropriate and poingnant, though. Although there was cause to celebrate the triumph in the Supreme Court, it is important not to get too excited about that, because, as we all know, that was not the end of bondage and inequality, but in a way it was the beginning of the end as Calhoun's character is credited for asserting. The movie begins and ends on the sea, which I believe shows how, eventhough two years had passed, everyone was still essentially back where they began and poses the question of whether the slaves of the Amistad's struggle really made a significant difference in the whole scheme of things and if the Civil War and it's aftermath would have occurred with or without this incident. I think it did make a difference, though, and I enjoyed this movie not because it was "the feel good hit of the semester" by any means, but because it made me think more closely about how I should watch historical movies in the future- by not accepting all the portrayals and information as absolute truth- and it made me reflect again on the tragic history of slavery in our free country.

To start with, I don’t think I can recall a Steven Speilburg movie that was actually bad. The only movies that come to my mind when I think of his work are ones like Indiana Jones, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan. I think Amistad ranks right up there with those pieces of work. Speilburg successfully portrayed the harsh realities of the slave trade as well as capture the political feelings of the time.

As a South Carolinian, naturally I would be intrigued by the portrayal of John C. Calhoun. Jake mentioned earlier about how Calhoun was everything he imagined him to be. I would have to say I agree. With everything from the high hair to his stubbornness, Calhoun was accurately portrayed. However, being that Calhoun was a southern, rich, dignified man, would anyone believe that he would talk to the representative of Spain with a mouth full of food? Did anyone else catch that? I believe that’s a little bit more of the History vs. Hollywood stuff that Lindsay referred to earlier. I think Speilburg was trying to show Southerners as more rural and less refined than their northern colleagues. Thus, Southerners would be less inclined to see the brutality in the slave trade. Lastly on Calhoun, Jake stated that he believed Calhoun did want a civil war to take place. I will have to disagree with Jake on that one. The South was pretty dependent on Northern industry around the time this movie’s setting took place. Calhoun never wanted a civil war, but just protection for the “minority” South. The only way he saw to protect this minority sometimes was to threaten secession. Just as he did with Andrew Jackson, I could definitely see Calhoun hinting toward a conflict between North and South to Martin Van Buren. I could also see Martin Van Buren reacting the way he did at the table, with a shocked – I don’t know what to do expression on his face. However, I imagine the position he was in would be pretty tough, being a New York president trying to keep some electoral votes from the South and having that effected by the outcome of a court case.

The last thing that really stood out to me, as well as many of my classmates, was the scene where the slaves were being thrown off the ship to lighten the load. It was quite a terrifying scene, and I believe it really took the audience’s hatred of slavery to a high point in the movie. I was watching the History Channel a couple of weeks ago, and they were showing the final days of Vietnam. During those days, U.S. seamen were throwing helicopters, which cost millions, overboard to make more room for more Vietnamese trying to flee their country. It’s amazing how far we have come as a society in just 100 years. Could you imagine the men that were sailing the Amistad, dropping millions of dollars into the ocean as compared to Africans to lighten the ship? Unfortunately, one hundred years ago, it would have been a no brainer for most people to throw off the slaves. Our society truly has come a long way, when in only 100 years, the no brainer is to preserve human life at any cost.

     Speilburg's Amistad captivates the viewer through it's appeal to the senses and it's symbolisms.
     The opening scene aboard the ship was so raw and graphic I had to turn my head, but I feel it had to be that harsh for anything less would not be down playing the actual conditions. Viewing this movie, I was forced to think again about the abomination of slavery and what a dark area it is of the history of the "civilized" world. Speaking of dark things, like the rest of the class I saw the parallels between bondage and slavery being represented in shadowed gloom while the sun always seemed to cast it's beams onto the figures who showed a future hope of abolition: John Q. Adams, the baby born aboard the Amistad, and Cinque.

Amistad was a great movie even with the problems of the projector. I realize that the movie was done in such a way to evoke emotions, but it is nearly impossible to deal with slavery and be completely free of emotion. One of the things I noticed from the start was the duality of the way that Americans thought about slavery. I thought the shot of the New Haven Press with the headline "Massacre at Sea" replaced with a copy of the Emancipator with the headline "Freedom Fight at Sea". I thought that did a good job of simply expressing how the two sides saw the issue in very different ways.

I wonder whether the threat of Civil War was as big a threat as it seemed in the movie. I think that this movie may have played the Civil War card too much just because we know what happened down the road. The war may have been a threat, but I have doubts of whether it was as big a threat as it seemed here.

I think it was interesting how the movie portrays the church. Some seemed to be supporting abolition for abolition's sake, not seeming to care about the people who were in slavery. Others, religious and non-religious alike, seemed to have had a sincere concern for the slaves. Some may think the scene with Cinque and the other man looking through Bible may have been forced, but I disagree. True, as Ian points out, the analogy between Christ's suffering and slaves is not exact. However, I am not completely sure if that was the point. There was a powerful statement about suffering and redemption. It explains why many African slaves turned to a religion that promises freedom when they were in chains.

Ultimately, Amistad was an excellent movie. It showed how horrifying slavery was and celebrated those who fought it. Exagerrations and alterations aside, it made me think about our nation's past. That's a good thing.

     I can not recall a movie that has grabbed my attention and held it for the duration of the rest of the film like Amistad did the other night. Despite the technical difficulties, I found it to be a visual movie. What I mean by this is that the film's most powerful moments were the scenes that were able to leave an image in my mind that I will remember forever. I agree with most people that the transportation scenes on the boats were the most disturbing/important. In addition to those scenes, I was very interested in the moments dealing with the slave trading fortress. I had no comprehension of how organized and large the operation was prior to viewing this film.
     Once I learned in class on Thursday that some of the characters and events had been exaggerated or manipulated to "improve" the film for the audience, I still felt that the movie was an outstanding film that needs to be recognized more so for its' emotional impact, than for its' factual accountability. Aside from the slavery issue of the movie, I also enjoyed getting a glimpse into what life was like in the 1840's. I can not think of another movie I have seen based in this exact time period. I was most interested in our nation's relationships with other foreign powers was particularly revealing. (England, Spain) Overall I agree with what everyone has previously stated; the movie has some factual errors as a result of the storytelling, but the movie's emotional impact remains as the most important aspect of the movie to remember. Spielberg gives us a close up view of some aspects of the slave trade, and I personally will never forget some of the incredible moments in this movie.

Edited by author 10-04-2002 10:47 AM
Amistad is a great film that uses some artistic licenses (all these licenses have a purpose) but generally gives an intense and vivid portrayal of the struggles of slaves at this time. Some of the scenes that I found particularly moving, intense, or disturbing included Cinque yelling let us free (or something like that), the throwing of slaves off the ship, and the imagery of the crosses after Cinque and another man go through the Bible.
Cinque yelling in court was incredibly moving to me. His passion and ignorance of the conventions of the courtroom made this scene particularly powerful. Its just refreshing to see someone who is completely real because they don't have the ability to put up a front.
The scene where slaves are being thrown off the boat was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in a movie. Yet the most sad part of this description of the boat by Cinque was the suicide of the woman and her daughter. To see a mother decide to jump overboard and kill herself and her baby is chilling.
Cinque going through the Bible and having his fellow African describe it to him was fascinating to me. The imagery when he got out with the masts on the boat looking like three crosses was very timely and well done. Although I'll agree with the comment made in class a yesterday that it seemed a little random.

Amistad packed many feverish emotions into two and a half short hours. The slaves alone had to portray numerous different sides and I'm sure their acting skills were pushed to the limits. They ran the gamut from being enslaved captives, fearsome rebels, discriminated against inferiors and prisoners, and finally, liberated free men. Im sure it must have been extremely difficult for the African-American men to play the role of slaves. Though it was alomost 150 years ago, the topic of slavery is still very fresh on people's minds.

I thought many of the true to life characters presented here were extremely fascinating, if not 100 percent accurate. I particularly liked John Calhoun's character. He was played in much the same manner that I could imagine the man being: A rich, influential, stubborn yet very influential Southern politician. Van Buren in turn comes across as a president with a very weak stomach who has no intereest in conflict at all. However, I wonder the extent to which Calhoun actually wanted a civil war to break out. He seems to threaten the possibility here with almost too much enthusiasm. Obviously, neither side would have wanted to if they had known the atrocities of the ensuing war.

Also, I thought John Quincy Adams' character was done in an amazingly well done manner. I'm sure that some of it had to be Anthony Hopkins' unmatched acting skills, but I thought his lines and personality traits were very well written. Some other minor points: Cinque, in his rage of thinking he would be set free but in fact wasn't by the court of Connecticut, brought up a very interesting point. He says something along the lines of, "What kind of country is this where a law is a law, but not always?!" I never had thought of it before, but in our political system of numerous appeals and mistrials, its a sad fact that some people who thought that they were proven not guilty can be taken back to a different level of the courts. Here, Cinque was just another man who experienced this depressing paradox.

I thought that Spielburgs Amistad was an excellent movie. Ive seen the thing about 5 times now but each time i see it i grab hold of another concept that i didnt understand quite as well at first. The journey made by the Tequora and the scenes in the movie depicting that journey were extremely moving. its hard to imagine how we can treat other human beings like that.

For the first time i payed attention to the religion in the movie. it told the story of Christ and sort of made a comparison to the slaves' lives. The slaves went through enormous suffering, all that they did not deserve. Jesus went through suffering as well, all that he didnt deserve. However, the analogy runs out because Jesus was sent to save the people who put him through suffering. And the suffering that the slaves went through doesnt even hold a candle to the sufferings of Christ. I felt like those scenes made Christ's sufferings look similar to those of the slaves. The slaves were beaten, starved and what not. so what? Christ took on the whole wrath of God on the cross. but i really do wonder if the slaves were really captured by the Bible.

i really enjoyed the portrayal of JQ Adams in the movie and thought that anthony hopkins did a great job. his character provided some comic relief and the speeches made were very well thought.

overall i think the movie is great. yes, there are inaccuraces but i dont think it tells the story pretty well for a movie. the acting was superb and the accent given to calhoun was pretty humurous. good movie

Edited by author 10-04-2002 09:54 AM
Spielberg’s production of the Amistad story was brilliant and moving, supported by an excellent cast. The overall feelings evoked from such scenes as tossing “cargo” overboard, whippings, and imprisonment, along with the portrayed hard hearts of slave traders and district attorneys, combine to show slavery at its worst from both sides, the intimidated African captive viewpoint as well as the eyes of white, aristocratic leaders that support the “peculiar institution.” The film is both empathetic and sympathetic in an effective manner.
 
The use of lighting to show a theme of bondage vs. freedom, the characterization of key figures such as John Quincy Adams, and the representation of diverse tribal groups confined together are several key elements that make this film so monumental.

Spielberg used the light and dark contrast in a simple yet subtle way to showcase Cinque and other prisoners at various points of the movie and compare their “lightness” (freedom) to the other courthouse citizens, which became more similar as the movie progressed. It is also interesting to ponder the more obvious characteristic of this light vs. dark tool. African slaves had dark skin and the free whites had light skin. It doesn’t take a true historian to figure this out. By using dark focus on the African characters, the movie added to their already set tone and portrayed them as most of the antebellum freemen saw them, one entire group of dark, inferior half-people, not worthy to show their face in full daylight. On the contrast, white characters were tied with bright light to show their superior role in matters as well as their “purity and goodness.” I don’t believe the moviemakers feel this way, but their use of lighting represents the public opinion of the 19th century population well. This can be seen as a tie, although not purely, with the freedom vs. bondage image as well.

The characterization of John Quincy Adams is perhaps the most positive role given to a white free man in the film, and his abolitionist tact is representative of the small but overall effective group of slavery opponents. His courtroom arguments are shown to appeal to forefather ideals, of which he is directly linked, and virtuous morals that judges and case viewers can’t deny, helping the Africans to regain their freedom. However, had he not been a former president or held such a high position, he would not have been very effective. The abolitionist, religious-type group of people that followed the scenes discreetly in the back corner are ineffective and barely heard, but when a spokesman of high esteem and power makes the same argument, the population listens. This is an important realization in the fight against slavery – abolitionists of all types helped to create a large group of slavery opponents, but without key leaders of ranked position and regarded highly on a national basis, their fight would be weaker and much less efficient. Political backing was essential.

When viewing slavery as an overall institution, it is important to keep in mind that not all slaves were the same. In history books and lectures, we tend to group “slaves” into one, homogenous group of Africans, with the same religion, language, and emotions. The movie did a decent job of showing the different tribal groups and language barriers present even among the same type of prisoners. The dispute over where to put the lawyer’s table in the holding cell illustrates this well. Not all slaves were the same; they all came from different places with distinctive cultures. In realizing this, we see the broader implication of the institution – it affects many groups of people in the same, torturous way and categorizes dark and light as automatic stereotypes of cattle vs. human. In other words, slavery was a widespread phenomenon and not limited to one group of the same mistreated people.

In praising the movie, I must admit that I have a problem with one of its elements, but it’s less with the portrayal and more with the true storyline. Captives traveling on Amistad were set free because of certain circumstances and technicalities, and solidly based on the idea that slaves equaled property. No other slaves were legally set free in that broad a manner until January of 1863. It is happy to note that one group of Africans benefited from virtuous “radical” opinion of abolitionists, but it is sad to note that every other slave was still considered property and not allowed to come close to a courthouse. It would take some 20 years to change the politics of the institution, and Amistad was a stepping stone toward that, but overall, I feel immense disappointment in the “logic” of former judges and attorneys and common folk and merchants and others over the basic treatment of another human, which they viewed as “livestock” and which we now know as each other.

Edited by author 10-04-2002 09:30 AM
Wow, what an intense movie. I thought I had seen this movie in high school, but it must have been
something else...I would have remembered this. I really got wrapped up into this movie, something
that rarely happens to me. Talk about some powerful scenes...the beatings on the ship, the throwing
overboard of up to fifty people, and the death of a new mother. Amistad, though wonderfully done,
was often hard for me to watch.

Light, or I should say Spielberg's use of it, plays a large role in the movie. As Andy pointed out, the
flashing of light really conveighs the feelings of panic aboard the ship as the slave revolt is about
to take place. Also, religious imagery seems to play a large role as well, especially David and
Goliath parallelled with Cinque and the Lion. It was also brought out in the scene in which the one
man in explaining the Bible to another man. Though he cannot read, he seems to have a better
understanding of the Bible than some literate Americans I know. I found it interesting that in the
next scene, as the "slaves" are walking to court, he looks up and sees three crosses on the ship.
It doesn't seem to scare him, but rather assure him that his soul will be sent to heaven after his
death.

I felt that for me the emotional climax of the movie occurs in court when Cinque stands up and
demands "Give us free!" I don't know how he learned it or why he learned it, but he certainly
gets his point accross. I think his "freak out" as Andy phrased it, occurs to make the point that
Cinche and his people feel helpless, something he obviously is not used to. When the pressure
gets to be too much, he attempts to communicate on the most basic level.

As for my overall critique of the movie, I felt that is was very good. Though historical
inaccuracies lace Amistad, it none-the-less tells a wonderful story in an exteremely powerful
way. I did feel that some characters were presented with a spin to make the movie more
interesting (ex: Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and certainly President Van Buren), but of
course, this is almost expected. Overall I enjoyed the movie, and found it educational and
entertaining.

Amistad was a great movie. I'd never seen it before and it was incredibly moving. I cannot imagine how anyone can justify slavery to themselves when people are treated like that. The political scenes in the movie were great to see because they explained what the people with the most power were doing and how it resulted in civil war even though they weren't as dramatic or moving as the rest of the movie. One also got to see that to a lot of politicians this was just another issue. It was like healthcare reform or an issue on paper that does not need to be resolved immediately. It sad to see that VanBuren thought his campaign was more important to deal with that this issue.
   When I found out that this happened over 2 years or so I was surprised. It makes sense but I think that they could have done a better job to show the passage of time more clearly. It seems a little stupid but that factor helps to understand the period and adds a little something to make it that more unfortunate because Cinque and the other slaves waited so long.
   The small part abolitionists had in the movie symbolizes the small role they played in real life. I thought it was weird that they were supposed to be against slavery but they never did anything about it. They just prayed. Their lack of action in this movie makes me curious about how much they did in real life and now it makes sense why slavery lasted as long as it did. I also think that they were portrayed as being kind of stupid and not understanding the situation because a lot of the scenes with them in it seemed to provide comedic relief. It was a surprise to me to see them take such a small part in the trial.
   The part with Cinque and the Bible was interesting. I think it makes sense for him to be interested in it but to follow it automatically was strange. The story of the persecution of Jesus and the Jews that he was shown was a story that the Jews and Christians believed in to give them hope as well. And the faith that he would have in the Bible compared to that of the abolitionists seems more substantial.
  This movie was great and it showed what happened to the slaves and a portion of the slavery well

Edited by author 10-04-2002 03:59 AM
I had already seen this movie a few times in the past (and thought it was brilliant each time) so I didn't get the element of shock when viewing it this time (though some of the scenes would be shocking even the 100th time). The issue of 24 months vs. the shortened movie version didn't really strike me as odd until I thought about the correspondence between Spain and the US. Doesn't it take like a month and a half to travel the Atlantic by ship? How did the Spanish government find out so quickly and how were they able to respond with a demand of return so quickly? A minor nuisance in an otherwise seamless presentation...
The visual images of the movie were much more powerful to me than the courtroom dialogue. I guess I've seen enough TV shows involving court cases that I don't feel the tension in them that I used to. First off, the LIGHT use in the movie: the flashes of light in the opening scene fit perfectly with the frenetic, feverish scene of a slave mutiny, and all I could see (and needed to see)was the sweat, blood, lightning, and rain exploding everywhere like fireworks. Very good presentation. Next, did anyone notice that JQ Adams was always shown in bright, soft light in the movie, as if he were some sort of angel or deity? Compared to the dark and dreariness of most of the scenes in the movie, these were very noticeable. And on Jefe's point about the plants in the movie--I found it very symbolic that the African Violet was the only flower in his greenhouse that was "caged" by that glass. By letting Cinque lift the glass off of the violet himself, it foreshadowed Cinque's words being used to free the African slaves.
The religious scenes being spoon fed did seem a bit much, but the unspoken comparison of Cinque and the lion with David and Goliath was more subtle than the rest, as was the birth of the child on the slave ship. The newborn was lifted into the air and somehow light shone upon it despite the darkness of the boat. The sacrifice of the baby during the whipping scene was also poignant.
Was anyone else curious about the scene where Cinque looks around and freaks out before saying "Give us us free"? I was puzzled.
Overall, I was disappointed that the second half of the movie focused more on Van Buren, Calhoun, Adams, and the court deliberations. After their impressive story, the slaves were largely in the background for the latter half of the movie. But I'll have to say, good directing, good acting, good editing, and a few scenes that wet my eyes--not bad for a semi-factual historical movie.

After viewing "Amistad," and then reading the comments some of my classmates have made concerning the film, I am a little surprised at the reactions of others. It could be that I'm just not the history buff type, but I never once thought about the time period being a crucial factor in the movie. In fact, I still haven't gotten past the gruesome scenes of the women being thrown overboard and the men being beaten until they are barely alive. In my personal opinion, the depth and emotion of this movie could have carried the film to the top, regardless of the accuracy of the characters or the time period. As hard as it was to watch many of the scenes, I agree with Mike in that it is a vital tool to fully understanding what these people must have gone through and realizing the impact that this institution had on the world.
When pondering how to describe this movie, two words come to mind: cruelty and corruption. The cruelty is the easiest to understand, partly, I think, because it is something that we all came to expect before even viewing the film. Everyone has read about the atrocities of the slave trade in textbooks since they were in the 4th grade, so while the information is appalling and, at time, unbelievable, it has become less and less of a shock every time we revisit the material. Still, watching the violence and extreme measures that were taken when dealing with the slaves in a movie with actual characters played by real people is a lot different than reading about it in textbooks. It's simply horrifying. I don't know any other word to describe it.
While the graphic nature of this movie was hard to watch, I found the corruption that the American people, and even people of other countries, were portrayed as having equally revolting. I was aware that slavery was one of the most pressing issues in the world at that time, but I was unaware of the severity of corruption that existed among the government. What hit me hardest was the way in which Van Buren was portrayed. He was viewed as caring less about the issue of slavery, an institution that was on the verge of ripping his country in half, and more about becoming reelected. It was almost as if he only wanted the title so that he could sit at his big desk and stare at his name with the words "President of the United States of America" written under it. Did he not realize that this issue was at a point where he COULDN'T ignore it anymore or side with whoever promised him more votes? I don't know how accurate this portrayal of Van Buren was but I highly doubt it too far fetched. He was a politician. Enough said.
Overall, this movie was incredible. I may not have picked up on every little historical inaccuracy, but the message of freedom definitely got through to me. So I give my two thumbs up to Spielberg and Hollywood for taking such a difficult and controversial topic and creating such a powerful and moving film.

Today in class, Dr. Benson mentioned that the events represented in Amistad actually took place over 24 months. Yet, in Spielberg’s film, the events are compressed into what seems to be a few weeks. I think this compression of time, however, is what makes the film effective. It allows the viewer to follow the trials of Cinque (and the other Mendes) as if they were expedient. This enforces the significance of this whole ordeal; had the film described the drawn out process of the trials, the audience would have lost interest, and the film would have been much less powerful.

The power of the use of light and darkness in Amistad was discrete, yet distinct. Spielberg uses darkness or poor lighting to represent the oppression of the African prisoners, while light is used to portray their freedom. At the end of the film, I kept thinking about the use of this technique and how it really augmented the message of the movie.

Amistad was extremely graphic, but I feel that it was tasteful and very representative of the cruelty to these unsuspecting Africans who were illegally taken into slavery. These scenes were painful and, at times, horrifying to watch, but at the same time necessary to the film.

One part of Amistad that I found a little bit hard to swallow was the scene where the prisoners are basically comparing themselves to Jesus. It seems highly unlikely that they would understand the concept of death and heaven just from a few pictures in a Bible.

Overall, this film affirmed to me that Steven Spielberg is a master director. Although he may not always represent historical events accurately in his movies, he always does it in a moving and thoughtful manner. Amistad is no exception. In addition, this film had an exceptional cast who performed beautifully. I think that Anthony Hopkins did an especially good job in portraying John Quincy Adams.

AMISTAD: many points. read any or all!
LIGHT: Light is always shed on American institution. White clothes of white people (even those Cinque was robed in at the end), white government building. Often a glimmer of light was all that shone in scenes with the Africans, always distant, in the background far off. Like a distant, unreachable hope. The only light that shone on the Amistad itself were terrifying flashes like a thunderstorm, certainly not soft and/or comforting.

theme: COURAGE IN LEADERSHIP. Cinque speaks through the interpreter about killing the mighty lion [which would symbolize the court case at hand] with a rock. "a ROCK." he says [symbolizing his testimony b/f the court]. He adds, "I'm not a big man. Just a lucky one." This theme would return later, when JQAdams said he used to be the president. Cinque then looks him straight in the eyes and bellows, "Once a chief, always a chief." Also, in this scene they revisit the rock and lion story, completing the theme.
 
JODESON: The fabricated Jodeson was the movie's moral wrapped into man! He was the black man who did fight the lion and win. He demonstrated the oneness of humanity, regardless of skin color. This is none more evident than when he was face to face with the slave after the slaves' arrival, and the slaves are all wondering aloud, "Is he one of us?" YES! He's one of all! He's the beacon of light that that declares that blacks don't REQUIRE paternalistic control, but possess the same intelligence and opportunity that whites do.

theme: PLANTS. There were only three notable portrayals of plants that I remember: Vegetation in Africa, JQAdams and his greenhouse, the light shining on that one plant of Adams' study that he moved with his hand, and one at the end with Adams again. oh, silly me, that's four. To me, this also may be an allusion to the oneness of humanity. (this could be overanalyzing, but hear me out). Across the world, despite climate and ORIGIN, plants exist. Some thrive in certain climates and environments, while others can't live, are repressed under the climate of foreign regions; but they all exist, all grow, all die, all need the light of the sun, all need watering. It was concentrating on the light thing that made me wonder about this.

theme: IGNORED ABOLITIONISTS. Perhaps Spielberg was chastising the inactivity or lack of boldness of the abolitionists during this affair?

kudos to ANthony Hopkins and the high pitched Northern accent.

I will have to admit, the thought of sitting in a classroom for three hours on a Wednesday night watching a movie about something that happened almost 200 years ago did not particularly excite the wild spirit inside of me. But, I was surprised at how the movie kept my interest despite the fact that I felt like my rear end was about to fall off.

I was particularly interested in the portrayal of John Q. Adams. I will be the first to admit that my historical knowledge of the man and his presidency is somewhat lacking, and I could not tell you the first thing about his particular politics. But, the portrayal of the man at the very end of not only his career but also his life and the courage he showed to make the type of speech he did at the last major scene was remarkable. I know that Hollywood does much to dramatize and romanticize historical figures, but if the course of events that actually happened was close to the movie's portrayal, then, there are many lessons to be learned by those who had the courage to stand up and say what they believed.

I also thought that the portrayal of the second judge, the second, younger judge who was supposed to throw out the case to further his own career, was particularly interesting. Here was a young man who was at the dawn of a potentially great career as a judge and possibly politician who stood up in front of the most powerful men in the country and ruled his true conscience. The role that his religion played in his decision and the correlation with the beginning knowledge of the slaves about the story of Jesus was certainly moving as well.

Overall, the movie kept me awake. I seriously was quite impressed with both the portrayal of JQA and the second judge, both of whom played very important roles and shaped the most dramatic scenes in the movie.

I first saw the movie "Amistad" several years ago and found myself in the minority when I found the movie to be quite interesting and good. Upon seeing it a second time in class, I was more struck by the incongruities that this film presents in comparison to the actual story. After our brief discussion in class today about these incongruities and, on the other side, what the film did well in representing I began to think of one of my favorite shows on the History Channel, History vs. Hollywood, and what they would have thought of this movie.
The incongruities may not be very obvious for the casual viewer, but upon our discussion in class today, they became clear. First of all, as many have mentioned before me, is the critical issue of time. Is it possible to do the story justice when the actual length of 2 years is seemingly crammed into a short time spand of several weeks or months? My answer is no, it is not possible to do the story true justice in a 2 1/2 hour time frame, but what movie can?? Moreover, the seemingly creation and/or recreation of some of the characters in the movie adds some cinematic flare but skews the story and truly complex characters become either a hero or villain. The story as a whole is put into such a black-and-white perspective with little room for interpretation or complexity that the story seems to become one of overcoming adversity and a fight for freedom in a slave-holding country. As anyone could tell another, no one person, alive nor dead, lacks a complex character nor does one story lack space for anything other than the underdog overcoming the all mighty U.S. government.
So then, what do I think that the movie does well? "Amistad" may be two-dimensional, but it's vivid description of the horrid nature of the slave trade will send shivers down even the strongest man's spine. "Amistad" well depicts the horrid conditions and horrid treatment of slaves on a slave trading ship. From the cramped quarters to the loss of "cargo" it depicts a very poignant and terrifying age in world history. I also believe that the movie does justice to politics in the 19th century. Our 8th President, Martin Van Buren, is shown, very well I believe, as the typical politician who is dead-set on re-election and lets nothing interfere with his campaign until some event like the "Amistad" comes into conflict with his bid for re-election.
On a final note, in the last sequence in which the Amistad Africans were on the ship bound home to Africa, I found the wearing of new, clean, white shirts by the Africans to be very poignant and a clear image of their return to freedom. This is the first and only time that we ever see them shone in white and, moreover, I think that it is symbolic of their being touched, and possibly changed, by their time in America as they are now Africans who have been in bondage and have overcome their captors.
So, what is my verdict, is "Amistad" History or Hollywood? Spielburg has taken a wonderful and exciting story and retold it in the 20th century, but he is not a historian. His re-telling of this story has lost the validity and complexity of the original, thus having skewed the actual history in it. What is left, however, is a great "based on actual events" story that in which the audience leaves thinking about the slave trade and it's effects on the human soul and experience. Maybe that was his point. Maybe more than telling a story in all it's accuracy he wanted to tell a great story and to make the audience leave with a new perspective on the slave trade and slavery in the 19th century.

I agree with Mike and Dr. Benson in that I think that one interesting aspect of "Amistad" was how it dealt with the issue of time. THe compression of the events that took place over twenty four months into something that the viewer percieves as a comparativly short period of time is a misrepresentation of the events. What intrests me about this movie is that although the events themselves and even some of the characters made be changes in various ways, both small and large, the key message of the movie and the story the movie is drawn from remains intact. "Amistad" was effective in portraying the evils of slavery in a sometimes graphic manner. This portrayal removes the idea of slavery from the abstract and makes it something that the viewer can truly understand. The concept of killing slaves on the voyage becasue the crew did not have enough food for them is a striking concept on paper, but seeing it happen on the screen makes the event exponentialy more powerfull to the viewer than to someone who had just read an account of "Amistad". This event is a great example of what makes "Amistad" an effective movie.
I found the issue of religion in the film interesting as well. The film seems to focus on it to a degree which does not seem extreamly realisitic or even probable. The portrayal of the abolitionists ties into this with the scenes where they sing and pray for the slaves. This portrayal makes the abolitionists seem ineffective. I also agree with Ashley's statements on the scene in the movie where the Bible is being read by looking at the pictures. This seems to be complete fiction and have no point to the film except to push the theme of religion that runs throughout the film.
Despite its occasional failures in accuracy "Amistad" succedes as a film in that its message is still clear and accurate.

I agree with Dr. Benson that the movie is pretty misleading when it comes to time-span. I was pretty amazed to hear today that they were in the US for 24 months. That is one flaw in the telling of the story I think. There are ways of conveying long periods of time without making the movie heinously boring.
However, I still thought this was a great movie. Whether or not the movie was completely accurate or not seems irrelevant to me. The point of making the movie was to capture interest and make money. I am pretty sure that they accomplished both very well. As Meghan said in class today, if Baldwin and JQA were both portrayed as they actually were, then some of the intrigue would have been taken away. Especially in terms of JQA seemingly being the father figure and coming to the aid of the younger and less experienced Baldwin. Were Baldwin shown as propper and self-sufficient and old as he really was in this case, much would have been lost in the sympathy for the characters department.
Speaking of JQA, I thought Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of JQA, especially in the Supreme Court scene, was great. That is one of my favorite scenes of any movie ever. I don't know how accurate his speech in the movie is to the real speech given in the court that day, but the one in the movie sure was intense. When he goes up to the bust of his father, that is just great.
Anyways, I see little importance in what actually happened to the Africans upon returning to Africa. The importance of the story and the case was the American reaction and response to the situation. If they went back and got slaves of their own later, seems to little importance to me, which is why I think they did a good job in the movie of only devoting about 9 seconds to it.
In terms of religion, I agree with what Andrew said in class today, that it really seemed like a stretch on the part of the producers of the movie. The exchange in the church with the two Africans really does not have anything later in the movie that follows it. It seems to just be in the movie to add another facet to the story. However, it does not seem to add anyhing important to the story, in my opinion. I mean, it's not like they went back to Africa and began converting other Africans to Christianity.
As far as the cruelty of the slave ships goes, I think the movie did an excellent job of showing how horrible the conditions really were. From the drowning of slaves to the awful feeding and whipping, etc...the movie hits right at our hearts and really makes this movie emotional. Though it is almost sickening to watch, I believe it is necessary to see, in order for us to understand what really happened during this time.
My mom once told me that she would never watch Amistad because she said that she cannot handle watching the sheer injustice of a movie like that. I agree that it is heartwrenching and disgusting, but I also feel it is important for us to see such things, and experience them, so that we can understand the sufferings of those exposed to these horrors. I liken this movie, in some ways, to Schindler's List. That movie is as intense and sickening as it gets, but at the same time those kind of experiences for us are vital in understanding our world and the sentiments of those around us.
I watching this movie was a great idea, even if the specific historical figures are not entirely accurate. The overall messages and story of the movie are far more important than the accuracy of the characters.

I, like Brittany, was struck by the cruelty imposed upon the slaves during their voyage to Cuba/America. While I've always been told about the horrors of slavery, actually seeing a visual representation of the suffering made it seem a lot more real. In all honesty, I don't know if Amistad was an accurate representation because I have never specifically studied that case. It doesn't, however, seem like its off by all that much.
The only incidnet in the movie that seemed like it could have been misrepresented was the scene with the bible. We talked about it in class today and I agree with the comments made that it seemed a bit odd/out of place. Yes, it is possible that the prisoners could have "read" the bible while incarcerated, but it doesn't seem likely that they would have figured out the biblical story of Christ by solely viewing the pictures. This scene just seems to play into Spielberg's emphasis on religion a bit too much.
Keeping with the theme of religion, I thought it was interesting that the abolitionists were portrayed as somber and overly religious. I always thought of the abolitionist movement as highly emotional and that most people did more than just pray for abolition.
As Dr. Benson has mentioned in class, slavery is sometimes viewed by people as a paternalistic institution that, while ultimately a flawed system, was not that bad on the slaves. I think, above all, that Amistad goes to show you that no matter what might be said to "justify" or rationalize slavery, it was wrong. By showing such horrific scenes, Spielberg does not let the viewer forget that, ultimately, slaves were people whose natural state was freedom.

When considering "Amistad" and its significance/meaning, I find myself not focusing so much on the degree of accuracy that the film exhibited with respect to the actual Amistad story, but more on the messages the film sends about slavery itself. Many times, it is much easier to highlight specific events, or at least bare skeletons of specific happenings, in order to magnify and discuss abstract concepts and ideas. Regardless of whether or not the film stays true enough to the past, it conveys effective characteristics of slaves and slave society.

Anytime I discuss slavery with anyone, I find myself coming back to the same point over and over again--inconsistency. Pro-slavery forces' main arguments were that slavery was an economic necessity and that it was not immoral because it had always existed and the blacks were a lesser race. How, then, did slaveowners juxtapose such views with numerous cases of sexual infidelity? Basically, they asserted that slaves were not people, yet they were good enough to take out back and rape, screw, or whatever term you prefer. In essence, would the slaveowners say they were committing beastiality? Blacks are not people, but we will have sex with them when we need it. Repulsive.

On somewhat the same note, whites often used phrases that contradicted their own claims about slavery. For instance, slaveowners did not like to split slave families up, often making sure to keep mothers and daughter and father and brothers together. Also, they supposedly gave slaves "breathing room" as an exchange in the slave/owner work compact relationship, whatever you want to call it. Thus, it was recognized that slaves needed their own living room, and they needed to live with their families. SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHITE PEOPLE. I guess the "lesser race" argument was the best that owners could come up with to somehow justify their horrid actions.

As I expected, I began with the intention of discussing "Amistad", which is a great film, and I ended up venting on my utter hatred for any excuses that justify slavery or make it seem like anything other than an inhuman act carried out by ignorant, racist, heartless "people". Though my points did not relate directly to the movie, I feel that "Amistad" had a more general message, and it highlighted many of slavery's wrongs. Accordingly, any talk on slavery is essentially a talk about the Amistad.

Post Note: The fact that Sinque (sp.) may have helped sell his own people into slavery after his release is somewhat disturbing. If such is true, it makes me wonder if he ever deserved his own freedom at all. Slavery is such a diverse issue that an entire class could easily be devoted to it. I am sure that our continued discussions will produce at least some understanding or insight into the "why's", "how's", and "how could they's" of the infamously "peculiar" institution.

After watching Amistad I was struck at the viciousness with which the
slaves were treated. Obviously I didn’t think they would be treated
kindly, but the brutality haunted me. The image of the blacks being thrown
in the sea to lighten the cargo load is disgusting. Such inhumane action
reinforced my hatred towards slavery. In turn, the attempts the blacks
made at freeing themselves, their persistent struggle for freedom made me
question whether America was truly the land of Freedom. The fact that
court after court case had to occur makes it seem that America is more
about giving freedom to the elect not to everyone. I can empathize with
the abolitionists, such as Adams, that felt that blacks were people and
deserved rights as well.
The movie in particular did a fair job at portraying the story. However I
am not sure how accurate it was to the real story of Amistad. I do think
the point of the movie, perhaps not accurate to this time period, made
slavery out to be an issue of morality as opposed to commerce. The idea of
the slavery dependant South was mentioned but the emphasis was on blacks
as people with their own “story”. Sherman, the blacks’ lawyer, took time
to learn who they were and in the process found them to be people not just
cattle. This transformation of viewing blacks was crucial in the mindset
of abolitionists.
Looking back at the movie, at if it is accurate portrayal, makes me both
frustrated and proud to be an American. Sadly our Constitution was not
being fulfilled to all those within our country- blacks were not given
freedom or rights. However, the fact that the institution of slavery fell
presents the prospect of hope in further dilemmas that we may face.