Hi.

Welcome to the Issues in American History class discussion board. For your first assignment, please post a couple of paragraphs describing your biography and your interests.

I am Scott Christopher, a junior communication studies major from Watkinsville, Ga. I have brown hair and brown eyes and stand about 5 feet, 8 inches tall. I weigh about 135 lbs, I’ve lived 20 years and 6 months, and enjoy playing tennis. But knowing these characteristics about me hardly answers the question: “Who is Scott Christopher?” In fact you could probably discern these things by looking at me or just talking with me for 5 minutes, if you asked the right questions. But we know that people are much more complex than these simple, and frankly boring characteristics. Many of you have probably seen the movie Amistad, a film by Steven Spielberg that discusses a slave revolt on a ship in the Atlantic and the rights of these Africans in their trial that followed in early 19th century America. The lawyers on the case are failing to prove that the Africans have rights to freedom, and that they’ve been mistreated. They are asking former president John Adams (Anthony Hopkins) for advice in how they can prove their that the Africans were unjustly taken from their homeland. John Adams advices the lawyers to not merely prove where they are from or some facts about the revolt, but to “tell their story” and present them as human beings. As people we respond to stories and desire to hear and relate to the real stories of ordinary folks. Although we are influenced by many things in our lives, we are much more than our hometowns or our major tell about us. We each have a unique story, full of ups and downs, mistakes and regrets, adventures and discoveries. So, because this is just a simple message board entry, I won’t tell my whole story, but I’ll tell you a few highlights so that you can get to know me.
 At the age of nine, I met Jesus Christ and my life has never been the same. Now that I’m in this relationship with God, it influences all areas of my life. There is no doubt that this relationship will influence how I interpret American history as I’ll be looking for God’s Divine Providence and His hand in our country’s history. In August of 2001, my grandmother, the person who I knew best in my life, passed away at the age of 89. Through the grieving process, God assured me more of His love in my life, but it was a tough time for me. Finally, this isn’t a particular event, but a highlight in my life is my passion for movies. I enjoy watching them, looking for real life in them, and relating to the characters that are portrayed on the silver screen. I also enjoy looking for God’s story of redemption, hope, faith and love within movies, and sharing these interpretations with others. So, there are some highlights of my life. I hope to hear your stories, and will enjoy this term as we explore the stories of our American history this term.

I am a sophmore from Gainesville, Ga (an hour north of Atlanta on Lake Lanier where they held the 1996 summer olympic water events). I am Prelaw and plan on double majoring in Political Science and History. Right now I am interested in several types of law such as criminal and constitutional law, but I am really not sure of exactly what type I really want to practice. My dad is dead set on me attending law school at Georgia (in state tuition), but I am hoping to look other places as well. This summer I am going to be studying in Innsbruk, Austria at the International School. I am going to be taking two nonmajor courses to meet GER's and to satisfy my self interest - Art Apprectiation and Special Topics in Music: Opera. I am also taking one course in my major - Europe in the Age of Imperialism and World War I. I am really excited about this course because I will be able to visit actual sites that we will be studying in cities such as Berlin and Munich. My interest include running, scuba diving, and traveling. Durning the week I babysit in the afternoons for a family in Greenville. From this course I hope to gain a more thorough understanding and grasp of American history, as well as a base from which to form my own opinions and interpretations of important issues in American history.

Hey-
 I am a sophmore from Columbia, SC. As of right now I am undecided but I plan on declaring History as my major by the end of the year. I then hope to go to Law School but I am not sure what type of law I want to pursue. A family friend is a partner in a practice in Greenville and I am planning on working there this summer in hopes of finding something that I think I would enjoy. During the week I tutor at an Elementary School in town and other than that I spend time running and reading and I love movies! I also love history and visiting historical places of interest. I am looking forward to this class, especially the promised class discussions.

Hey y'all! I'm a junior from Columbus, GA which is about an hour south of Atlanta. I'm an elementary education major and love being around kids in any way possible. I have a concentration in history and American history is my favorite area of study. I'm excited about the fact we are not just going to concentrate on people, places, and events; things we have probably all studied at some point in our lives. Instead, I think it's the ideas and everything surrounding the people, places, and events that truly shapes American history. I'm a Young Life leader in Greenville and love hanging out the the high school kids any chance I get. I hope to teach kindergarten one day. In addition, I want to attend law school. I have no real desire to practice law but I find the legal system very intriguing. I am looking forward to meeting you all!

I am Joe Waters a sophomore ex-music major converting to history. I was born and raised in Greenville, SC. I am involved with Newman and the Church Related Vocations program. I have no idea what I want to do with my life, but I am discerning a call to religious life in the Roman Catholic Church. I have always been very interested in American history, but I am very excited about the prospects for the class with regards to historiography, which so far sounds very interesting. I love to visit historic sites particularly having to do with the colonial and early Republic period especially in South Carolina.

    Hi, my name is George Booth and I'm a sophmore from Tupelo, MS (the birthplace of Elvis). I'm a history major planning on certifying to teach secondary education someday. I came to Furman by way of the boarding school I attended in Chattanooga, TN for all of my high school career. I'm interested in backpacking, rock climbing, kayaking, banjo pickin' and I'm an avid fan of bluegrass music. Here at Furman I work as an RA and I'm involved with the Clubhouse Gang, a community service group.
    One of the main reasons that I'm interested in American History is because of the Amer. History course I took in high school. I enjoy studying interesting personalities in American History and discovering the relevance of history to the present day. I look forward to a thought-provoking term in Dr. Benson's course.

Good afternoon, boys and girls. My name is Katie and I hail from Huntsville, Alabama. Among my more intelligent interests are skinny skiing and going to bullfights on acid. I love history, art, music, pie, white rap, my sweetheart, and most of all, the chance to make each day special in some simple, happy way. Perhaps I will pursue a career as a motivational speaker. Nevertheless, I look forward to what most certainly will be a grueling, taxing, heartbreaking, and demoralizing term in United States History with the rest of you.

Just a reminder that you need to post at least a couple of paragraphs, one biographical, and one describing your personal interests.

Edited by author 01-06-2003 03:49 PM
   Hello everyone. My name is Jackie Epping, which you figured out if you looked just left of here. Anyway I am a sophomore from Lake Wylie, South Carolina. That is about five minutes away from Charlotte, North Carolina. I am 19 years old and will not turn 20 until next year. I am the youngest of five children. As for my future I am debating a major in either elementary education or history. I would like to teach first graders or kindergartners, but I love history so I am still deciding. I am hoping this class will help me decide. This is going to be a crazy term for me because I am overloading with a music class, ahh.
  Aside from this class I enjoy several things. I like to hang out outdoors, and am just starting to go camping and do activities of that sort. I like to boat and water-ski, also. Swimming is another on of my hobbies. Also I enjoy reading mystery and Tom Clancy type books. At Furman I am not involved in many things this year, however I planned to get involved in Newman again this term after I was inactive last term. I am always looking for new things to try as well. I also enjoy watching Duke basketball and Notre Dame sports.

Whats up everyone, my name is Brian Bratton and i am a junior from Augusta, Ga. I am originally from Pittsburgh, PA but ive been in augusta for 18 years. I am 20 years old and i have a brother who is 31, he lives in Pittsburgh with his family. I also have a niece and nephew. I am a communications major, and hopefully i will be able to be successful after college with a career in marketing or Public relations
I have alot of interests but im only able to do a few because of my schedule. I play football here at furman and that takes up the majority of my time, except for school. I also like music, its always on in my room. I am a huge sports fan. I am a long time Steelers fan but ive also become a huge Falcons fan because of my relationship with most of the players. I like the Lakers in Basketball.
Im a pretty easy going guy, and i like to have fun. WEll thats alittle bit about me seeya.

As it says just over there to the left, my name is Michael. I am from Greer, SC (born and raised, no less). By nature I am a computer science major, but I appreciate the need to know about more than just my core discipline. I have no other siblings and I was raised by my mother. I didn't really get into computers until about half way through high school. Then I had the chance to go to a specialty science and math school, which had a big impact on my interests and the rest of my life. I never expected originally to come to Furman, but I've been happy thus far with how things have turned out. I prefer to stay on the edge of academics and the real world, so while attending Furman I have also kept jobs as a software developer for local and national companies. I tend to do the inverse of the average college student. I stay at home during the school year and then use the summers to travel and see different things. The past two summers I worked in Boston and Washington, DC respectively, and last term I worked in the United Kingdom.

My interests include driving my truck (something I found a new appreciation for after being abroad), smoking cigars, and traveling. I have also been known to do a *little* bit of swing dancing on occasion. I also like meeting people from different places and different backgrounds and learning about their culture and ideas and seeing how they vary from my own upbringing and cultural influence. In essense, I think J.S. Mills was on to something.

     My name is Melissa Phillips, and I am a 21-year-old, 5’3” brown-eyed brunette. I am a senior Psychology major from Roxboro, NC. I’ve only lived there for a year though—I was born in northern West Virginia, and moved to Ohio and Chapel Hill before moving to Greenwood, SC, for my middle and high school years. After graduation in five short months, I plan get a Master of Arts in Teaching, and then teach high school history and psychology while working on a degree in Secondary School Counseling, with the eventual goal of becoming a high school guidance counselor. Although I frequently am serious and focused, I have the reputation of being hyper, fun-loving, and a little bit crazy too.
     Among other things, I enjoy running, tennis, soccer, and snow skiing. I also enjoy traveling, reading almost any type of novel, and watching sappy chick flicks. I was raised on country music, but now have a wide range of musical interests. I love learning random facts and info, and I could happily spend the rest of my life reading and gaining knowledge about anything and everything—as long as I never had to take a test on it! I also enjoy getting to know people and trying to understand why they tick the way they do (hence the psych major…)
     To truly understand who I am and the eyes through which I view the world, however, one must understand my faith. Although I attended church all of my life, I still thought I was in control of my life and that God was just a small piece of the pie that was my life. However, when I was 19, I realized that no amount of academic success and popularity, friendships, boyfriends, or outside interests could ever truly satisfy me and make me happy, and I discovered that a relationship with Christ could fill the emptiness inside that I had been longing to fill. Now I live for Him, and although I will never be perfect and sinless, His grace and unfailing love cover me and bring me the freedom and happiness that no person on this earth can bring.

Alrighty kids, here’s the scoop on me:
 I am a Senior Spanish major who came all the way from Texas to learn Spanish in South Carolina. Ironic, I know. I am short, brownish curlyish hair. My favorite characteristic is that I have two different colored eyes. It makes me feel like God wanted to make me just a tad unique. I grew up in San Angelo, a very small town in West Texas but the last two years have gone home to Corinth where my parents now live (just north of DFW). I have two older brothers who are twins and are both married. I also have a younger brother who goes to school at Belmont Univ in Nashville, TN. I am an unspoiled Daddy’s girl who is constantly tortured by her brothers—who will ALWAYS be bigger than me!
 One of my favorite things to do is travel, but when I don’t have that opportunity, I love to read, especially the classics. I enjoy cooking and experimenting with new recipes. I usually can be found in my apartment hanging out with my roommates, most often playing the revolutionary Play Station 2 game Dance, Dance Revolution. I am not involved in anything on campus, but instead care for my pastor’s four kids, translate at the NorthWest Crescent Center, and am discipled by a woman who is able to give me a place to go when Furman drives me crazy. My most important commitment is the youth group at Grace Church. I help with the high schoolers, in particular, the high school girls. When I am not doing any of the above, I enjoy planning my life. Today I have decided that I would like to be a high school Spanish teacher. Yesterday I wanted to be a translator. Either way, I hope to find my way to the Washington, D.C., area come June 1. But whatever I do, I look forward to what God has in store for my life and all my friends with whom I am blessed.

     My name is Chris Siler and I am from Greensboro, North Carolina. I am 21 years old, have blond hair, blue eyes, and I'm about 6'2". My Mom is a teacher and my Dad is currently at Wake Forest getting his MBA. My sister lives in D.C. and is 23. I have two Scottish Terriers, one is twelve and the other is 3 months old. I graduated from Greensboro Day School in 2000 and am currently a junior at Furman, majoring in history.
     I enjoy listening to music every chance I get. I usually listen to Rock, but I'll listen to any style of music. I like to play soccer, basketball, and frisbee golf. My favorite t.v. shows are the Simpsons and Seinfeld. I would really like to go see The Price is Right before Bob Barker dies.

Hello everybody, my name is Deshara I'm 20yrs and a junior. I'm from Farmville, Va(its in the middle of the sticks in central Va). I'm majoring in history. I also play basketball on the women's b-ball team, so come watch us play sometime. After college I'm not exactly sure what I intend on doing, but have some ideas. I would like to do some missionary work and teach history in high school some day.
Now a little of what I like to do. I like to fish, swim, and skate...Just kidding. I like to travel and do different things. I like excitement and extreme fun, so after I graduate and finish basketball I would like to go sky diving. I like sports either watching or playing them. My personality is laid back and funny in a weird sort of way. My friends says that I'm mean, but I'm just really sarcastic. That's just a little about me. If you would like to know more feel free to come ask and I might give an answer:)!

Hey everyone! My name is Hope Bentley, and I am sophomore. I am twenty years old and am intending on majoring in history and getting certified to teach secondary education. I have shoulder length brown hair and green eyes, and I am exactly 5'3.25". I have an older sister who recently got engaged! My mom volunteers at the U.S.O. at Hartsfield Airport, and my dad is Vice President of Environmental Affairs at Georgia Pacific. I am from Lilburn, Ga. Yes, like almost everyone else here from the great state of Georgia, I live in Metro Atlanta. I'm about 20 minutes northeast of the city. The other major thing Lilburn can almost claim is Stone Mountain. I'm sure some of y'all have heard of this wonderful park with the largest piece of exposed granite in the world. You can even see it from I-85. I've worked there the past two summers, and during this past summer I got to play a 13 yr. old girl. "My name is Abby Lee Wiley, and I was born in 1859. The year is 1872 which makes me 13. I went to school until I was ten then I stopped because I had learned to read, write, and do simple math. My older brother Robert died at the Battle of Gettysburg, and my ma died about a year later of the fever. Now it's just my pa, J. Wiley, owner of the general mercantile, my old sister Becky Anne, and me." That was the speech I made to hundreds of tourists over the summer!
Surprisingly enough I have other interests than just working at Stone Mountain during the summers. I play the flute and piccolo, and I am in the marching, basketball, and symphonic bands here. I am also currently teaching myself guitar. I am involved in RUF here at Furman. Recently I have started going swing dancing at the Handlebar on Tuesday nights which is a blast. Y'all should all try it!!
Whew! That's probably more than y'all ever wanted to know about me, but if you want to know more just ask me!

Hello everyone. My name is Orion and I am from Woodbridge, Virginia (located 20 mins outside DC). I am 21 yrs old and a senior. I am a history major. I am a also a member of the womens basketball team. I have one sister who is 28 years old and a niece named Syrena who is two. After my 5th year of college I plan on either going to school to receive my masters or coaching.
In my spare time which is not often I like to sleep. I enjoy spending my time with my family. I would like to go to Austrailia someday and go scuba diving and jet skiing. My friends would say that I am an outgoing and fun individual. Many people may think that I am intimidating but I am one of the funniest people I know. So, don't be afraid to say Hi!

Edited by author 01-06-2003 08:26 PM
Whats up? Hey everybody my name Kyle Funk and most people, like my close friends, just call me Funk. You can call me Funk if you want too, I wont get made I promise, but if you dont want to Kyle is fine. I am from Cincinnati, OH and am majoring in history and education. I have hopes and dreams of becoming a high school history teacher. Along with that I would love to become a head baseball and/or football coach at the school where I will be teaching. I am 6'2" with blondish brown hair and blue eyes. I just recently celebrated my 21st birthday. As for my family, I am the youngest of six with 3 brothers and 2 sisters. I have 3 nieces and 1 nephew, and they drive me crazy. I have 2 dogs and I couldnt tell you what kind they are because they are mutts, and I dont know what kind of dog either one of them resembles. My family even has a couple of cats. I play baseball here at Furman and that takes up the majority of my time, along with academics. I encourage all of you to come out and support the baseball team in the spring if you have a chance.
My main interests are involved with sports. I love watching and playing all kinds of sports, except hunting and fishing(if that is even a sport). I like to go snow and water skiing, camping, mountain biking, hiking, four wheeling, and pretty much anything outdoors(I could go on forever). I love listening to music. I like rap, classic rock, pop, and country. My favorite television shows are South Park, Simpsons, My Wife and Kids, and Friends. One thing that everyone should know about me is that I am really quite and shy around people I dont know, but once I get to know someone I like joking around and having fun with that person. So hopefully I will have a chance to meet and make new friends here in class. I would like to throw out a congrats to my Ohio State Buckeyes for their national championship. Go Bucks!!!!

Wzup everyone. My name is Kim Lawrence and Im a junior history major from Atlanta, Ga, where I've lived all my life. I have a younger brother who incidently was born exactly four years after me, 1 hour later. I also play on the women's basketball team here at Furman and I might go on to the WNBA if my body holds out and if I get drafted.
In the little time that I have off, I like to read, watch tv, go to the movies, the mall or just chill with my friends and teammates. Oh yeah,can't forget and play with my new game system. I hope to get to know all of you and hope this is a good term for everyone. Feel free to come chat with me if you want. Later :)

Hi! My name is Megan Griffin, and I'm a sophomore from Kingsport, TN. I would like to say I'm a little upset because eight hours after I left home to come back to school, it snowed eight inches. My little brother left me a taunting message this morning on the answering machine gloating that he was out of school. Anyways, I pretty much grew up in Kingsport in the middle of the mountains, and I loved it; all the seasons are absolutely beautiful back home. My family has always owned dogs of some breed or another. Right now, we have 2 English bulldogs, and I'm begging my parents to breed them so we can have many other bulldogs. They're quite possibly the greatest pets we've ever had.
I enjoy playing the piano - I've been taking lessons since I was eight, and this year, I started teaching lessons through the pre-college program here at the school. After having this kind of teaching experience, I really felt maybe I'm cut out for teaching of some flavor. My favorite composer would probably have to be Brahms; his music just really pulls at you. I can't really explain it, but I think he's a phenomenal composer. In my free time, I enjoy just hanging out with my friends and cooking - my hall is known for always baking or eating. I'm looking forward to the rest of this term, and I hope everyone gets plenty of rest! G'night y'all!

Good evening, hope everyone has had a shangrila first day of classes. I'm Sara, I hail from the Heartlands, west of the Mississippi. I was born in Kansas City, Missouri and have lived in Overland Park, Kansas, but Eden Prairie, Minnesota (6 miles from the Mall of America) has been my residence for the past 13 years. If you want to know how I came to be at Furman, ask sometime, it's an interesting story. I'm 20, soon to be 21, very exciting. I have an older sister and brother, and a younger sister who is the plague and joy of my life. My mom lives in Minnesota, my father lives in Summerville, South Carolina, and the rest of my family is spread out in the country like butter on toast. I don't like having my family so far away in so many places, but it has enabled me to travel and visit the different places which led to my interest in history. For example, when visiting my dad in South Carolina and Virginia I got to see the homes of some Presidents and battlefields, and it just intriguied me to finally be there at the spot where history was made, instead of just reading about it in a textbook. I am a junior history major with a classics concentration, and I work in the Classics Department with a lot of groovy people.

I enjoy reading a lot (mostly books of my choosing :P), eating all kinds of foods, and being as loony as possible. I love history, and I want to attend grad school and focus on Colonial America and the Early Republic. I love animals and am happy to see my fish, Simon, after a three week absence. I also swing dance, bowl, cook up odd concoctions, sing with my roommate at the top of my lungs, go on daring and adventurous outings into the wild jungle that is Greenville, and run mad and liberal for the College Democrats here as their secretary. Don't hold it against me though, I generally love everyone.

Hello, my name is Joey Finlay and I have lived in Greenville for the vast majority of my 31 years. I am returning to Furman to complete secondary education requirements in history/social studies. I originally graduated from USC-Spartanburg with a BA in hisory in 1995 and took education courses at Furman in the winter and spring term of 1998. For the past five years, I have worked full time with New Foundations Children and Family Services in Anderson, SC. The agency provides in-home treatment services to children and families at risk of having a child removed from parent's custody due to abuse or neglect issues with goal of stabilizing placement or promoting reunification between parents and children previously in foster care. I have served as a case manager and current program manager of Therapeutic Family Services of Greenville. The recent state budget cuts have greatly impacted the human services field in SC; all the more reason I felt to go ahead and transition into teaching and complete certification requirements.
     On the personal side, I enjoy history and the unique place that the US occupies in the current landscape of the world. I believe that history is vitally important because a people adrift from the past really have no reference points to interpret life and avoid the pitfalls of previous generations. I enjoys movies with a historical twist and the chance to analyze themes and possible agendas. I also enjoy sports such as boating, hiking, basketball and hobbies such as home improvement and tinkering with older vehicles. I am looking forward to the class and know from my brief Furman experience of the past that the winter term is very fast-paced and challenging. I hope everyone has a profitable New Year. Thanks for reading..

Hi, I'm Brad Benton, senior Spanish and political science major from Pamplico, South Carolina. Pamplico is a very small place (pop. 1,300) in the Pee Dee region of the state. Most of the families there are tobacco-farming families. (Although hardly anybody farms tobacco anymore) Most all of my extended family lives there, and family time is a very important part of my life at home. I graduated from the tiny public high school in Pamplico, Hannah-Pamplico High (graduating class of 97 people). I have a younger brother (sophomore at Presbyterian College) and sister (junior in high school). Recently, I proposed to my girlfriend of two years; the wedding is planned for July.

My post comes late in the evening because I've been furiously filling out "request for recommendation" and "request for transcript" forms for graduate school all afternoon. I've decided that I'd like to get a Ph.D. in Latin American history, and deadlines are quickly approaching. I am a tenor with the Furman Singers (a great experience), and I love music. Most of my time not spent with classes, Singers, fiance, applications, etc. is spent as the lame duck president of a greek organization.

   I’m Beatrice Burton, a junior history and Asian studies double major. My entry is coming very late because I’ve spent the last several months playing at Kansai Gaidai University in Japan, a school not exactly known for its rigorous workload, so I'm a little out of practice. Coming back to Furman for winter term is quite a rude awakening.
   I come from a rather large family, whom I talk about all the time. I have four sisters; my younger sister is now a freshman at the University of Georgia, and the other sisters are all older. My family mostly lives in Urbana, Illinois, but sometimes we live in Ninety Six, South Carolina (honestly, I don’t even know what my permanent address is). Growing up straddling the Mason-Dixon line, I’ve always been interested in how the North and the South will view an event differently. My favorite example of this is Preston Brooks’s caning of Charles Sumner (if you want to hear about it I’m more than willing to talk your ear off). Also influencing my decision to major in history is the fact that my father is a history professor (who happens to have graduated from Furman).
   When not studying US history or Japanese, I help in the costume shop in the theater, play tennis, and play the violin and piano.

My name is Rena Grant. Rena, like Tina or Gina, not Renée, but regardless of how many times I will spell my name and pronounce it people still call me something different. In which case I refuse to acknowledge them when they address me. It comes in handy when telemarketers call for Renee, I can honestly say that she doesn’t live here.

I am a senior political science major and I am declaring history as my second major this week. I have a concentration in French, which simply means that I needed to take two more courses and complete an exit interview to be a French major. I cannot remember the argument that the administration gave for not allowing a concentration at Furman outside of the few specified in the handbook.

I am from Hopkins, SC. Hopkins is roughly 11 miles outside of the Columbia city limits. Most people don’t know where it is, so I usually say Columbia to save myself from explaining that I live on the countryside. I attended Hammond School in Columbia, which prepared me for Furman, another small, sheltered universe that pretends to exist separately from the “real world”. On that note, I am looking forward to graduating in May. I took the LSAT last month and if all went well, then I’m unfortunately going to Carolina to study law, if not (which is probably the case) I am leaving the US. For those of you planning to take the LSAT, I would strongly advise you to save your $1100 for the Kaplan course.

I’ve visited Belize, Germany, Italy and the UK. I’ve studied in Greece and France, so I haven’t quite decided where I’d like to live. Most likely I will attend graduate school in France or teach English.

Edited by author 01-07-2003 05:31 PM
Hello, my name is Franklin Teagle. I am a sophomore here at Furman and I am from Alpharetta, Georgia. I have lived there for the majority of my life but I was born in Raleigh, North Carolina, and I have also lived in Virgina as well as way up north in Rhode Island. I come from a family of four. I have a 17-year-old sister who is currently trying to figure out what college she will attend. My family has a pet Jack Russell Terrier named Jackie. She is insane and loves to jump up on people and chase cats who dare to enter her back yard.
I have not officially declared, but I am most likely going to major in English. I hope to eventually work in the film industry, because that is one of my prime interests. This past summer I interned with a local Atlanta independent film company called Image Film & Video. I had a blast working for them and it was a great introduction to the industry. I would have to say that I am a pretty big movie geek. A few of my favorite films include Rear Window, Blue Velvet, Being John Malkovich, and The Sweet Hereafter. I am also very into music. I like all types of rock music from older classic rock like the Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath to newer, mostly independant, bands like the Dismemberment Plan and Wilco. I have played guitar for several years and I am currently in the process of starting up a band with a few of my friends here at school.

    My name's Ashley and this is my second year at Furman. I'm originally from Chesapeake, Virginia and I'm a member of Furman’s women's basketball. I've not yet decided on a major, but it's between English, History, and Philosophy. I would be nice to create my own major though. I'm a big fan of all postmodern thought. Right now, I can't get enough of Foucault. I'm also very big on language/reality theory.
   When we get time off, I really enjoy going to the movies. My favorite film is "Fight Club". My favorite color is blue. My cat's name is Cavender. My favorite TV shows are "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Law and Order"(the original). My favorite fiction books are "The Alienist" and "The Angel of Darkness" by Caleb Carr.

After the Fact points out in the beginning of the second chapter that historians have the job to re-examine the past. Perhaps one of the most important decisions a historian will make is in choosing what part of history or what particular aspect to study. After reading about Salem Village, it is obvious that a number of historians believe that the witchcraft of 1692 is a particularly important part of our American history that we should study and understand in more depth and accuracy. However, what exactly is the significance of studying Salem Village with such intensity? We can clearly see that there is a discrepancy between gender within the village. We can see the irony of escaping religious persecution in England and the rest of Europe to only find religious prejudices just as prevalent in America. We can acknowledge the tension between the farmers and those in favor of commercialism. Indeed, there are a number of aspects to consider and debate, yet it seems as though they all come to a dead end. Is it possible that perhaps one of the reasons that historians believe the Salem Village witchcraft is so important is because it is so intriguing rather than so vital to our history? I agree that the case is extremely interesting. Witchcraft and “the unknown” is very interesting to study because we don’t know—and probably never will know--everything about it; I personally would probably rather study this situation than the trade routes and their historical significance. So it raises a question: Has the Salem Village case truly been that vital to our American history? What lasting effect did Salem Village have on our history?

The Salem Witch Trials are a very interesting and well-known part of our history, although they actually only account for a limited amount of our history. In reading After the Fact, it is interesting to see how all or the different aspects of the society could have blended together to make such an event occur. The many differences that existed between the villagers require some thought into how they could have played a role. Why though did the villagers on the west side really care about some of these aspects of the other people if they did not have to come in contact with them that often? If the east side villagers, at least the ones at the beginning, were non-church members, then the only time they would come in contact would be passing each other by, or when they had watch duty. Now it is easy to see how they would be the easy targets to accuse, when the accusations started, because no contact with them occurred and one did not really agree with their beliefs. The common prejudices kicked in and people could live with accusing these other people. So there is justification for the accusations, but the convictions are more confusing. Why was the magistrate board not more representative of the whole community, and if it was why were so many people from the group with Quaker connections and entrepreneurs convicted? Why was it that so many were convicted without more sympathy, towards the accused? And why was there no credit given to the evidence that supported the accused or was there not any given?

     I agree with Merritt—I’m not sure that there were lasting effects from the events of Salem Village. However, I would hesitate to say that it is not a vital part of our history. Perhaps the importance of Salem lies not in the actual events, but in the broader conditions and responses related to those events. We act appalled at the events in Salem. We cannot imagine why no sensible people stood up for the accused, or how society could be so unfair and unjust toward its own members. But my question: Is the world we live in really all that different from that of Salem? Would things really play out much differently today? Bad things happen, and we seek to explain them. We can not stand to live in a world of ambivalence and uncertainty—hence the prevalence of scientific data and religious movements in our world. And when science, religion, or any other external factor cannot provide an explanation, we blame people. Those living in 1692 did not have the benefits of science and technology to explain why their cows died or even why their children were suddenly overcome with mysterious convulsions and behaviors. We often fear those we associate with change—the western part of Salem feared the eastern part because of the rising importance of commercialism. People feared the women who dared not fit the traditional role expected of women. Then throw in the fact that some strange things were happening around them, and people were motivated to explain uncertainties. Hence the blame placed on specific people who just so happened to be the ones causing change (and thus, fear and uncertainty) through their actions.
     So are we really all that different from the people of Salem? I see modern-day parallels to these events, when uncertainty and fear have resulted in some rather heinous acts. Bad things happened, and science and religion just didn’t seem to provide a sufficient explanation. Thus we blamed people, lumping them together into a broad group to which we applied a harsh stereotype. I cite two modern examples to back this thought. Consider the internment of Japanese Americans following the bombing of Pearl Harbor—Japanese living in America were put in relocation camps simply because of fear and prejudice, not because of anything they had done. Also consider the treatment of Muslims following September 11th. Again, fear, ignorance, and stereotypes drove many to treat innocent people in unfair ways. Perhaps I am off base in these thoughts or I am stretching things a bit far. I’m just not so sure that we can quickly dismiss the idea that the importance of Salem lies in the fact that we are really no different than they were—we just have different ways to explain our uncertain and often harsh world.

I am appreciative of After The Fact's second chapter on the Salem Witch Trials for proposing many different theories as to how such an event could have happened. I do believe it's an intriguing part of American history, if only to explain life as it was during the early colonial era in New England. Besides the telling of the witch trials themselves, the chapter revealed a close look at economics, social life, and religion in a town at the end of the 17th century. The blend of different explanations as to how such an event as the witch trials could have occurred is only an added perspective into the lives of the citizens of Salem Town and Salem Village. Why would one person accuse another person of being witch evidently could have had many possibilities rather than a simple answer. It all came down to the situation, the location, the history, the economics and the religion of the accuser, accused, and the defender. I do believe that studying the Salem Witch Trials is understanding at least the effects of everyday life back in 17th century smalltown New England. Whether or not the event itself has had a lasting effect upon us is up to the individual. Upon hearing, as Melissa has said, the search for terrorists today and the search for communists during McCarthy's "reign" called "witch hunts", that the trials in Salem have had some kind of lasting effect. Perhaps the effect on us today is just to understand events such as the previously mentioned from all perspectives, instead merely as "witch hunts."

I, too, agree with the point of the inclusion of the Salem witch trials in US history. Not only is this subject intriguing but it also allows us a glimpse into the mindset of those living during the 17th century. One, which I believe, is not that different from our own today. As others have stated, this event must be viewed in the social, political, religious, and economic context in which it took place. To fully understand, if that is possible, the “entire picture” must be taken into account. This concept of a full worldview should be used not only when discussing issues of historical significance but also those in current events.
To tackle another issue in US history, the accounts of Olaudah Equiano appalled me. (I’m sure this comes as a big surprise to you all). The filth, squalor, and inhuman conditions in which the slaves existed are beyond anything I can imagine. As in the case of the Witch Trials, I do not understand how people could stand by and allow these practices to continue. One could easily write this off as an “issue of the times”. “The people didn’t know any better,” one could say. I would like to think we have moved beyond these types of issues in our 21st century world. Or have we? Are there situations where this type of mindset still exists? Take the Holocaust for example. Is the mindset exhibited by the early slave owners and traders really that different from that of Hitler? Several hundred years does not separate us from the Holocaust as in the case of early slavery. The Holocaust is as real as our grandparents. As centuries pass, does our mindset progress? Or are there underlying issues in society that reappear? Do these issues assume different forms in relation to the social, political, religious, and economic contest in which they exist?

I find After the Fact refreshing since it re-evaluates historical events in a different perspective. Unlike the text which presents people, and events as most of us have learned them in school, After the Fact forces us to consider other elements that may have influenced a particular event. I believe it is common to associate the Salem Witch Trails with religious villagers accusing young girls of witchcraft, but Chapter 2 discusses the Salem Witch Trials from all perspectives involved. The focus on the trials was not to oust those who practiced the black arts, but a common problem: 17th century small-town politics. Representation versus non-representation as is the case with the magistrate, the farmers versus those who could afford to hire servants, those who migrated to escape religious persecution while simultaneously imposing religion on others in opposed to those who simply wanted the freedom of religion. Such problems have prevailed throughout world history, and the “witch hunts” are simply another example.
 I too read the accounts of former slave Equiano in humanities. I found it as disturbing as Night by Wiesel. At the risk of using a trite expression, “hindsight is 20/20”. I use this expression to defend those who assert that slavery wasn’t as terrible as we think, and those that deny the Jewish Holocaust engineered by Hitler (I make it a point to say the Jewish Holocaust since so many people are under the false impression that the world has only experienced one). I would like to think that any so-called educated person would not defend the institution of slavery, the holocaust, the current state of Palestine, the post-imperialism condition of Africa, the extermination in Kosovo (1999), and the endless other acts of inhumanity as events that “we knew nothing about”, “could do nothing about”, or “need not be involved with”.

 After reading the first chapter of After the Fact and listening to the discussion today I noticed an all too familiar pattern. The rise in popularity of the slave trade in the states is coupled with a dangerous medium. This is technology. In and of itself technology is positive, necessary and desired in society. Too often, however, it seems that technology is used in negative, unnecessary and undesired ways.
 The slave trade is a perfect example. As we said today, the mortality rate was an issue in the colonies. Presummably if the mortality rate decreased due to advances in medical technology this would be seen as a positive change. It is ironic that these beneficial discoveries led to such detrimental events. It would be incorrect to assume that if the mortality rate had not improved then slavery would not have expanded through America. It would also be inaccurate to dismiss the effect that technology, even in its crudest form, had on the slave trade. It is intersting to think that even as long as 400 years ago advancements ended up causing unwanted behavior.
 Today and throughout history there are so many examples of the misuse of knowledge which reveals our neglect of history. I feel, as cliched as it is, that one of the basic reasons for studying the past is to use that knowledge to change the future. Using history, however, we see that this is an unachievable task. We cannot stop technology from being used in inappropriate ways, as we see it has been for hundreds of years.

After the Fact is a wonderful resource and I definitely understand why so many students choose to keep it rather than sell back at the end of the term. The irreverent discussion of Serving Time in Virginia held within is especially refreshing and intriguing-- I love the way it coincides with our Essential America reading. Not only does it prompt us to think analytically and objectively, it makes the information presented in the text much more interesting! For once, both books present the harsh realities for settlers in the Massachusetts colony; no more Mayflower to the first Thanksgiving, while casually glossing over the brutality of everyday life: high mortality rates, diseases, cold, and unforgiving land.

For those of you who haven't seen Gangs of New York, drop everything and go now. Leo redeems himself, I promise (and I'm all about Daniel Day-Lewis, anyway).

I, too, enjoy reading After the Fact. It adds a new flavor to the common textbook because it explores certain issues in depth and also brings new perspectives to the reader's attention.
After listening to the discussion in class today, I could not stop thinking about the reasons for slavery not to become dominant until the 1680s. I have a theory that we did not talk about in class, but maybe it has some truth to it. Maybe one reason that slavery did not catch on is because no one had bought slaves and lived long enough to use the slaves to reep a greater profit. If one person in the upper class became successful with slavery, instead of with servants, then maybe the other landowners in the upper class would try to copy the first. Then slavery could have a snowball effect, gathering momentum as it moved down the social heirarchy. The poor workers would see that there was someone even below them, and thus give support to slavery. Maybe this theory is a little off-the-wall, but I think there could be some validity in it.

Edited by author 01-13-2003 11:13 PM
After the Fact helped to open my eyes to another perspective of why slavery became extremely important during the 17th century. Slavery has always been a strong issue and one issue of continuous debate. Learning about Virginia and the slave trade is very interesting, both topics have a significance on my life because I am a black female from Virginia.

Many people traveled to America to have an opportunity to live freely. They wanted the freedom to speak, pray, and live vicariously but as time progressed happiness turned into greed. The thought of making a fortuune created a society where wealth was the upmost importance. The values of stability and human dignity dwindled. They discovered that if they could get others to work for them then the amount of money made from tobacco would accumulate faster. So, slaves became the next valuable commodity. This act would eventually lead to the separation of blacks and whites.

In After the Fact page 19-20 Davidson and Lytle state,"The development of slavery was something that snuck up on Virginians." This statement is one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard. In order for the Virginia Assembly to pass this legislation one has to propose the idea and others have to agree. White Virginians moved to America to develop establishments away from persecution, but in their process of building themselves up they knocked several other groups down. I agree with many people in the class that view slavery as an act of greed. I believe that the 21st century has more individuals open to the idea of togetherness regardless of race and religion, but the world still has individuals who are ignorant. So, until we rid our country of those people there will always be acts of violence and discrimination.

   In past history courses I have always studied the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade in terms of it's emergernce, spread and eventual decline. Therefore, I found Davidson's and Lytle's approach to be extremely unique and distinguishable among other historical approaches. Never before have I been enticed to consider why the slave trade did not immediately emerge as the colonies developed. Thus,I felt challenged to really consider and weigh the reasons provided by Lytle and Davidson. I found the influence of the sugar industry in the Carribean on the eventual spread of slavery to North America to be the most interesting point to me as well as the most ironic.
   The growth and increase of the sugar industry called for a large labor force and thus enticed the Northern and Central African slave traders to gravitate to the Carribean. As these slave traders gained great wealth and prosperity, Northern American and European shipping companies became aware of the great profit slave trading was yielding. As the need for labor in America emerged these shipping companies jumped at the opportunity to trade slaves in the colonies. Thus,the original wealth of the Central and Northern African slave traders creates a somewhat "snow ball effect" that spread from Caribbean islands to America. I find this both unique and ironic because today it is very rare for islands to have a large influence on the larger western nations. So to learn that the Caribbean not only once controlled the sugar market in the world, but they also influenced the history and emenrgence of modern America by being the first to bring slavery to the western hemsiphere is very suprising. Futhermore, it is ironic that as the sugar industry collapsed in the Carribean, cotten and tobacco became two of the most wanted commodities and henceforth the slave trade migrated to America.

First, I'd like to say that I agree with lauding of D&L's approach. I haven't seen anything similiar to it prior to now.

I would like to approach two general ideas proposed by previous authors. The first is the topic of the slave trade. I don't disagree with Orion that the comment has a certain lack of insight from D&L, but I can sort of see where they are coming from. People came to the New World more out of deadly averice than for any other reason. The descriptions of why they came seem like a shopping list -- we go to Walmart today because we can pick things off of shelves and leave with them. My impression is that the early settlers expected a similar situation. They wanted to come over, get all the goods, and go home to be rich. I suspect that indentured servants were also very popular because land owners expected to become rich and go home -- they had no desire to live in this crazy wilderness, so no reason to establish something permanent.

Second, I'd like to address the persecution comments. America is a country built on persecution. The Puritans who saught religious tolerance _for themselves_ came here looking to avoid oppression from England. While they had no use for slavery, they did persecute other religions (the Quakers are a good example). America was not built on religious freedom initially, it was built on refugees who hated their oppressors as much as they hated their fellow outcasts. This goes back to the Protestant split -- I remember in particular the narrative of an Anabapist fleeing persecution from the Catholic Church and seeking refuge in Geneva with the Calvanists, who subsequently burned him at the stake for heresy.

America has continued this self definition through uniting in a common hatred often spawned by ignorance and fear than anything else. The upper class European Americans "bonded" with the lower class European Americans against the African Americans. We later "bonded" with the French by hating the British. Our philosophy back fired as _the South_ determined who they were by hating _the North_ and vice versa (notice the definition of North and South mean nothing outside of the context of their opposite). We stood against the Germans in WWI and WWII, and we stood together against the Russians. In the post cold war era we have a vaccum of hatred to fill, so our leaders have offerred up those most unlike us -- such as Saddam and others. America's diversity mandates that we somehow define an American very generally. Most anyone can come here and become an "American", you can't go to France and become a Frenchman (although who would, really now? ... notice how we're bonding now? ;) American diversity motivates this undying need to self define through hatred. It gives us strength as a whole -- some might argue -- but I think in the end the moral damage propagated by it is highly unacceptable. I submit as examples the inner persecution of the Japanese during WWII and the current ignorant reflex against Arab Americans and the Islamic faith in general.

Davidson and Lytle do a great job of adding dimension and complexity to otherwise very familiar topics in American history. As Lindsey Hurst notes, I too feel challenged to understand early Virginia slavery and the Salem witch trials on new levels.

I found Orion Wake’s arguments against Davidson and Lytle to be a bit limited in scope and emotionally charged. To say that "the development of slavery was something that snuck up on Virginians" is a stupid comment misses the authors’ point. By villainizing the white planters of early Virginia, Wake’s argument ignores the subtleties of the genesis of slavery. The authors state, for example, that “black Virginians . . . lived with white Virginians for more than forty years before their status became fully and legally debased.” This cannot simply be attributed to some sort of degeneration of society from utopia to amorality, as Wake suggests. Instead, Davidson and Lytle make a compelling case that the economic and health conditions of early Virginia postponed the eventual onset of “slave society.” The point of their argument is not to justify slavery or the people that implemented slave society, but to add to our understanding of how this admittedly unjust system came to be.

Davidson and Lytle’s interpretation of the beginning of slavery in the U.S. is but one interpretation. By omitting the class-based conflictual element of the story as told by Edmund Morgan, Davidson and Lytle slightly shift the reader’s focus. While neither history seems to be inaccurate, each was written for its own purpose and, therefore, reinforces a multi-interpretive approach to understanding history.

After the Fact is such a good book. I agree with Hope; it adds some new flavor and another perspective to our often dry textbook—The Essential America. But what perplexes me is how a book that is so good and goes into such detail, in comparison to the textbook, would leave out, what I consider to be, an important piece of the Salem Witch Hunt puzzle. After the Facts never mentions that Tituba, the West Indian slave, had been in the habit of entertaining the initial teenage accusers voodoo stories! This detail is given in the textbook, however. Why wasn’t it noted in After the Facts? Is the textbook wrong? Did the authors of After the Fact think that this information was irrelevant? Is so, than I disagree. This new detail sparked new questions. Did Tituba’s religious and cultural experiences make it easier for the magistrates to convince her that she was indeed a witch and that she was indeed responsible for the symptoms of the girls? Was she not fully aware of the dangers of speaking of this cultural aspect of her old world, especially in this religious, outsider suspicious, Satan paranoid environment? Yes, there were many possible factors contributing to the witch hunts in Salem, but Tituba’s stories ignited the imaginations of the girls who triggered the event. So, why was it not noted in After the Facts?

I disagree with Mr. Benton's position. It cannot be ignored -- outside of the issues of the African American slaves -- that the early settlers took a condescending view towards the Native American population. They -- and their king -- essentially claimed the whole of what we now know as USA. The incredible arrogance of these individuals is astonishing -- as Dr. Benson mentioned in class, some of these land grants extended to the Pacific Ocean -- before they had even been there, they claimed ownership. This habit of instantaneously disregarding the rights of natives goes back to Columbus and to the Spanish generals that followed his expeditions. While I still agree with Ms. Wake on the matter that the authors seem to dismiss the magnitude of these events, I think the subtle observation is missed that the discrimenation was initially based on religion -- only non-Christians were slaves or servants. Natives (from the Americas and Africa) were non-Christian and therefore had no rights. Even the Puritans arrived with "Strangers" (those who were not pre-selected by God for salvation). But the cultural differences between the Natives and the Europeans evolved from religious discrimenation to racial discrimenation based on the divisions and propaganda dissemenated by the upper class.

In reading After the Fact I found it very interesting how the authors tried to make sense of the whole Salem Witch Trial story. When they went into detail about the Salem Town and the Salem Village and also discussing that it could have possibly had something to do with politics and gender. I think that this gave a better explination than the teenage girls just playing around. I really never looked at the story as a political or gender issue, so it was neat to hear these perspectives.
To me personally the situation of gender went against what they were tring to do. They call themselves purifying their land of witches and association with the devil, but didn't follow through with this on a gender level. First of all the majority of those convicted were women and they also received a harsher punishment than the men convicted. It also stated that the men convicted were generally the husbands of those women. Even when the men confessed to being witches they were let off by the officials and said to be telling a lie if they confessed. This did not happen with the women who confessed. If women confessed they were hung.With this evidence it is clear to see the divide between the genders. I agree with the historian Carol Karlsen in saying that the gender issue tied into the political issue. I feel that the men were afraid of loosing status to women and therefore were quicker to punish women than men. I think the leaders of the Salem society used the case to show that women were still subordinate to men even if they owned land or hand more right than before.

Reading the section on slavery really helped to understand diffefrent aspects of what were going on at this time in history. Slavery is a very interesting subject as Orion stated. This is an issue that will always be debated questions like why have slaves, and how it came about and things like that are always subjects which catch my attention. IN my own opinion i believe that slavery was mainly to separate the classes, and keep the lowest classes down and unable to rise and gain power. Almost like what i think is happening today wiht the poor.

When reading the online topic about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, I notice a conflict of information between the articles, if I read these articles right that is. Betty Wood stated that the Native Americans were not considered a possiblity for slavery even though there was a dier need for labor in the fields. A few articles before that Thomas Davis said that "Native Americans [were] enslaved. That is they [were] captured and forced to work for indefinite periods." I do not recall any mention of Native Americans being enslaved in either the textbook or "After the fact". Now did I just miss something in either of those books, is the fact that they were enslaved not accurate or is it just not well known?

After the Fact's discussion of the Declaration of Independence dispells a few myths surrounding the document's origins. Despite the country's national holiday, the Continental Congress declared independence on July 2 and edited the document the next 2 days. Some of the members of Congress did not sign the document until the fall. Also, contrary to popular belief, all the signers never met in the same room at once. I was also surprised to discover how extensively Jefferson's original document was edited. Furthermore, most people do not realize that the document was also a product of the efforts of five Convention members, not just Jefferson.

An important fact Davidson and Lytle observe is that many colonists were still reluctant about severing their dependence to England. This fact is evident in that debates were still raging a year after fighting and the fact that local resolutions/declarations did not appear until after the actual war began.

Concerning the content of the document, the book points out that Jefferson places the blame of England at King George's feet; Jefferson did this to avoid admitting Parliament's authority over the colonists. I may remember incorrectly, but King George was not known for his sanity. Was he lucid enough at the time to be responsible for his actions or the actions of Parliament? Also, Davidson and Lytle discuss the Enlightenment's influence in the specific phrase, "pursuit of happiness." I had never considered that the government's responsibility to preserve the happiness of the American people was expressed in an objective manner, such as the formula discussed.

Finally, I was surprised to learn how much Jefferson was influenced by state documents and resolutions as he was composing the Declaration. I had always assumed that the idea of independence started at the top and filtered downward, not the other way around. The states' strong influence reaffirms the idea that the American Revolution was, in fact, a "grass roots" rebellion fought by the common people of the colonies.

In the document "Living Africans thrown Overboard," we find a very serious problem, when these real human beings are viewed as commodities. Of course that was the fundamental problem of slavery. But the slave traders in this instance are considering their own economic gain to such a degree that they find no qualms in eliminating human lives for their purposes. I'll try no to allude to Amistad in all of my entries, but this scene is much like the scene in the movie. What line of thinking led to justification of such ruthless acts? And I have another question: If the case concerning the Zong trip was a 'landmark decision' as it ruled that Africans were human beings, how did they still justify slavery in America? Is all this for the shallow pursuit of economic gain?

As I am also interested in the On-line source concerning the Middle Passage, I would like to address some issues from that reading.

Concerning Scott Christopher’s remarks and questions on the subject of “Living Africans Thrown Overboard,” I think that Scott answers some of his own questions. Since the slave traders did view the African people as commodities (a means of profit), all of their “ruthless acts” were committed for the purpose of economic gain. I think it’s crucial to understand that the slave traders were not concerned with the welfare of the passengers on their ship, but with the size of their wallets. Regardless of how shallow one might have to be to take up a position as a slave trader, the middle passage was based on doing business. In thinking about the act of throwing slaves overboard to their watery graves, I have come up with a question of my own. Regardless of the fact that it is now deemed immoral to buy and sale people as a means of labor, is it necessarily bad that those slaves were thrown overboard? Isn’t it better in the end for those slaves to be tossed overboard? Also, had they known what lay ahead on their journey, isn’t it likely that they would have been ready to die? I know this sounds a bit harsh, but weren’t the slaves headed to (excuse my French) a living hell anyways. Personally, I would choose death over what loomed ahead of those poor souls headed for North American plantations. Granted, at the time they knew nothing of where they were going. Yet, they must have understood the treatment they would most likely receive when the middle passage turned out to be no cup of tea. What do you think?

This is an interesting article from the NY Times International Section. It parallels intrestingly with our discussion on the Salem Witch Trials, if you think about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/internat.../africa/14VAMP.html

Let me know if the link works or not. If not, I will post the article here.

I agree with Mr. Elder on his position about how the settlers had a condensending viewed about the Native Americans and the land. From the books we have been reading, the authors have failed to show how rightfully wrong it was of the English, and other settlers at that, to come in and just think they can take over the land as it is theirs, and theirs to give away. They settled in colonies and greeted the Native Americans and tried to get them to adopt "their" culture. There was no war (or any event) that signified that the land discovered and settled belonged to the settlers. The kings (and their people) were giving out land to the ones who paid the way for servants and/or invested money, like as we read about in the Virginia company. Many people did not even know what the land looked like and kings were giving it away in enormous plots, which brought on fueds with the Native Americans. The Native Americans are one of the sole reasons that the settlements survived. The Natives thought the settlers how to grow corn and other crops and traded fur and other needs for survival, and how did we repay them? I feel it was absolutely wrong of the kings and settlers to come in and take control of the land like they did and treat the Native Americans the way they were treated. I can see that the French and Native Americans joined together their cultures, but what happened to them? (French and Indian War) It not that I do not love the U.S. for the way that it is today and we cannot change history, I just feel that what happened to the Native Americans is wrong.

After reading about the Salem Witch Trials, I cannot help but think that the entire incident was a huge farse. Personally, I do not believe in witches and can't comprehend how these people did not laugh in the faces of the accusers. I can understand the concerns of the parents of the girls who were being "tormented" and how they would want to justify the actions of their children. If someone told me they were being messed with by a witch, I could not take that person seriously. I very much agree with the opinions of Hutchinson and Upham when they describe the events as nothing more than an act. I also think the trials were a way for one person to get back at another for something he or she was unhappy about. Reasons for accusing someone of being a witch included religious, economic, and gender related issues. These trials gave the community of Salem something to do. They let their imaginations run wild when a coincidence occurred. Citizens needed scapegoats to blame for anything bad that happened. Why not blame some old lady for your cow dying, rather than admitting that it just died. Better yet, why not call the accused guilty when they claim they're innocent and vice versa? This is a section that I thought was ridiculous. Most would just say they were guilty in exchange for a pardon. The ones that wouldn't admit to being a witch were imprisoned or executed. To me, this is an example of how stupid and naive the human race can be to believe this stuff. Perhaps some of you believe in witches and wizards, but I can't fathom the idea at all.

I am particularly interested in the fact that the grievances contained in the Declaration of Independence are addressed directly to the King. I understand Davidson and Lytle's explanation that all British subjects shared one monarch, even after they rejected the authority of parliament, etc. However, I also think that there might be some propaganda at work. It is much more dramatic and magnifies the problems the Americans have with the prime ministers, the colonial governors, parliament, etc. to funnel all their complaints to one person. I feel the Declaration of Independence would have been a lot less effective as an advertisement for the American cause if the problems with all these different people had been enumerated within the text. Also, by directing the document towards the monarch, it moves American cause out of the realm of internal squabble and into an external dispute. Perhaps this was done with hope for French involvement in mind? I am interested to know what others think of this. Do you read the text this way?
 Also, I am a bit uneasy about the comments made both Monday in class and in the text (D & L) regarding the contradiction of the rhetoric of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the personal practices of the founders. It would seem that for all the quoting the authors are doing, they would take a few lines from one of the founders who attempted to answer this contradiction. I am thinking of Thomas Jefferson's "wolf by the ears" illustration or George Washington's example of freeing his slaves upon his death, etc. Do others believe that there is a fairer way of discussing these issues?

Topic

I plan to explore William Lloyd Garrison’s role as an ardent abolitionist and pacifist in antebellum America. Garrison, considered by his critics to be fanatical, extreme, and heretical, avidly promoted immediate emancipation by way of nonviolence. However dedicated to his radical crusades, a preliminary perusal of sources questions Garrison’s own personal beliefs; he himself might have been a closet racist. Answers may be sought by further examining Garrison’s foundation, his philosophy, and most importantly, his critics.

Bibliography:

1. Garraty, John A., ed. American National Biography, Vol. 8. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999. pp. 761-765.
2. Jacobs, Donald M., ed. Courage and Conscience: Black and White Abolitionists. Bloomington, IN: Published for the Boston Athenaeum by Indiana University Press, 1993.
3. Mayer, Henry. All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
4. Merrill, Walter McIntosh. Against Wind and Tide: A Biography of William Lloyd Garrison. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.
5. Merrill, Walter M., ed. The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
6. Nye, Russell B. William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers. Boston: Little, Brown, 1955.
7. Stewart, James Brewer. Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery, Revised Edition. New York: Hill and Wang, 1996.

Edited by author 01-15-2003 06:27 PM
For my research paper i will go into detail and deiscuss the 15th amendment to the constitution and the disenfranchisement of black voters. In order to begin to learn about this historical events, i first had to understand my topic. The 15th amendment is what gave african americans the right to vote. And i will focus on dicussing whta this amendment has done to american society. I also must understand what disenfranchisement means. Franchisement means the right to vote. African americans have met the disenfranchisement, which is the denial of a role in elections. African americans had no part in elections in the past and in the law were not even definced as human beings. This is a very controversial time in our history with many changes to a law that held oone race down. In my paper i hope to give the history of these times as well as show how it has effected american society.

here ares some books that i believe will help me out in my research, there are many more but here is what i have seen that i iknow will help me :

  Joubat, Paul E; Cruoch, Ben M. Mississipi Blacks and the
voting rights of 1965; Journal of Negro Education
Howard University Press. 1977

  The Rumor if the Impending Disenfranchisement of Black
Voters, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
CH. 2 Publisher, INC.1999

  Gilette, William. The Right to Vote: Politics and the
Passage of the Fifthteenth Amendment. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins Press. 1965

Edited by author 01-15-2003 06:36 PM
      In my paper I plan to explore the discrepancies between the Civil War as portrayed by history textbooks, and the Civil War that actually happened. I plan to use memoirs, personal letters, battlefield records, and other sources to exam the true Civil War, as viewed by the people who lived through it. There is a fairly good amount of research and articles, from reliable sources, about history textbooks¡¦ version of the Civil War. Textbooks tend to gloss over major parts of the Civil War, so the average student never gets a full understanding of the war.
      Another major part of my paper will be examining the role of revisionist history in our views of the Civil War. After the Civil Rights movement, blacks, women, and other minorities began to be included in the story of the Civil War. But has this movement gone too far? Are history books now talking about individuals more than the actual war?
 Naturally, the part of the country that the textbooks are written makes a difference in their version of the Civil War. It appears that over time and between regions the reasons for the Civil War change. Sometimes the reason for war is slavery, other books say that is all about states¡¦ rights, and still others maintain that one side was jealous of the other¡¦s wealth. But rarely does a textbook include what the actual people fighting the thought, according to memoirs.

Primary Bibliography:
1.For Cause and Comrades: Why Men fought in the Civil War. James M McPhearson
2.Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. US Doc. Coll. W45.5.1
3.The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. E256.A47
4.Confederate Veteran Magazine. Microfilm 1-12, 38-40
5.Goodmen, The Character of Civil War Soldiers. Michael Barton
6.The Centennial History of the Civil War E.B. Long
7."The Changing Interpretations of the Civil War" Charles Ramsdell, Journal of Southern History
8."Speaking of Textbooks: Putting Pressure on Publishers" Matthew Downey, The History Teacher
9."Changing U.S. History Survey Textbooks" Jim Hijiya, The History Teacher
10."Slavery in U.S. Survey Textbooks" Peter Kolchin, Journal of American History
11."The South in Southern History Textbooks" Carl Defler, Journal of Southern History
12.The Private Mary Chestnut: The Unpublished Civil War Diaries, C. Vann Woodward and Elisabeth Muhlenfeld.
13.War Letters ed. Andrew Carroll

Topic: Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Cold War.

My topic will focus on the presidencies of these two men, their backgrounds, their political aspirations (or lack thereof) and how their policies and leadership traits affected the beginning of the Cold War in the early years. The Cold War "officially" began around 1947 under Truman -- who began the doctrine named after him to contain communism whereever it existed. It continued with the election of Eisenhower, a former war hero and the Supreme Commander of the invasion forces of D-Day. One might argue that Eisenhower's cleverness resulted in European victory, and similarly Truman's unforgiving attitude of the Japanese -- and his deployment of the atomic bomb -- won the South Pacific victory. By better understanding their backgrounds and their goals, I hope to better understand why our parents grew spent over 40 years in silent, watchful fear.

I have identified the following sources to begin the research process.

Truman, Harry S., The Autobiography of Harry S. Truman (edited by Robert H. Ferrell). Boulder, CO, Colorado Associated Univ. Press. 1980.

Hamby, Alonzo L. Beyond the New Deal: Harry S. Truman and American liberalism. New York, Columbia Univ. Press. 1973

Warner, Michael (edited). CIA under Harry Truman. Central Intelligence Agency, Center for the Study of Intelligence. 1979.

Maddox, Robert James. From War to Cold War : the Education of Harry S. Truman. Boulder, CO. Westview Press. 1988.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease : Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. 1967.

Brands Jr, H. W. Cold warriors : Eisenhower's Generation and American Foreign Policy. New York : Columbia University Press, 1988.

Boyle Peter G. (edited, The Churchill-Eisenhower Correspondence, 1953-1955. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, c1990.

Ambrose, Stephen E., Eisenhower and Berlin, 1945; the decision to halt at the Elbe. New York, W. W. Norton 1967.

Divine, Robert A., Eisenhower and the Cold War. New York : Oxford University Press, 1981.


##############
Journal entries

Nijman, Jan. The Limits of Superpower: The United States and the Soviet Union since World War II. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 82, No. 4. (Dec., 1992), pp. 681-695.


Cox, Michael. From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Detente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 25-41.


Jervis, Robert. The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Dec., 1980), pp. 563-592.


Park, Chang Jin. The Influence of Small States Upon the Superpowers: United States-South Korean Relations as a Case Study, 1950-53. World Politics, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Oct., 1975), pp. 97-117.

I have taken as the working title for my paper "Friendships lost and found: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams". I will write on their friendship from its beginnings at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1775, their diplomatic tour in Europe, the rupture of their friendship due to political differences in the latter part of the century and its repair toward the end of their lives. I will also include a discussion of the general historic importance of their friendship (i.e. their influence on Constitutional interpretation, their interpretation of the Revolution for the next generation, etc.), how historians have viewed the importance and effect of their friendship, and the resurgence of interest in this topic.

I have begun looking at the following books:
Merrill Peterson, Adams and Jefferson, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1976)
Joseph Ellis, American Sphinx: the character of Thomas Jefferson, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997)
Joseph Ellis, Passionate Sage: the character and legacy of John Adams, (New York:
Norton, 1993)
David McCullough, John Adams, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001)
Merrill Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American Mind, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960)
John Murray Allison, Adams and Jefferson: the story of a friendship, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1966)
Lester J. Cappon, The Adams-Jefferson letters; the complete correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959)
Merrill Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)
Merrill Peterson, Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, (New York: Scribner, 1986)

After reading Davidson and Lytle's After the Fact I made an argument stating that a quote on page 19-20 was one of the stupidest comments I had heard while reading this book. Maybe my views were misunderstood. So, I would like to take some time and address a few of these points.

The first point I want to make in regards to Mr. Benton is that anyone who reads a book may find that they interpret things differently. These reasons could be based on sociological factors, economical factors, gender or religion. In your response to my argument you stated,"D and L's interpretation of the beginning of slavery in the U.S. is but one interpretation." Earlier you expressed that I missed the author's point of view, but how I interpret this statement and how others interpret may be different. I believe that there is no way to miss the author's point because neither one of us can actually state the author's feelings on the issue unless we talk to him personally.

The second point I would like to address is that I never stated that the beginning of slavery was attributed to a perfect world suddenly turning into amorality. What I stated was that settlers came to establish settlements to escape persecution. In order to live these settlers needed a source of income. After settlers realized that tobacco was more profitable than corn, tobacco became the major source of income. This greed for more money resulted in major problem. Tobacco was more time consuming. This is why settlers eventually turned to indentured servants and slaves.

So, in conclusiion I said that the authors statement was stupid because of the use of the words "snuck up". He indicated that people were surprised by the act of segregation. Webster's Dictionary states: to "sneak" means to act or move in a quiet, sly way. The Virginia Assembly did not pass this law for separation without asking for input from the community. The majority had to express that this was a favorable idea and acted in a pro-active way. I

For my research paper I will be focusing on the Dred Scott Decision and the Fourteenth Amendment. Dred Scott was a slave taken to a free territory where he was held in slavery and then returned to a slave state by his master. The Fourteenth Amendment will be dealt with in terms of "a state's power to operate racially separate schools. In my paper I would like to discuss the effects of the ruling of the Supreme Court in this Dred Scott decision; I would also like to find the correlation between the Fourteenth Amendment and Dred Scott. I will also if this is not making it too much in one paper, like to talk about Lincoln and his opinion. In looking for resources I have found several books and articles they i believe and some I hope will help me in achieving what it is that Im trying to accomplish.

The articles are:
Whittington, Keith E--The Road Not Taken (Journal of Politics 2001)
McClure, James P., Johnsen, Leigh, and more--Circumventing the Dred Scott Decision (Civil War History 1997)
Blair, Sara B.--Changing the Subject (American Literary History 1992)
Meister, Robert--The Logic and Legacy of Dred Scott (Studies in American Political Development)

1 book review:
Finkelman, Paul--Dred Scott v. Sanford (Georgia Historical Quarterly 1997)

And 3 books so far:
Ayer--The Dred Scott Case
Ehrlich, Walter--They Have No Rights
Kutler, Stanley I.--The Dred Scott Decision

My research topic is going to answer the question "Was the Fugitive Slave Law the Cause of Southern Secession?" In this paper I plan on defining exactly what the Fugitive Slave Law states. In my opinion I believe that the Fugitive Slave Law is not the cause of southern secession but may be one of many reasons. Over the course of time I hope to find out if my hypothesis is right or wrong. In the process I also want to explore what people were involved in passing these laws. What background did these people have that influenced them to make this decision? Hopefully as I continue to learn more about my topic I will be able to address many more ideas. Here are several of the resources that I have come across:

Wilson Carol ,"The Thought of Slavery is Death to a Free Man": Abolitionists' Response to the Kidnapping of Free Blacks, (Mid-America, 1992), 74(2): 105-124.

Matijasic Thomas D., "Joseph H. Geiger, Unionism, and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.", (Valley Forge Journal, 1992), 6(2): 82-88.

Priebe Paula J., "Central and Western New York and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.", (Afro-Americans in New York Life and Hisrory, 1992), 16(1): 19-29.

Eggert Gerald G., "The Impact of the Fugitive Slave Law on Harrisburg: A Case Study.", (Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 1985), 109(4): 537-570.

Goodheart Lawrence B., "The Chronicles of Kidnapping in New York": Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law, 1834-1835.", (Afro-Americans in New York Life and History, 1984), 8(1): 7-15.

McDougle Iran E., "The Legal Status of Slavery", (Journal of Negro History, 1918), Vol 3. No. 3 228-40.

Ingersoll Thomas N., "Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans 1718-1812", (William and Mary Quarterly, 1991), 3rd Sec., Vol 48. No. 2 173-200.

The topic of my research is the Bank for Liberty, which is also known as Freedman Bank. I will be identifying how the bank got set up, tell how it was limited to Washington D.C. at first but later expanded into many branches, and then I will describe in vivid detail its downfall and why it became a failure after just nine years. The Freeman's Bank was set up during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War to recieve deposits from former slaves and invest them in stocks,bonds, and other securities of the U.S. The bank was intended to benefit African Americans. Abraham Lincoln and Congress passed the bill to incorporate the bank. I am wondering why the bank seemed like it started out successful and then took a turn for the worst. I would like to know if racial,religious, and employment issues were all correlated with the banks failure. The resources that I found include:
1 book
Osthaus, Carl R. Freedmen, Philanthropy, and Fraud;
   A History of the Freedmen's Savings Bank, (Chicago
   University of Illinois Press, 1976).

5 articles
Linsay, Arnett G. The Negro in Banking. Journal of Negro
   History, Vol. 14(2); April, 1929.

Gilbert, Abby L. The Comptroller of the Currency and the
   Freedman's Savings Bank. Journal of Negro History, vol.
   57(2); April 1972.

Lovett, Bobby L. Some 1871 Accounts for the Little Rock,
   Arkansas Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company. Journal
   of Negro History, vol. 66(4); Winter, 1981-1982.

Gordon, John S. The freedman's bank. American Heritage,
   vol. 44; Dec. 1993.

Du Bois, W.E.B. The Freedmen's Bureau. The Atlantic
   Monthly, vol. 87; March 1901.

I will be writing my research paper on the development of the American Midwestern identity. I will focus primarily upon how this identity began in westward expansion in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth centuries, and was shaped by the lives of the pioneers, settlers, and immigrants of the midwest. The focus will then hopefully make a transition from the past to the connection between agriculture, industry, economy, culture, and everyday lives of midwesterners of the past, present, and future. I also hope to be able to clarify between the associations and stereotypes of the Midwestern identity through the issues mentioned above.

Andrew R.L. Cayton and Peter S. Onuf, The Midwest and The Nation: Rethinking the History of an American Region, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).

Nicole Etcheson, The Emergining Midwest: Upland Southerners And The Political Culture Of The Old Northwest, 1787-1861, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996).

John T. Flanagan, Ed., America is West: An Anthology of Middlewestern Life and Literature, (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1945.)

Henry C. Hubbart, The Older Middle West, 1840-1880. (New York: Russell and Russell, Inc., 1963).

R. Carlyle Buley, "Glimpses of Pioneer Mid-West Social And Cultural History," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol.23, No.4, (March 1937), pp.481-510.

The topic of my research paper is the Erie Canal. I will explore the development of the Canal from its inception to the role it continues to play in the world today. I will discuss some of the reasons the Canal was built, the steps taken to build the Canal, and the implications of the Erie Canal. I will focus specifically on the development of culture as a result of the Canal. Some have even argued the workers who build the canal shared a distinctive culture. I hope to explore this idea in greater depth.

Carol Sheriff, The Artificial River: The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1996).

Ronald E. Shaw, Erie Water West: A History of the Erie Canal, 1792-1854, (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1966).

Cait Murphy and Rosanne Haggerty, “The Erie Rising,” American Heritage, 52 (April 2001).

Albert C. Jensen, “Building the Erie Canal,” New York State Conservationist, 50 (June 1996).

Peter Way, “Evil Humors and Ardent Spirits: The Rough Culture of Canal Laborers,” The Journal of American History, 79 (March 1993).

John Majewski, “The Political Impact of Great Commercial Cities: State Investment in Antebellum Pennsylvania and Virginia,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 28 (Summer 1997).

My topic is the mobility of immigrants in the United States. Its a broad topic, so I plan on discussing the motives of immigration and how their social status is effected after making the move to the United States. I want determine if there are higher chances for upward mobility or downward mobility of these immigrants. If there is upward mobility, then how is it obtained? Finally, I would like to discuss the differences in mobility between different ethnic groups entering the United States.

Sources:

JOURNALS:
"Up and Out or Down and Out? Immigrant Mobility in the Antebellum United States" Journal of Interdisciplinary History XXVI:1 (Summer 1995) pp.33-55

"Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans" The Journal of American History, vol. 84, No.2 (Sep.,1997) pp.524-558

"Success and Security: The Meaning of Social Mobility in America" Reviews in American History, vol.10, No.4, The Promise of American History: Progress and Prospects. (Dec.,1982) pp.101-112

"Social Mobility in American History: Some Brief Reflections" The Journal of Southern History, vol.45, No.2 (May, 1979) pp.165-184

BOOKS:
"Upward Dreams, Downward Mobility"

"Race, Self-Employment, and Upward Mobility"

The topic of my paper is Hiroshima and the Enola Gay controversy. In 1994, the Smithsonian designed an exhibit about the atomic bomb and the end of WWII. However, this raised many questions as to the proper way to commemorate such an event, because although the use of the bomb did end the war, it also had devastating effects to a huge population. My paper will explore the debate about the decision that potentially saved millions of American lives by destroying the lives of millions of Japanese. To do so, I will explore the events leading up to the decision to drop the atomic bomb, including the death of FDR and the decision that was dropped into Truman’s hands. Additionally, I will discuss research and opinions of those scientists who were working firsthand with the development of the atomic bomb. I will explore the effects of the bombs and whether their use really was necessary to end the war. Finally, based upon this background information, I will focus on the Smithsonian debate about the proper way to remember this war that was won by such aggressive and destructive means.

Rufus E. Miles, Jr., “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved,” International Security, Vol.10, No. 2 (Fall 1985), 121-140.

Rudolph A. Winnacker, “The Debate About Hiroshima,” Military Affairs, Vol. 11 (1947), 25-30.

Kenneth M. Glazier, Jr., “The Decision to use Atomic Weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” Public Policy, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer 1970), 463.

Barton J. Bernstein, “Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring 1995), 227.

Gar Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy : Hiroshima and Potsdam : The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power, (New York: Penguin, 1985).
 
Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, (New York : Knopf, 1995).

Robert Jay Lifton & Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America : Fifty Years of Denial, (New York : Putnam's Sons, 1995).

I felt somewhat cheated as I read Davidson and Lytle’s piece on the Declaration of Independence. When someone speaks of the Declaration, some of the first things that come to my mind are the celebrations conducted each year to remember our independence on July 4th and the John Trumbull’s poignant picture of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. However, these and many other “facts” surrounding the Declaration are, in fact, not facts. Historians have created a somewhat mythic picture of the Declaration of Independence. I completely agree with Megan’s comments, especially in regards to the influence of “grass roots” movements on Jefferson. I, too, was under the assumption that Jefferson was the original author of many of the ideals so inherent to the Declaration. I found the inclusion of a mathematical formula for morality particularly interesting. I think this is an excellent example of looking at the “big picture” to understand a historical event. This concept of applying a mathematical representation to such an abstract idea would not occur to me. However, it is an example of the Enlightenment ideas spreading throughout society. Also, I think Joe raising some interesting questions about the central focus of grievances on King George. I think it is much more effective and forceful to channel these grievances on one individual instead of assigning each grievance to its rightful owner. (However, this is probably a more accurate representation.)
 In addition, I would like to comment on the section about the involvement of African Americans in the formation of the Declaration of Independence. As horrible as this sounds, I have never given much thought to this issue. It was never addressed in my textbooks or history classes (big surprise, huh?) so it did not seem like this was a “monumental” issue to consider. The role of Lord Dunmore in this issue is particularly intriguing. This next statement might be a little bit of a stretch but it seems that, in some cases, he is simply using the African Americans as a pawn against the settlers. He “threatens to ‘declare freedom to the slaves and reduce the City of Williamsburg to ashes’”. D & L point out that this idea of freeing the slaves could be used as “an effective psychological threat.” However, Washington also recognizes the importance of the African Americans in this issue. He states, “The outcome of the war might depend on ‘which side can arm the Negroes the faster’.” It seems to me that both sides were willing to use the African Americans in whatever way would be most beneficial.

I found that today's discussion of the significance of the Great Awakening raised several questions in my mind concerning Edwards and Whitefield and the idea of spiritual renewal in America. Most specifically, how can we really truly quantify the impact of a religious movement or the true intentions of leading church leaders or evangelists of the time? It would be very easy today, after witnessing defrocked men such as Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and other televangelists, to readily assume that any large religious movement could be driven by greed or self-promotion. From what I've read, Edwards simply read his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" without resorting to any swashbuckling histrionics or salesmanship, and the people were literally grabbing onto their chairs to keep from falling off into Hell, or so legend has it. There are always going to be dichotomies between natural explanations vs. supernatural explanations. If a Christian accepts the premise of a Great Awakening, he/she may argue that the phenomenon was an outpouring of revival with God using these men as chosen vessels to bring repentance and renewal.
Conversely, someone looking for a natural explanation may say that the hearers were simple, superstitious folk (as already seen in the Salem episode)who were mesmerized by the cult of personality.
Interestingly enough, Whitefield is said to have made 13 trips across the Atlantic Ocean. He also started an orphanage in Savannah. In a funny anecdote similar to Dr. Benson's concerning Ben Franklin, Franklin is said to have emptied out his pockets before going to hear his friend Whitefield preach, knowing that an offering would be taken. Reportedly the appeal was so great, that he ended up borrowing from someone sitting nearby.

The topic I am exploring in my research paper is going to be the Ku Klux Klan. It's tentative title is "Birth of a Nation? The First Ku Klux Klan in Fiction, Film, and Fact." Two of the main sources for the paper will be the classic silent film The Birth of a Nation, directed by D.W. Griffith, and the fiction novel that the film is based on, entitled The Clansman, by Thomas F. Dixon, Jr. I will use facts from various historical sources on the Klan to explore the accuracy of their depiction in both film and fiction as well as the beginning of the KKK itself.

Sources:

Thomas Dixon, Jr., The Clansman. [Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1970].

David M. Chalmers, Hooded Americanism. [New York: New Viewpoints, 1965].

Kathleen M. Blee, Women of the Klan. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991].

D.W. Griffith. The Birth of a Nation. [Image Entertainment, 1915] DVD.

I have greatly enjoyed reading the Davidson and Lytle's book so far. It has given me a perspective on history, itself, that I had never really experienced in the past. So far, I found the chapter on the Salem witch trials the most interesting. The different accounts and possible reasons as to why such hysteria could have broken out at the time were fascinating.
I had the opportunity to visit Salem this summer while I was in Massachussetts. From what I saw, the city seems to have become nothing more than a tourist trap, if anything. Aside from seeing some of the actual hanging spots and a few other historical spots you can walk down the streets and purchase all sorts of the stereotypical witch-related items that you would expect (hats, brooms, black cat t-shirts, pentogram necklaces, etc.). I even witnessed what seemed to be a witch wedding from afar and took a walk through Boris Karloff's Haunted House (which was pretty disappointing). I just found it sort of funny how this community that once almost tore itself apart with witch paranoia and unjustafiably killed a number of its citizens embraces the witch culture so openly today. I'm sure some people are making a decent living in Salem because of it, though.

The topic of my research paper will be the automobile, the radio, and how they have shaped American culture. I will focus mostly during the time periods of the 1920s and 1950s. These were times when technology was having a great impact on the population. I will also discuss the ways in which these two inventions formed society and political structures. The key inventors and network founders have done a great deal for the development of our country and will be touched on during the paper. The automobile and radio made the spreading of information much quicker and more effective. Both inventions have practically become standard items to people today and are still impacting our culture greatly.

Brownell, Blaine A., "A Symbol of Modernity: Attitudes toward the Automobile in Southern Cities in the 1920s," American Quarterly, vol. 24, No. 1 (March, 1972), 20-44.

Flink, James J., The Car Culture. Baskerville: The Colonial Press Inc., 1975.

Hughes, Thomas P., American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm 1870-1970. New York: The Penguin Group, 1989.

Lewis, Tom. Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio. New York: Edward Burlingame Books, 1991.

Norman,Bruce. The Inventing of America. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1979.

Oliver, John W. History of American Technology. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956.

Parrish, Michael E., Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941. New York: W. W. Norton, 1992.

Hackett's presentation of the facts and myths of the Famous Ride are both irreverent and glorified. He admirably notes the others involved that particluar evening, our friends William Dawes and Dr. Prescott, and presents the details of Regular and Rebel action as honestly and objectively as he can, giving equal time to both sides' mistakes, wise tactics, and sheer dumb luck. For example, Thomas Gage was not a monster after all, but a staunch old school Whig determined to reamin dedicated to the ideals of an English gentleman. Something must be said for his stoicism.

But Hackett is obviously attatched to Revere in some way; for instance, he mentions that Revere was "sensual" three times in eight pages. He still glorifies Paul Revere throughout the book, almost adding him as an afterthought in latter chapters centered on details of war, as if he forgot exaclty what the topic of his book was.

My paper topic is "The Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust." During WW2, the United States was apathetic, or at least inactive in aiding the Holocaust victims. In my paper, I'm going to examine why America took such an isolationist stance and factors that led to this position, such as lack of/indifference to intelligence information, personal political agendas, and a media cover-up. Here are the sources I've found so far:

Henry L. Feingold, The Politics of Rescue, (New Jersey: Rutgers University, 1970).
Arthur D. Morse, While Six Million Died, (New York: Random House, 1967).
David C. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984).
Saul S. Friedman, No Haven for the Opppressed, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1973).
Deborah E. Lipstatdt, Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, (London: The Free Press, 1986).
Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999).
Sarah E. Peck, "The Campaign for an American Responsoe to the Nazi Holocaust, 1943-1945," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 15:2 (April 1980), 367-400.
Robert Dallek, "Franklin Roosevelt as a World Leader," The American Historical Review, Vol. 76:5 (December 1971), 1503-1513.
Richard Breitman, "The Allied War Effort and the Jews, 1942-1943," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 72:3 (December 1985), 615-636.

 The topic of my Research Paper is Inventing America: Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and Henry Ford. I plan to begin with basic biograhical information about each man. I hope to show variying backgrounds and upbringings that led them to their inventions. Then I want to discuss the specific contributions that each made to society as well as the impact, if any, that their innovations had on shaping American Society throughout the decades. In particular, I want to address how their ideas affected the perception of America by both its citizens and those in other countries. Finally, I hope to find similarities along with the differences that uninte these men.

Baldwin, Neil. Edison, Inventing the Century. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Collier, Peter. The Fords: An American Epic. New York: Summit Books, 1987.

Livesay, Harold C. Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1975.

Munslow, A. Andrew Carnegie and the Discourse of Cultural Hegemony. Journal of American Studies v.22 (August 1988) p 213-224.

Wall, Joseph F. Andrew Carnegie. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Wren, Daniel A. Management Innovators. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

The United States of America entered the Great War, or what is more commonly known today as World War I, on 06 April, 1917. The Imperial German Government had “committed repeated acts of war” and formally declared a status which had been “thrust upon” the United States, forcing President Woodrow Wilson and Congress to take full action against Germany.
President Wilson had spent his last three years leading up to 1917 emphasizing that America must remain neutral. In fact, part of his Presidential campaign had been that he would not enter the war. Why then, did America enter the Great War? Is Germany alone responsible for this declaration of war? What events led up to the United States’ entrance? Was it a single event that caused America to face the war head-on? What effect did the sinking of the Lusitania play in bringing about war? Was the Zimmermann Note “the last straw”? As I continue my research, these are the questions in which I will focus.


Grattan, C. Hartley. Why We Fought. New York: Vanguard Press, 1929.

Millis, Walter. Road to War: America 1914-1917.
Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Co.: The Riverside Press, 1935.

Seymour, Charles. American Neutrality. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1935.

Smith, Daniel M. The Great Departure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1965.

Spencer, Samuel R., Jr. Decision for War, 1917. New York: Richard R. Smith
Publisher, Inc., 1953.

For my research paper, I will be examining Clarendon County and Briggs v Elliott, a court case about school integration that led to the more well-known Brown v. Board of Education. It’s a story about African-American parents’ fighting for their children’s rights for equal education. I’ll do a community study to learn of the circumstances that led to the court case and what happened in the community afterwards (they did not integrate). Some of the sources I will be using include:

Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and its Troubled Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

Orfield, Gary, Susan E. Eaton, Elaine R. Jones, Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education.

Morgan, Robert E. “Education for Negroes in South Carolina.” Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 23, No 1. (Winter, 1954), pp. 82-84.

“Discussion of Papers.” Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, The Courts and Racial Integration in Education. (Summer, 1952), pp. 327-339.

Marshall, Thurgood. “An Evaluation of Recent Efforts to Achieve Racial Integration in Education Through Resort to the Courts.” Journal of Negro Education, Vol 21, No 3, The Courts and Racial Integration in Education. (Summer, 1952), pp. 316-327.

Time permitting, I would also like to go to Duke University’s library and look into Behind the Veil, an oral history of Briggs v. Elliott.

For my research paper my topic is Did the Hippies Change American Culture? I plan to compare the political and social cultures of the 1950’s, 1960’s and the 1970’s. I will look at the way in which they changed, and what caused them to change. I plan to see if the actions of the hippies caused as big of a stir as has been claimed. So far I have found these sources:

Godfrey Hodgson, America in our Time, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1976).

Stewart Burns, Social Movements of the 1960s, (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990).

Richard L. Rapson, The cult of Youth in Middle-Class America, (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1971).

William Braden, the Age of Aquarius, (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970).

Robert Kelly, “Ideology and Political Culture from Jefferson to Nixon,” The American Historical Review, Vol 4:2 (Jun 1976) 291-296.

Raymond Aron, "Student Rebellion: Vision of the Future or Echo from the Past?" Political Science Quaterly, Vol 84:2 (Jun 1969) 289-310.

    For my research paper I will be examining the immigration restrictions of the 1920s. In 1919 congress began a series of immigration restricts which ultimately sought to limit the influx of eastern and southern Europeans in an effort to keep America American. Throughout my paper I intend on trying to answering the question as to why the immigrant restriction acts were finally passed after previous failed attempts. If the cultural tension was so thick and America was so united in its aversion for the “lesser Europeans”, why were these previous and similar Acts rejected? My work will discuss the emergence of American nativism as well as America’s anti-Semitic, anti-catholic, pro-democratic traditions. Also I will examine the labor conflicts that resulted because of these immigrants, their value to big business, and their overall impact on the American economy. Some of my resources include:


“Our Immigration Dilemma.” New York Times 2 May 1920.
Shapers of the Great Debate on Immigration by Mary Elizabeth Brown

American immigrant cultures : builders of a nation Reference Collection

Immigration and the law : a dictionary
Dictionary of American immigration history

Encyclopedia of minorities in American politics Gale Encyclopedia of Multicultural America

The Official Guide to the American Marketplace : the real facts about how rich, well-educated, healthy, family-oriented, hard-working, and diverse we are

Dred Scott and the fourteenth amendment.

  The Dred Scott decision, handed down by the Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, was the one of the opening indications of the upcoming conflict between the states. Basically, the case was simple. Dred Scott, a black slave, had lived with his master for four years on free soil. He sued for freedom on the basis of his long residence on this free soil. In summery the Court ruled that Scott was a black slave and not a citizen, and therefore could not sue in federal courts. However, the court chose to rule and handed down a sweeping victory for the Southerners. The justices ruled that a slave was private property and could therefore be taken anywhere and be held in slavery. They even went as far as declaring the Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, indicating that Congress had no authority to ban slavery anywhere. As you can imagine this set off both a string of celebrations and anger. However, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the first sentence “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside” overturned the Dred Scott decision.
   In my paper I will further discuss the meaning and interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and in particularly how it relates to the Dred Scott decision. I will also talk about the immediate questions posed after the amendment passed. Such as whether or not slave holders could receive compensation for their economic losses when the slaves were freed. Of course, today questions of a different sort arise. I will trace these problems in regard to the topic of individual equality and freedom. In conclusion, I hope my paper will successfully link the rise of controversy over equality (specifically to that of Dred Scott), the move towards equality with the passing of the fourteenth amendment, and the problem equality has faced since.


1) The Constitution and It's Amendments by Roger K. Newman
2) The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment by Peter Smith
3) The Dred Scott Case by Don Fehrenbacher
4) Constitutional Law Cases and Materials By Edward Barrett, Jr. William Cohen, and Jonathan D. Varat
5)Constitutional Cases in America Government by Walter Berns
6) The Fourteenth Amendment And The Bill Of Rights: The Incorportation Theory by Charles Fairman and Stanley Morrison
2)

For my research paper, I will examine the speeches of FDR in the 1930s and 1940s and examine how his "rhetoric of hope" inspired Americans in the post-Depression, pre-World War II era. I also hope to discover how his speeches were made in direct response to the rhetoric of Europe. I hope to display how his speeches were cleverly crafted instruments of foreign policy and homeland security. In looking for research I found that an article that was published in the Sand Diego Union on September 8th that gave a book review of a recent work published on this topic. The book, FDR and Fear Itself is by Davis W. Houck and was published this year by Texas A & M University Press, 2002. Here are some other promising sources:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, (New York: Random House, 1938-[50]).

Frank Burt Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1952).

James MacGregor Burns, Roosevelt: the Lion and the Fox (New York: Harcourt, 1956).

Otis L. Graham, Jr, ed., Franklin D. Roosevelt: his Life and Times: an Encyclopedic view, (Boston: G.K. Hall, c1985).

Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Doris Kearns Goodwin. No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the home fron in World War II, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Frederick W. Marks III, "Six between Roosevelt and Hitler: America's Role in the Appeasement of Nazi Germany," The History Journal, Vol 28:4 (Dec 1985) 969-982.

James Leutze, "The Secret of the Churchill-Roosevelt Correspondence: September 1939-May 1940," Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 10:3 (Jul 1975) 465-491.

For my research paper, I have chosen the topic, “John C. Calhoun and the Rights of the South”. In my paper, I plan on outlining Calhoun’s early influences (childhood through adolescence) that would make him such a unique character of American politics. In particular, I would like to show how Calhoun’s early influences molded his ideas of nullification (which lead to secession) and slavery. Calhoun’s actions were so independent and unique that it’s interesting for me to understand where his character came from. The following sources will help with my paper:

John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, American National Biography, 1999, vol. 4, pages 213-216

Irving H. Bartlett, John C. Calhoun: A Biography, 1993, First Edition

Herman V. Ames, John C. Calhoun and the Secession Movement of 1850, First published in 1918 and reprinted in 1971

Robert L. Meriwether, The Papers of John C. Calhoun, 1959, vols. 1-26 as needed

Allen Johnson, Dictionary of American Biography: Brearly to Chandler, 1929, Vol. 3, pages 411-419

Also, I’ve located these articles on the JSTOR Database:

Richard B. Latner, “The Nullification Crisis and Republican Subversion”, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 43, No. 1 pp. 19-38

Lacy K. Ford, “Republican Ideology in a Slave Society: The Political Economy of John C. Calhoun”, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 54., No. 3, pp. 405-424

Theodore R. Marmor, “Anti-Industrialism and the Old South: The Agrarian Perspective of John C. Calhoun”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 377-406

The bipolar world of the Cold War was the backdrop for much of the twentieth century. The Soviet threat managed to pry its way into domestic life, and, at times, the measures used to fight this threat came into direct conflict with American democratic ideals. Events such as Senator McArthy’s “Red Scare” and others forced the national political discussion into a more narrowly defined ideological “safety zone.” My paper would explore this process of limitation of civil rights and increased state coercion.

Sources:

Whitfield, Stephen J., The Culture of the Cold War, (1996).

Gerstle, Gary, “Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans,” Journal of American History, (1997).

Belz, Herman, “Changing Conceptions of Constitutionalism in the Era of World War II and the Cold War,” Journal of American History, (1972).

Pessen, Edward, “Appraising American Cold War Policy by its Means of Implementation,” Reviews in American History, (1990).

Jenkins, Philip, The Cold War at Home: the Red Scare in Pennsylvania, 1945-1960, (1999).

Sanders, Barry, The Private Death of Public Discourse, (1998).

Peltason, Jack W., Constitutional Liberty and Seditious Activity, (1954).

Morgenthau, Hans, Politics in the Twentieth Century, vol 1: the Decline of the Democratic Politics, (1962).

Wise, David, The American Police State: the Government Against the People, (1976).

Dudziak, Mary L., Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, (2000).

Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, creating essentially a central bank of the United States. The Fed, as the name would not imply, is a private owned corporation that regulates and manages the money supply. I want to analyze the significance of the Fed from a constitutional perspective based upon the early traditions of the Founding Fathers, who stated in Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution that "Congress shall have the power to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof." I will explore the trends and forces leading up to the inception of the Fed and to what degree its power, reach and influence subverts representative government. My sources will include:

 Carl H. Moore, The Federal Reserve System: A History of the First 75 Years, (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1990) 266pgs.

 J Laurence Broz, The International Origins of the Federal Reserve System,(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997) 269pgs.

 J Laurence Laughlin, The Federal Reserve Act, its Origins and Problems, (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1933) 400pgs.

 Irwin L. Morris, Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve: The Politics of American Monetary Policy-Making, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000) 165 pgs.

 William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987) 798 pgs.

I very much disagree with Katherine’s assessment of Fischer. I enjoyed the way that Fischer left Paul Revere behind as he went further into the work. It gave the reader the sense that Paul Revere was a spark that started a roaring fire with the outbreak of fighting. It was also a great help to read of Paul Revere as a patriot in the general sense and not to limit his place in history to the “midnight ride.” Also, I think it is worthwhile to note how frequently we hear of John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and how infrequently we hear of John Adams. It surprised me that he was apparently not so important at this stage of the revolution.

I think very much that instead of being a biography of a particular, extraordinary hero (Paul Revere) or the story of events, this book serves us by introducing us to a whole range of ordinary heroes. Fischer uses Paul Revere as almost an archetype here by introducing us to his family, his profession, his religion, etc. and this parallels the lives of the other ordinary men who took up arms, rode with Paul Revere, or prayed with the people before battle and through this book and the mythic actions of one of their own (Paul Revere) we come to know better the Massachusetts revolutionaries, as a part of our national story.

Paul Revere’s Ride opened a window to the pre-revolution and revolution time periods that had never been opened for me before. It went very in-depth into the life of Paul Revere, which I found very interesting. I visited Boston over Thanksgiving in 2001 and walked the Freedom Trail and went to Paul Revere’s house. I wish I had known more about the true ride of Paul Revere than just the traditional, embilshed story. Like Katherine, I found it rather odd that towards the last 50 pages or so, Paul Revere pretty much disappeared from the text. Maybe a title like Paul Revere’s Ride and its Aftermath would be more correct. If the novel was just going to be on Paul Revere’s Ride, then why did Fischer go into so much depth about what happened after his ride, or rides? Though the information about the battle of Lexington and Concord was quite informative, I often became bogged down with all the military terms and maneuvering. There was just so much detail into very company’s movement in the battles that I sometimes forgot what the topic of the book really was.

I was also surprised at how in-depth Fischer went into the life of Thomas Gage. Once again, I think the title itself is misleading. Even the back of the book lacks any mention of Gage. I did, however, like how Fischer tried to objective as possible, giving credit where credit was due. Unsurprisingly, he did show some bias towards America and Paul Revere. I think it would be very hard to write a novel about a person and not feel very strongly towards the subject.

A passage that I found very interesting is located on page 216. Fischer writes of a madman of the name Elias Brown as possibly the ‘sanest person in the town’. Why did Fischer consider him the sanest man in town? Was it because Brown wondered why the colonists were killing the redcoats? I don’t think I would call a man serving hard cider to both sides during a battle very sane. Nevertheless, Fischer effectively uses Elias Brown to show how after a few hours of fighting the men on both sides became consumed in the battle and almost crazy with hatred for the other side.

Edited by author 01-16-2003 09:55 PM
I agree with Joe in that Revere is portrayed as a common man whose actions led to aid in the defending (and ultimately freedom) of the American Colonies which eventually became the purpose of the American Revolution. Fischer does an excellent job with uncovering the historical facts in order to debunk the highly popular myths associated with Revere. However, throughout my reading of the book I’ve been a bit skeptical as to how Fischer is able to reconstruct this part of the American Revolution with what seems to be almost flawless accuracy. I’ve often stopped reading in order to ask myself: Is he making this up? How does he really know all of this stuff? Fischer refers to personal diaries quite often, and while they are first hand experiences, there must be biases that lie within one’s personal account that the reader (or the author) cannot see.

For so long I have been under the impression that Paul Revere’s single-handed actions had saved the town of Boston from absolute destruction. After reading this book, I’ve found that there was a greater “team effort” in alerting the countryside of war with the British Regulars and that the fighting reached far beyond Boston. Fischer has done a great job with this study.

Another myth that I think Fischer debunks well is that of the "savage British redcoat." Particularly by outlining the character of General Thomas Gage, Fischer shows the pride a British gentleman took in playing by the rules. Granted, this was not always the case on either side of the revolution.

I, too, will reiterate the thoughts of others that Fischer portrays Paul Revere in such a different light. He shows that the leadership and dedication Paul Revere had leading up the his glorious "midnight ride" were perhaps even more important than that single ride.
And I would also agree that Fischer does an excellent job of portraying the British in a manner we are not accustomed to hearing. I usually picture hard, mean, stubborn Redcoats, but Fischer seems to suggest otherwise. He makes a point to help us realize that these were men as well, who, although they were truly dedicated to what they believed, they didn't necessarily desire to start an entire war that would bring loss to both sides, no matter who the victor was. Fischer appeals very much to the reader's sentiments with phrases such as: "The Regulars waited miserbaly in their wet uniforms for another hour..."(123) and "The men were now shaking with cold....Most of the soldiers still did not know where they were going or what they were asked to do." (123). He reminds me that these Redcoats were men just as scared of war and bloodshed as every other person living in the colonies, regardless of their loyalties.

After Paul Revere is released from captivity and trudges on toward Lexington, he stops to reflect in the graveyard of his ancestors before going to see what news he can find of Hancock and Adams. Fischer says that "These men were deeply conscious of their own mortality--more than we are apt to be today. They looked ahead to the time when they too would be lying beneath the broken slates of New England's burying grounds, and asked themselves if their acts would be worthy of generations yet unborn. Perhaps some of these thoughts (which have so little meaning to Americans today) may have occurred to Paul Revere..." (175).

That's bold of Fischer to be so blunt to us. Yet it is true, I believe. It seems as though Fischer is using this paragraph to remind us that we take so completely for granted the fact that 100s of years ago, many men fought for these luxurious freedoms that we can now embrace. Fischer wants us to realize that there is so much more to the history than just the war that Americans won. There's more to those 13 orignal colonies. There's more to Paul Revere than just that romantic midnight ride we always hear. There's 400 pages that can go along with what we consider Paul Revere's contribution to history. It's everything that leads up to and causes these romantic stories that Fischer wants us to realize. Because, as we are apt to do, we forget what went into the making of our country.

This book was interesting to read—and as has been the case many times already this term, this book completely overturned the story of Paul Revere’s famous ride that I have been taught for years. Overall, Fischer seems to imply that the British underestimated the Americans, and this mindset likely cost them battles they could have won. As I considered why this might have been, I speculated that perhaps it was an issue of perspectives: while the British were there to do the job their king had assigned for them to do, the Americans were there to defend their homes, families, and ways of life. Thus, a loss would be more costly to the Americans. Also, considering the title of the book, I was caught off-guard by the fact that the description of the Revere’s midnight ride occurred in the first half of the book. However, after reading on, I realized that this placement allowed Fischer to portray the importance of this event in terms of the role it played in the bigger picture of the battles and events of 1775. In other words, it seems that Fischer used both the events leading up to April 18th and the events following April 18th to propose that Revere’s ride, although important, was not his alone and was just one more piece of the bigger picture.

Additionally, I was fascinated with “The Myth of the Patriot Fathers” and “Longfellow’s Myth of the Lone Rider” on p. 328-333. After reading this book, I am far more aware of how incomplete and incorrect the well-known story of Revere’s ride really is…but these articles made me consider the role of literature in the misconstruing of the events of that night. The book cites the poetry of Eb. Stiles and Longfellow as examples of gloriously incomplete retellings of Revere’s ride. When you consider that many people learn and remember the “facts” of an event through such literature and brief accounts in textbooks, it is no wonder so many of us have such glorified (and false) views of the impact that Paul Revere had on this night in history. We too easily settle for the first account of a story that we hear, without considering whether the story is really true and unbiased. However, after reading chapters from “After the Fact” for class, I sense that many of us might be more hesitant to so easily believe every historical account that we hear.

I also thought that D.H. Fischer's approach to analyzing to the story of Paul Revere provides a more panoramic view of the event. The fact that he also focuses on the war from the British perspective allows him to elaborate on the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. For instance, he compares the hierarchies, or lack thereof, of both sides, pointing out what worked and what did not. While Gage was very methodical and meticulous in disclosing his orders, intelligence, etc., the colonists relied on the power of word of mouth. While the colonists' methods were not very organized, they were effective in that many people were aware of what was going on, so the messages were more likely to reach the recepient. On the other hand, Gage's hyper-organization and mild paranoia led him to regard his messages as highly classified and allowed only copy of the mesage to be in circulation, which led to misunderstandings and minor disasters that could have been prevented easily.

Like many others, I was also interested in all the myths that Fischer dispells surrounding the midnight rider, the world in which he lived, and the consequences of his infamous ride. The traditional story depicts the event as somewhat spontaneous, but Fischer describes the warning as a methodical process involving people who had explicit directions relating to their job. Furthermore, Fischer also goes to great lengths to introduce several others who were involved in the ride itself and relate the next day's events back to those people. As Fischer asserts, Paul Revere was not some random colonist who happened to be in the right place at the right time that night, he had been a prominent figure in Whig/Tory politics for many years. He was an ardent Whig; Gage had already marked him as a nuisance before the war even began. The author elaborates extensively on the battles of Lexington and Concord, describing the major conflicts in the battle, while also focusing on the skirmishes that ensured a colonial victory. I always considered the battles to be two large, brief encounters that ended with a decisive American victory; I never considered the series of skirmishes that accompanied these battles, and I did not realize the colonials antagonized the British so relentlessly as they retreated.

One small section of the book that jumped out at me may seem inconsequential to Paul Revere's actual ride, but I thought it was interesting. When discussing the colonials' weapons, Fischer describes the intricate scenes and slogans carved and ingraved on the guns and muskets and contrasts those images to the images carved on soldiers' weapons from Vietnam. Fischer points out that the young soldiers were glorified for their passion for the revolutionary cause; at that time, it was "cool" to care about the cause. In Vietnam, however, young soldiers struggled to maintain a sense of apathy and disinterest in what they were fighting for. For them, it was not so cool to care.

I think Fischer’s account of Paul Revere is an excellent example of life being better than fiction. While reading, I could not help but think of this story being told on the big screen. Mysterious men riding through the wilderness at night, messages being sent by code – it seems perfect for Hollywood. One scene in particular caught my attention. As Revere tried to cross to Charlestown, his boat remained out of sight. As Fischer describes it, “A lunar anomaly caused it [the moon] to remain well to the south…Paul Revere’s boat was miraculously shrouded in a dark moonshadow that was all the more obscure because of the light that surrounded it.” (105). Can’t you just picture it?
 George commented on the idea I found most interesting. I never knew Revere was a “team player.” Everything I’ve heard surrounding the Midnight Right has centered on Revere. In history books, Revere single handedly rode through the night to carry the message, “The British are coming!” (Something else I learned is not true) and ran up the church stairs to display the lanterns. However, Revere is only one of many who made the relay of the message possible. Fischer makes an excellent point when he describes Revere’s role as “not merely a solitary courier but as an organizer and promoter of a common effort in the cause of freedom.” (138) Until now, I’d never heard of Dawes or Prescott. These men played just as an important role as Revere but they are not usually mentioned. Why is Revere the one that gets all the glory? Why so many inaccuracies in the common portrayal of the story?
 In addition, Fischer does an excellent job of describing the “big picture” we have discussed so often. He looks at the whole of Revere’s life and not just a single event, i.e. the Midnight Ride. Background on his life, as well as his involvement in other aspects of the Revolution, are covered. I never knew of his encounters with Sam Adams and John Hancock. The Midnight Ride is only part of Revere as an individual. All the parts must be placed together in order to fully understand the man Paul Revere.

Edited by author 01-17-2003 01:49 AM
Along with pretty much everybody in our class, I too absolutely love the book After the Fact. In the chapter Declaring Independence, I like how the authors walk the reader through the document and analyses it for the reader in ways that most people would never think to consider. I like how the authors start with showing the surface of the document and then proceed to show the reader important background information about what impacted the finalization of the document.
The one section of this article that suprised me the most about the finalization of the document was the slavery controversy, especially among the colonists. Its obvious the Americans were undecided on the issue. It amazes me the controversy was so big that the excert from Jefferson's lists of grievences to the king about slavery got omitted before the final documentation. Even though South Carolina and Georgia wanted slavery for labor and the north wanted it for finacial reasons, both regions of the country thought slavery was wrong. I did not realize that this issue was such a hot topic that Jefferson and the Continental Congress had to omit the slavery section because they thought the less things said the better. The colonists were affraid the slaves would want their freedom after the war if they won, even though they were needed for labor. Its Amazing! When studying about the Declaration of Independence I have never thought that the slavery issue as having a major impact on the document. Of course slavery is a big part of the Revolutionary era, but I would have never thought of the two having any correlation, especially the way it did.

While reading Paul Revere’s ride, many of my original conceptions of the story were proven wrong. It was very interesting to see how many people really were involved with the communication on that night of April 18th and the amazing networking that was in place. Without the forms of modern communication it was neat to see how well all of the varying communities came together to get the message spread. In every city or town stopped at by one of the messengers, two or three more messengers joined in the system. Also I found it interesting the placement of Paul Revere’s ride in the story. Like Katherine I assumed it would have been later in the book. However the placement made it more interesting. It allowed us to see the bigger role that his ride, and the ride of others played in the book.
One story I found interesting and slightly humorous in the book was the story of Samuel Whittemore, page 257. It was neat to see how one man, especially one as old as he was, could cause the Regulars so much trouble that they sent a large detachment after him. Yet even after they thought they had taken care of him he defied the odds and survived. The stories of how he and other men acted really showed the spirit of the revolution. Also it was neat to see how many people who did not have to fight ended up playing such a large role in everything even though they were exempt from fighting, either because of age or profession, such as Dr. Joseph Warren.
One last thing that I found curious was that the men in the Continental Congress and were the major Whig players, like Adam and Hancock, really did not have a large role in the actual fighting part of the fight for freedom. They were more of behind the scenes. If they thought freedom was so important why were they not out on the battlefields? Or were their lives considered too important to be risked?

David Hackett Fischer is a master storyteller, as is demonstrated in Paul Revere’s Ride. Meticulously documented, the book does a wonderful job of describing Paul Revere’s world as well as Thomas Gage’s. He sets these two worlds in opposition in order for the reader to better understand the times in which the events took place.

Fischer writes in his introduction, “the only creature less fashionable in academe than the stereotypical ‘dead white male,’ is a dead white male on horseback” (xiv). As we have been talking about in class, each generation has its own trends in interpreting history, and to focus on a “stereotypical dead white male” underplays the roles of the more common people, and at least in popular history Paul Revere has risen to Heroic Founding Father status. However, Fischer does a brilliant job of explaining others’ roles. (I, personally, had never known there were other riders.) While some people have wondered about Fischer’s wandering from the topic of Paul Revere, I think it was important for him to examine other figures. If we only read about Paul Revere we lose the context and Revere’s committees would no longer make historical sense.

Fischer’s book is informative on Revere and the American Revolution. But it is also significant for its reexamination of a figure most Americans take for granted. The oral tradition of the midnight ride is less than historically accurate, and in it Revere appears in time to warn Boston, and then disappears again. My major pet peeves in history is when all that is known about a figure comes from one single event, yet from this one moment suspended in history people draw conclusions about the person. Before Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride, Paul Revere was a mysterious figure that we never thought to question. I am very thankful to Fischer for giving us a truer Revere.

In David Hackett Fischer's Paul Revere's Ride we read a excellent retelling of a often misrepresented story. Not only does Fischer do a great job of depicting the many characters of the story, but he emphasizes the significance of this event in relation to the American Revolution and the concept of freedom in our nation. Like Bradleigh, I also could see many of the scenes that he describes with such wonderful imagery, and I could talk to the characters that he portrayed so vividly. His depiction of Paul Revere makes him a real person and helps the reader step into his shoes and see what he thought. It helps the reader understand how he interpreted his world, what he thought of freedom, and why he took on the role he did in his society. The roles that Fischer points out that Revere played in his life make him seem like a true Renaissance man. He was a leader in his church, an ambitious artist, a good father, a romantic husband, a honest friend, and a man devoted to God-given purposes. Now, in class we've been studying about how different historians interpret history differently, so this is my question: Is Fischer interpreting Revere's life in such a way to make him seem "quintessentially American,(6)" fighting for true freedom? or did all the events and experiences of Paul Revere's life really prepare him so perfectly to play this role in history?
Speaking of interpretations, I really like how Fischer traces the two main characters, Revere and General Gage through the book, noting how their causes are so similiar, but it's their perceptions of those causes that makes them act differently. As we discussed last week in class, when the Civil War came about in America, both sides were fighting for the same cause: who was better at preserving the legacy of the American Revolution. In this instance both Revere and Gage are acting on behalf of their ideologies about freedom and the common law of man. Their interpretation of these concepts and others leads one man to rebel against a king, and the other to surpress unruly colonists. Fischer notes "Both were highly principled men, but their principles were worlds apart"(33). It's crazy to think about how they were both fighting for the same causes, but how they viewed those concepts caused them to fight one another.

Like my classmates, Fischer gave me a view in Paul Revere's Ride of the American Revolution that I had only glanced over previously in other history courses. I thoroughly appreciated his broad spectrum of perspectives from the British to the Colonials, but also of the individuals.

Again, not wanting to reiterate but echoing the class nonetheless, I find the title somewhat of an understatement to the rest of the book. Maybe something about the development of the American Revolution in New England would have been more suitable, but only because the book itself is so much richer, has so much more than just "Paul Revere's Ride."

I found myself empathetic and sympathetic to both perspectives, especially through the eyes of Thomas Gage. Growing up in this country has given us a sort of one sided history when it concerns the beginnings of our country. However, Fischer, for one of the first times in my life, presents the British not as monsters, as someone has mentioned before, but merely people with different political policies and viewpoints, finding it difficult to take orders from their home over three thousand miles away, and those at home really have no idea what is going on in the Colonies. It's not that they had a problem with Loyalty, but the tories had also "grown up" in a sense with those who favored independence. It must have been like a civil war to them in their own right.

Lastly, I just wanted to mention how thrilled I was with the maps of Boston and Massaschusetts. Reading about pre-Revolutionary Boston and Massachusetts before always left me confused about where everyone was, why they were there, where important battles or meetings took place, and why on earth anyone would sail from one part of Massaschusetts to another. So yay for the explanations of locations in Sons of Liberty's Boston and Massachusetts, for they only painted the pictures for me more vividly and helped me understand what was going on and where things were happening.

I was most impressed to learn about the level of propaganda that was dissemenated by the Whigs. They proved the power of religion and fear to motivate a collection of diverse backgrounds to action as a single nation. The story of the hysteria of Salem is nothing compared to the hysteria of the American Revolution.

The leading Whigs understood the "power of the press" intimately. Time and again they were able to exploit it for their cause -- particularly well after the Battles of Lexington and Concord where they sent accounts of the battle to London before Gage's man could arrive. Dr. Benson mentioned in class that the Great Awakening was one of the reasons that the colonies started to intercommunicate -- and the religious language that the Whigs used between each other seems to reflect this. I am forced to wonder, however, that had there not been a "Great Awakening", would the colonies have been so readily influenced by religious propaganda?

I also found a strange irony and paradox in the accusals that Great Britain sought to enslave the colonists. These men were mostly slave holders who understood what it meant to deny freedom to another person. I also began to consider the possible influence of the Native Americans. The Natives were used to freedom of a sort. They did not have a "king" per se, but rather -- like the Iroquois -- they had a "virtual republic". And again, the British destroyed this freedom in many areas by forcing the Natives to move -- particularly the Algonquian. Having seen the destructive forces of their own abilities, and having seen what it was like to lose freedom and nobility, they were altogether too ready to fight any enemy to prevent their own entrapment.

In all, I thought that Fischer's account -- like many others in this posting -- was very impressive. His ability to present both Gage and Revere in a realistic light as the humans they were adds a very comforting sense of realism and life to the story.

Fischer’s account of Paul Revere is worthwhile in the fact that it presents a thoroughly researched and well thought out account of who Paul Revere was and what his role in the American Revolution actually was. Perhaps more intriguing, however, is Fischer’s section on the historiography of Paul Revere. Without an understanding of the twisted path of Revere’s legend and historical reputation one can hardly appreciate Fischer’s attempt to shed light on the midnight ride.

The story of Paul Revere, it seems, was doomed from the beginning. As Fischer points out, even the Whig leaders for whom he rode partook in the suppression of his story, leaving the door wide open for romanitization and exaggeration in the accounts of subsequent generations. It is truly fascinating to see how Paul Revere’s story was shaped, debunked, shaped, debunked, shaped, etc. throughout history, each period and group using Revere’s legend for their own interests.

Fischer’s account is no less a part of this historiographical story. And the account that Fischer gives us does an excellent job of bringing Paul Revere out of the closet of historical record and placing him in his rightful position as a key element in the American Revolution. While he may not have been the solitary figure so many of us know, he is deserving of a place of national respect nonetheless.

I found Fischer's book to be very interesting and I learned things that I didn't previously know. I thought it was interesting that Paul Revere's ride was a community effort and not just the lone rider impression that I previously had. It took a lot of people to make the rides successful, which is probably true for all other historical heoric events. I also thought that the portrayal of the British wasn't that bad. Fischer made them seem like they weren't the evil people that we all believe them to be. The way he portrayed General Gage made him seem like an honorable man. He kept emphasizing the point that Gage didn't want to start a war, he wanted tod prevent one. Also, when Paul Revere was captured the soildiers treated him in like a gentleman. The story also portrayed the Americans to be arrogant. Through some of their actions I can see why the British hated them.

The issue of fate or divine intervention was really interesting. The Americans seemed to have everything working for them, while the British couldn't get anything to fall in place for them. I wonder is this just fabricated events to make us feel that the Americans had God on their side? Was it a method to sugest that independence was predestined for America so that their "sinful" acts of revolution could be justified?

Also a random question. It said that the cockade was the symbol of the British soilders. I was wondering why it was a symbol of the British, but a few years later in the French Revolution it was the symbol of the Revolution. Is the cockade not a symbol of the Revolution? If it is, why did the British wear it?

In this book, I found out several things that I didn't know before. For instance, it was interesting to read that Paul Revere didn't really say that the British were coming like I believed all these years, and that the assembly of the Middlesex farmers in reponse to the alarm wasn't just a spontateous decision, but something that had been planned for years starting around the late 1600s.
In agreement with Ms. Shealey, I found the stories where divine intervention amazing. It was like luck or whatever you want to call it was all on Paul Revere's side. A shadow prevented him from being seen by the HMS Somerset, thanks to his horse and head start he again escaped being capture which took him on a detour that turned out to be the best way for him even though it was longer. He decided not to carry a gun, which as mention probably saved his life when he was captured. Then he was let go because of random gunshots that the British believed to be in response to what Paul Revere had told them.
The British on the other hand had no luck whatsoever. A two hour setback cost them their surprise attack I guess, though thanks to PR's connections, the New Englandes already knew. NO one knew about the mission, what was supposed to be going on and when the war started there was total lack of communication.
Also, I got a question I was a little confused about: I thought the trunk ordeal was a false alarm which I thought meant there was no trunk, so why did revere and lowell find one?

Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fisher was a very interesting book. It's funny because I wasn't really impressed with how this war started. I was more impressed with the American colonists and their desire to achieve success. The American colonists fought extremely hard in trying to reserve the values of the past. The love for their country and their beliefs in the system were estonishing. It brought a group of men who were unfamiliar with one another to unite. The book states "It is mistaken that every man fought his own private war against the British." This statement is so true.

William Emerson, a revolutionary militant minister was one of the men who united these revolutionaries. He didn't do a whole lot that was noticeable in the book but he was a spirit who pushed his fellow men in battle. He said words of encouragement, reminded the men of their goals, and pushed them along the way when things were getting rough. This may not seem like much to us but this mattered to these men. They were risking their lives for a cause that was not guaranteed to be resolved. On page 205, Emerson is shown as a hero not because of his leadership but because he was a positive influence. "Young Harry Gould took heart from William Emerson's words, and fought bravely through the rest of that long day." Emerson is just one of the many examples of experience and leadership that the American colonists had to pave the way to victory. If the British had leaders like the colonists they would have done better. This story can teach young children a lot. Regardless if you have more people who are talented. Experience and teamwork can achieve all.

Our group: Ashland, Deshara, Kim, Melissa, Michael, Sarah and Wendy

What was the importance of the lone rider?
To show the idea of American independence
Romanticism- the thought of one person saving the day
Emphasize Longfellow

Why does this image of the lone rider not exist today?
More ideas of independence
Everyone wants to stand out and make an impact
Move from individualism to nationalism
Community wants to achieve the same goal

Should the story be perpetual or punctured?
Punctured because it is not true. Young children need to start growing up and realizing reality

A National Government vs. A Confederation Is there really a difference? As I read the online text against the ratification of the Constitution, I was struck by Mason’s arguments of the formation of a national government versus a confederation. Mason states that by having the “power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government.” He goes on to discuss the fact these two cannot exist together and the national government will inevitably overtake the states. At first, I dismissed these arguments. In today’s society, I believe the states and national government exist in a relatively stable balance of powers. Each recognizes its limits of power, and there is a system of checks and balances in place to safeguard these limits. Then I realized I answered my own doubts about Mason’s arguments. I am thinking within the context of “today’s society.” My framework, as limited as it might be, only considers a time when there has been this balance of powers. However, the strong hold the British had on the colonies was still fresh in Mason’s mind. The fear of a centralized government was a real one. Even today, there still exists a struggle for power between the national and state governments. Lobbyists are continually advocating more power for the states. Local “militias” are arming themselves for battle against the national government. The fear of a domineering national government is one that has not subsided over the past 200 years and is not likely to diminish in the future.

Our group: Kyle, Brian, Chris, Katie, George, Hope, Merritt, Bradleigh, and Brad.

Our conclusions:
What was the importance of the Lone Rider?
Everyone loves a hero, and Paul Revere did just that for America. Longfellow's poem and other myths provide time capsules of an era's ideology and its enduring influence. And besides, one name is easier to remember than three.

Why does this image of the Lone Rider not exist today?
Today history focuses on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but God's not involved. As with our previous discussion of the various schools of history, the latter and its interpretation is constantly changing. 2003 wants the hard facts, however demoralizing they might be.

Should the story be perpetual or punctured?
Most of the group (basically everyone but me) believes that the image of the Lone Rider and all other historical myths are essential to maintain our American identity. Comfort and familiarity ease our subconciouses and profoundly influence our behavior. America would not be America without her George, Betsy, and Paul. Hey, add Ringo and you got the Beatles. Almost.

The dissention amongst the Founding Fathers is entirely understandable. The Federalist Papers #21 are out for blood and are sick and tired or feeling sick and tired. Alexander Hamilton mentions the Articles of Confederation's "total want of a SANCTION to its laws" like he means it. Hamilton and his buddies John Jay and James Madison have been busting their bums to draft a new Constitution that will create a contract government whose sovereignty lies directly with the people.

But through Federalist attempts to "other" their opponents, such as trusty old Patrick "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Henry and George "I Actually Wrote the Virginia Constitution" Mason, these hatemongers only perpetuated the cycles of inequality and disunity in America. As said by Henry at the Virginia Convention of 1788:

"The danger of such a government [constitutional, that is] is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people?"

I must confess that I don’t really understand the Louisiana Purchase… I understand the details as given in Tindall and Shi, but it seems like France got the short end of the deal. Perhaps I just find it ironic that the United Stated acquired a huge area of land with relative ease, compared to the long and drawn out battles required to gain the other territory. Or perhaps my confusion is rooted in the perspective taken in the writing of this textbook—obviously it was written for American students, and the details included are those that seemed most relevant to those students. However, that doesn’t necessarily imply to a complete description… According to Tindall and Shi, Napoleon “decided simply to cut his losses in the New World, turn a quick profit, please the Americans, and go back to reshaping the map of Europe” (p. 131.) This seemed like a very incomplete description (either that or Napoleon was a very altruistic man who suddenly decided to put the United States’ interests above his own,) so I went searching for more information. I discovered that there were actually peculiar circumstances involving slave revolts in French colonies that made it so that Napoleon no longer had use for Louisiana. Perhaps it is just me, but that seems like a pretty important detail to explain the circumstances surrounding the Louisiana Purchase…and one that was left out of our textbook. A second aspect of this deal that I don’t understand is the purchasing price of $15 million…even if Napoleon had no use for the land anymore, I doubt that the US knew that, and they likely would have paid much more to acquire the land. So why did Napoleon allow for such a bargain? This answer I have yet to find…

While reading pages 97-144 I learned a number of things that I didn't know much about. I learned that the Hamiltonian program was a key in creating the split of the first national political parties.

Alexander Hamilton emerged as the leader of the Federalists. He focused on commercial capitalism. He wanted to bring the rich closer to the government. He was an elite man who misunderstood the poor. Hamilton's misunderstanding of the poor made many people opposed to his ideas of financial stability for the government.

Madison and Jefferson were two of the people who opposed Hamilton. The party based on their views were known as the Republicans. They believed Hamilton violated states' rights. They didn't want a capitalistic economy. They also didn't want crowded cities, they feared that the country would divide into a wealthy aristocracy and an under privileged working class.

IMAGINE If we were run by a government who agreed with Hamilton's views. Would society be different from now? or Are we already living in a society that is beneficial to wealthy individuals?

Was not the original purpose of the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation? As Rakove says, “the decision for a radical revision of the Articles of Confederation was a late one.” Perhaps one of the reasons that there was great opposition to the Constitution was because the purpose of the Convention had completely changed. Instead of amending and making revisions to the established set of laws, those in Philadelphia completely rewrote the laws. Seems to me it was almost like a little secret. The article in William and Mary Quarterly also says that although there were fifty five distinctive gentlemen at the Convention, seldom did they speak, if at all. Rakove also says that “the decision [that sentence I quoted earlier]….was fundamentally impelled by James Madison’s alarm about conditions in the states and his determined struggle, only partially successful, to correct these ills while freeing the central government from dependence upon those bodies” (p445). So, basically, we have a Convention that decides to rewrite the whole government. But it’s not necessarily everyone who does this. It’s pretty much the people that have lots of influence and speak out what they want, and everyone else just goes along. Turns out that the Constitution works out pretty well, but, were I Patty Henry, who thought that the Convention was meeting only to revise, I’d be ticked off if they finished and then came out with the announcement that they changed it all.

When I read the title Paul Revere’s Ride, I thought to myself, great, another boring one-sided account that I will read, but if tested on I am sure to perform poorly. I realized without finishing the introduction that fortunately this book told a story beyond its title. D. H. Fischer’s capacity to transform historiography into an interesting (at the risk of sounding redundant) narrative. Like most of my classmates, I too only knew of the great late night ride that according to Fisher’s analysis was not so great when the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the “event” are examined.
Not only is Fischer a historian, but a reader, for he acknowledges and conquers the typical shortcomings of his fellow historians. Displayed in his acknowledgment of Paul Revere’s classification as “a dead white male on horseback” in opposed to the typical “dead white male” scenario is accurate, yet surprisingly amusing. The placement of the actual ride gave the reader something to look forward to- not that feeling inferior the “all-American” kid (Paul Revere) was not enough to keep the pages turning. Providing the main character with a nemesis made the story much more intriguing, and I’m sure for the non-history fanatic made history seem actually interesting. Fischer remained true to his research, for he did not portray Gen. Gage as an odious character. I sympathized with his determination to adhere to the British code no matter the consequences. Fischer also succeeds where many historians fail, for he presents as many perspectives as possible, so that the reader does not feel cheated. Perhaps it is because I’m a cynic, but usually when I read history, I always wonder how accurate the author is, or what the account would reveal if told from someone on the “other side”. After the first day of class, my suspicions finally were addressed. Needless to say, I love After the Fact, but I digress. When discussing the Battles at Lexington and Concord, Fischer provides the reader with the point of view from the colonists as well as that of the British. The character analyses of Paul Revere and Thomas Gage reveal that the characters were basically two men fighting for what they believed to be “right”.
On a final note, I believe that the Paul Revere story that we knew prior to reading this book is simply to teach Americans (optimistic) that one person, one ordinary person does have the power to change events, and one person can indeed make a difference.

The following is a summary of our group's discussion of the questions posed in class and ultimately the meaning of the myth of Paul Revere:
Why the myth was created? People such as Longfellow wanted to stir up patriotism through the use of poetry politics. Longfellow hoped to instill in the northern colonies the idea that each individual could make a difference. His message quickly reached all Americans and continues to be told in classrooms today. Furthermore,Paul Rvere's actual account was not widely publicized because the Whigs feared liability and bad press. This, however, raises the question of why such a myth would continue to be recounted especially since we now know of its falsehood. Our group feels that Americans thrive on patriotic myths such as this because we celebrate heroes in our culture. Therefore, the myth continues to be told not as a historical account of that night but more so to emphasize the American spirit that united our country.

In reading Tindall and Shi, one of the things I found the most interesting about the ratification of the Constitution was that “the two groups disagreed, however, more over means than ends” (110). The Anti-federalists were worried about too much central authority. One of the measures that holds them up seems to be the lack of a bill of rights that ensured the general publics liberties. If that was a key issue holding apart the two groups why did they not just add a bill of rights to the constitution then? And if they had would it have made the ratification process easier?

Another thing I found interesting reading in Tindall and Shi was how people reacted to what they felt were mistreatments by the new Constitutional Government. Take the Whiskey Rebellion, for example. Did they revolt because they did not think they had fair representation and were getting screwed? Or did they remember the American Revolution, and think of that and the acts leading up to that, and believe a revolt would make the government change their minds? I guess my main question is why was that course of action taken?

 One last thing I found interesting was the early origins of the different political parties in the government. I knew that they had split apart early but I did not realize that people were splitting apart even during the Washington administration.

T.S.P.'s readings for today were most intriguing, mainly because the time period and events we were reading about help set the basis for today. This of course goes beyond the Constitution itself. I was thinking more along the lines of economic policies and party divisions. I either didn't remember or had no idea that Hamilton helped split the government into parties, and I felt bad for Washington. Indeed, I think T.S.P. make him out to be a sympathetic figure.

Washington was a reluctant President, he felt admiration for Hamilton and Jefferson, and yet after the Constitution was written and Federalists and Anti-Federalists take their stands, here comes even more division between the Secretary of State and an Economic Advisor (treasurer?). It's a difficult position enough to be the first President of a fledgling country which is supposed to set an example for all the world.

 And all this disagreement continues on today, over the same stuff, interpretation of the constitution, economic policies, foreign policies, etc. Yet I suppose that is one of the reasons the United States is unique, our disagreements and dissent to create basic principles.

 In class today Dr. Benson mentioned George Washington's hope to build a canal up the Potomic River. Although partly for the benfit of others this desire was also for his own benefit because he owned huge amounts of land in the Shenendoah Valley. The fact that someone would want to help themselves out is not uncommon but it is strange to think of Washington with such motives. We are taught that he was a noble man, concerned solely in the prosperity of our country. He is a hero and does not possess qualities of the common man. Therefore, it is a shock to think that he would think of himself before his country.
 Consequently, this story about Washington and the readings about the Constitution brought up a question. If one leader was motivated by self interest then what about the other men whom we regard with the same reverence as Washington? Were they more concerned about their own property than the country's improvement? It is known that the men who wrote the Constitution were well off. They were landowners and slaveholders. They were men of rank and respect in their communities. They were wealthy and probably enjoyed the implications of their status. So, at the risk of sounding critical, it seems that they may have written the Constitution unfairly. Not to take any credit away from their genuis and certainly not to lessen the importance of their acheivements but it seems that it is possible that these men were biased in their decisions. Not wanting to loose their places in society might have motivated them to amend the Articles of Confederation toward a more centralized government. Additionally, the Constitution was inevitably going to be ratified because those who wrote it and those who it benefited were the only ones who would be eligible to vote anyway.
  While this is somewhat disturbing to me, I realize that no one, not even the founders of our country were exempt from worldly desires and pressures. In fact they are the same ones that effect the decisions of our leaders today.

After reading tonight's assignment in After the Fact, I was struck with the theme of land throughout American history. In essence, land is America. The colonies were founded because they represented not only opportunities to make money, but an opportunity to add more land to the European empires. People flocked to the colonies to have a chance at having their own land. Even as the colonies slowly expanded their borders, the colonists were already ahead of the borders, eagerly searching for new and better land. Despite the Proclamation Line of 1793, settlers still continued to settle west of the Appalachian Mountains. Even in the early days of the colonies there were many land speculators with ‘get rich quick’ schemes. Over the course of our history, many battles have been fought over land. Immigrants flocked to the new America to have an opportunity to get their own land. Land was everything to our ancestors. Land was a sign of wealth, power and prestige. Even today, land is still a strong undertone of American society. Now people are not pushing the frontier westward, but people are still looking for ways to get a clean or fresh start at life, and usually those starts include land. The idea of frontier has also changed in recent years. The frontier is no longer the land that lay just beyond ‘civilization,’ but it is everything beyond the earth.

I also enjoyed reading about the four personalities of Andrew Jackson. He is a perfect example of how people see what they want to see in people. The slaveholders saw a slaveholder. The Westerners saw a true Westerner. People made Jackson into whatever they wanted to because luckily he was a very diverse man, who could fit into many stereotypes.

My research topic: “The Russians are Coming!: The U.S. and the Bolshevik Revolution” examines the role the United States played in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution following World War I. Historians argue that the anti-Bolshevism displayed by Americans from 1917-1921 ultimately led to strained 20th century US-USSR relations.

Ilya Somin, Stillborn Crusade, (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1996).

W. A. Williams, American Russian Relations 1781-1947, (New York: Rhinehart & Co., 1952).

David S. Foglesong, U.S. Intervention In The Russian Civil War, 1917-1920, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995).

Betty Miller Unterberger, American Intervention in the Russian Civil War, (Texas: Raytheon Education Company, 1969).

Georg Schild, Between Ideology and Realpolitick: Woodrow Wilson and the Russian Revolution, 1917-1921, (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 1995).

Peter G. Filene, Americans And The Soviet Experiment, 1917-1933, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967).

Nikolai V. Sivachev and Nikolai N. Yakoviev, Russian and the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.)

In the Tindall adn Shi book I found the Americans to be a little arrogant in their relationship with France. America just turned their back on helping France in their Revolution. If it wasn't for France America probably wouldn't have won the war with the British. Aside from that, they both were fighting for freedom from an over-controling king. You would think that America would have helped the French saying that they had somewhat a similar desire for freedom and independence.

Also, I didn't exactly agree with the statement that Tindal and Shi gave for Napoleon selling the Lousiana Purchase. They said "Napoleon had apparently decided simply to cut his losses in the New World, turn a quick profit, please the Americans, adn go back to reshaping the map of Europe." I don't believe Napoleon cared about pleasing anyone especially the Americans. He basically wasn't concerned with them or the New World. He had larger things on his mind like controlling all of Europe.

 After the Fact’s discussion on theory, and particularly the chapter’s focus on Frederick Jackson Turner’s “The Significance on the Frontier in American History,” leads to a question of the validity of a theory when it has popularly been decided to be an incorrect interpretation. Turner has been contested by historians such as Abernathy, Schlesinger, and White. Yet Turner’s Frontier Thesis is a staple of American history classes both in high school and in college. This implies that even “wrong” theories are still important to historiography. Old theories are not just thrown out, but they can also be revised and refuted. “Errant” theories are as important to historiography as accepted ones.

I agree with Beatrice's comment that even wrong theories have importance. Particularly, After the Fact demonstrates this point with the Turner thesis. Even though it was controversial, it sparked a powderkeg of research to prove and disprove it.

Invalid theories provide a canvas of questions that require an answer of some sort. The errors demonstrated within these theories still provide valuable insights and answers -- even in ways not previously anticipated (such as Jackson's aristocratic influences).

I liked this chapter because it demonstrated once again that our perception of US history has bias that has been carved out of misperceptions and propaganda. The west was not settled by men like the rugged pioneers personified by Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, but rather by the affluent aristocrat who saw an opporunity.

Davidson and Lytle continue to bring light into my dark little world of historical study. These two do a nice job of showing how theory, even if not, as Beatrice points out, exactly on target, serves to guide the study of history by limiting the focus of scholars. Research is generally conducted to either refute previously made assumptions within a theory or to break out of the theory and show its limitations.

I disagree somewhat with Michael Elder's view that our understanding of this particular era of US history was based on misperceptions and propaganda. In this case, I believe that our understanding is simply based on too limited a picture. Elder states that the West was settled by "the affluent aristocrat who saw an opportunity," but Davidson and Lytle argue that this, too, is perhaps too limited. Historical figures, after all, were complex individuals just as the figures of today are. As we respond to historical theory, it is important to recognize the limited framework established by that theory in which we respond and formulate our opinions.

What did Andrew Jackson do for public education? As a president, we see a Jackson who sought to incorporate the common man in the government and to friend of the laboring class. Often what separated those in power in the government and those who are characterized by “the masses” is their education. Even though Jackson came from humble beginnings, he was still literate. This idea of public education is not a new one and precedes Jackson’s political career by over 100 years. During Jackson’s career, states such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania had already passes laws to fortify their public education systems in an attempt to lift up “the masses”. Even southern states had laws pertaining to public education on their records. How did these events affect Jackson and was this care for the education of the poorer man exemplified in any of his political actions?
  Our early government shied away from absolute democracy because The Founding Fathers feared the masses because the masses were mostly uneducated and, as a result, believed to be irrational, capricious, and easily influenced. For this reason, measures (such as the electoral college) were even taken to make sure that the rule of the masses would not prevail over more “rational” and “practical” governmental ideologies. George Washington had enough insight to know that an educated society is essential for a democratic society. Indeed a successful government of the people occurs when the people are educated. Did Andrew Jackson hold true to these values of a strong democratic foundation? Did he really help the over all mobility of the working man?

i agree with the notion that a succesful government of the people come when the people are educates. I believe that is a very important point. But i dont see that jackson was worried mostly about an educated society in his political actions. As we all have learned society is a class struggle and without and education you are usually in the lowest class and doing the most struggling. This however is not the case if you havge help from someone above, the higher class.
In todays readings i see how importnat religion was to many people. How they revived and began to do what they wanted to religiously. IN the reading you read of many religions practicing, as well as races of people practicing. I could not imagine going though a time period where i could not practice my own religion freely. THat is what these poeple are fighting for and that is the right to practice religion freely.

I am going to go out on a limb here and combine Brian's view on religious freedom and views of those historians (as articulated by Michael) who claim that the frontier was settled by rich aristocrats or speculators. To some degree this view is correct, but to another degree it is incorrect and I base this on a very poor knowledge of the social settlement of the frontier. No matter how much land could be bought or sold on the frontier and land was very important, the speculators could not control the religious persuasion of the frontier. I believe that the great diversity of peoples on the frontier and their orientation away from Anglicanism, secured for America a great commitment to religious and personal freedom and this is inextricably linked to the rugged individualism that is associated (and valued?) with the frontier. I believe this view is oriented away from political history, and could be totally bogus, but I am interested in possibly developing this link between the freedoms we enjoy today and the rugged, individualistic frontiersman of the past.

 As I have been reading about the Constitutional Convention and the shaping of the new government, I have found myself returning to previous chapters comprehending why the old government or Articles of Confederation failed. Of course their were negative elements, such as the following: no executive branch, judicial arms left almost entirely to the state, bills required at least a two-thirds vote, any amendment of the Articles themselves required a unanimous vote, and the congress was weak. More importantly, however, is not why the administration of the Articles was unsuccessful, but more so why the authors of the Articles created such a weak central government, which ultimately lead to the demise of the Articles and the creation of a stronger central government under the Constitution.
 I have come up with a few possible answers. The Articles were obviously written while America was fighting against the centralizing efforts of the British imperial government. The men who wrote the Articles, therefore, feared the power of a central government and wanted to ensure the new nation would not recreate the threats posed by Britain. Thus, they created a weak central government that depended on the states to raise taxes, etc. Furthermore, America had little respect or support as a new nation and perhaps the writers felt threatened by this aspect and did not want the sole responsibility of gaining respect placed only in the lap of the central government. Uprisings by Native Americans threatened the frontier. Again, perhaps, the writers feared the economic responsibility and liability of one central group defending against the attacks. Also, there was much religious diversity and the authors represented this diversity and each wanted to protect their own interest. They distrusted a central government protecting religion and felt the states were better equipped to address their religious interests. Last, economic differences among colonies meant that each colony had different needs. Again the authors, from experience with Britain, did not feel that one government body could address all of these needs.
 These are just a few reasons I thought might have played a role. I realize that I might be over stretching some points or be completely wrong for that matter. So I am completely open to suggestions or other reasons why the writers of the Articles created a weak central government.

I agree with most of Lynsey’s ideas for the coming of the Confederation and its weak form of central government. I disagree with the idea that America did not gain any respect from other nations. Instead, I think that as an underdog in the War against Britain, America would gain adequate respect for defeating the British forces, though it was accomplished in a somewhat rag-tag style of warfare. The French soldiers must have taken some respect for the American Regulars and militia back to France with them--If not for the American style of fighting, then at least for the ideas of liberty and justice. Such ideas may have even served as an inspiration for the French in their own revolution (though the French Revolution was quite different from the American Revolution).
Another possibility for the lack of centralized government during the Confederation would be that the Colonials were simply not ready for a centralized form of government, something that would have taken much more planning. For example, to centralize national funding a national tax program would have to be implemented when nobody was ready to pay taxes to the American government. The Confederation seems as if it were a buffer period before the constitution could be worked out in detail. What does everyone else think?

The goal of trying to be perfect is something that I believe can never be attained. It seems that in reading about different religions in T, S, P, the purpose of some is to become perfect and accepted by God. The Universalists believed that God was too good to banish any man to hell. If someone heard these words, don't you think he or she would become a Universalist. No matter what you do in life, you will not go to hell. That sounds pretty good to me. The Unitarians believed man was too good to be exiled into hell. To me, these religions sound too good to be true.
The next thing to happen to religion was the massive spread of Baptists and Methodists. Involved in spreading the Word were revivals and camp meetings. These meetings were a great means for social opportunites. People had fun and were learning the way to salvation. They went back to their communities and built churches to have places where they could keep having these meetings. I believe this was just a way to create a social gathering among friends. Yes, they discussed the Bible and listened to sermons about how they should obey the Word of God, but somewhere along the way, I believe church became a competition for people. Who dressed the best, who attended church the most, who donated the most money? I know this is not true for all people and I don't mean to step on any toes, but I think a vast number of people go to church as part of their way to having the PERFECT image. I think going to church is a great way to practice one's faith, but I do not think it is the only way.

   I thought the textbook handled the discussion of the Enlightenment's effects on eighteenth-century society well. Previously, I had only studied the Enlightenment's impact on the framework of the Constitution and never considered the movement's effects on the society of that time. Concerning religion, I was wondering if the aristocracy took part in the Second Great Awakening? The text discusses it as a backwoodsy-type movement that appealed mostly to the lower classes and Southerners. Was the Mormon tradition the only religion that moved through the North?

Edited by author 01-22-2003 12:48 AM
I continue to enjoy After the Fact's approach to studying history and seeing the motivations and influences of the historians writing these histories. It's amazing how I always took as gospel truth what was in the textbook, but we must remember that real people, with real biases and life experiences also wrote those books. We can even see this in T, S, & P as South Carolina surprisingly comes up quite a bit in the Colonial discussions (p. 33). Each theory of the frontier and Jackson has its own interpretation and is nuanced in such a way as to emphasize the author's ideologies. Also as each historians look back, the characteristics of Jackson they can relate to, they emphasize. And none of the interpretations is wrong in the sense that its not based on facts. I can't help but think of the 4 gospels, and how their varying versions of the life of Jesus paint a fuller picture of who he is and how he impacted each of his disciples differently. I wonder how a historian today would interpret Jackson, given what is valued in our culture. Would they try to portray him as a politically correct patriot? Certainly that would be difficult to do given the facts of his relationships with the Indians...or is that just an interpretation of how he dealt with the Indians? I don't know. How do you all think Jackson would be interpreted in our day?

One thing that shocked me from the readings this week is the chapter from T,S,P about growth of our nation. After i got finished reading that chapter, I thought it was amazing how the inventions that were made and the patterns of migration from the immigrants effect our lives today. All of those inventions lead to more inventions all of the way up until present day. Where would this world be and what would it be like today if those inventions were never invented? Its absolutely amazing to me how means of transportation has evolved from dirt roads to the canals and railroads and eventually to cars and airplanes.

The immigration part of the chapter strikes me as being shocking too. Think about regions of the nation and the dominant descent and about how much the immigrants still have influence on that part of the nation today. When the immigrants come over they brought a lot of culture and values with them, and these virtues are still involved with many peoples lives. The chapter about the dynamics of growth of our nation just had an impact on me made me think a little bit about my own heritage.

The link for today's age of Jackson presentation can be found at:
(http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/agejackson.htm)

The chapter in After the Fact is necessary for people to read, at least in my opinion. I think it is extremely important for us to realize that no matter what, we may never know the exact facts of the treatment of slavery (“…some was kind and some was mean…”). Davidson and Lytle bring to light such a myriad of biases that we will encounter when reading documentaries, memoirs, or interviews. I was amazed at what a critical eye one must have when reading history. It really isn't just facts.

I thought that the first interview with Susan Hamlin was especially interesting, particularly the section in which she talked about her opinion of blacks coming to America. Susan bluntly reproaches all Africans for not having a religion. She then goes on to say that because of this fault, it was the Americans’ duty to bring religion to the masses, even “…if dey have to grab dem and bring dem into bondage till dey learned some sense” (p163). Susan puts the whites into an almost divine class, in which they are good, obedient, and complete followers of God, and therefore are rewarded with prosperity. The only reason that the whites have to be owners of the Africans is because they have a duty to convert them and teach them religion.
I am appalled at this mindset. I suppose part of it is because in this day and age, I realize that no one is better than another—we are all equal. And Susan was living under such a different ideology. It seems to me, though, that the owners completely brainwashed their slaves. I can only assume that when the slave owners taught about the never-ceasing love of Jesus Christ, they also never failed to mention that God had also set up a class system in which the white people were the top. Or was this paragraph that Susan told something she said because she well knew that is exactly what the slave owners wanted to hear. Perhaps the slaves had learned to think for themselves, but outwardly portray the thoughts of their owners. After all “…slaves could survive only if they remained acutely conscious of the need to adapt their feelings to the situation” (p169).

Social stratification between blacks and whites in the antebellum South caused a hegemonic relationship between master and slave, as described in the Narrative of the Life of Josiah Henson. Hegemony refers to the outward acceptance of domination and the inward rejection of such discrimination. In front of the master or other white folks, slaves dutifully completed their daily tasks with a grin. Henson, for example, witnessed the bloody consequences of his fathers beating as a child and later took the blows dealt by his own master. To the plantation whites, he was competent, faithful, and hard-working. Privately, however, Henson resented his plight and stole livestock from his master to feed the hungry women. He also held quite a high opinion of himself, obsessed with his own intelligence, strength, and potential.

The paradox lies herein: if slaves were so obedient, so childishly oblivious, then why did they steal and lie successfully, avoiding harsh punishment? Henson's description of life in the slaves' hovels presents an entirely different and new image of the slave. For them life was survival, and survival was stealing food and nursing the sick, not swinging a scythe in the cotton field or hauling buckets of water to and from the master's house. The master did not comprehend the situation, while the slaves somehow remained free while fettered by an invisible bond.

Davidson and Lytle's After the Fact Chapter 7 has some interesting points. I agree with Ms. Squiers that this is a necessary article for people to read. Davidson and Lytle take an awkward approach that I have not necessarily seen before. The look at tht "FreedPeople's Point of View." Throughout elementary school I was taught that the North and South were fighting to free the slaves. When I read the comment on page 152 I realized that the freedom of African-Americans was not highly pushed as I thought. "Many Yankees strongly believed that they were fighting a war to save the Union, not to free the "cursed Nigger" as one recruit might put it." Why weren't we taught when we were younger that Northerners were "good" and Southerners were "bad"? I believe that elementary and middle school teachers should not embellish as much when talking about the North and South. Although the North freed many ex-slaves there were Southerners who didn't agree with slavery. I have read several cases where slaves were treated very well in the South, but one can't help to emphasize those cases that are emotionally heartbreaking.

I know we have discussed this issue in class, but I am still having a hard time grasping the church’s view on slavery. There seems to be a paradox I cannot reconcile. The South Carolina Methodist Statement on Abolition makes it very clear that the issue of slavery is a civil one. It continues by saying the ideals of the abolitionists “are utterly erroneous, and altogether hurtful.” While this is shocking to me, I have the hardest time coming to grips with the last statement. “They have no time, and we trust no inclination, for any thing aside of their grand aim, the salvation of souls.” The Methodists have made it very clear they do not want to get involved with political matters but instead want to concentrate on the salvation of souls. Souls. Period. Not white. Not black. Not purple but SOULS. I’m not sure whether white was implied in this case or not, but I don’t think African Americans were at the top of their list. So, either the Methodists were implying white souls or they really did mean all souls. I’m not sure what the real case is, but I find it hard to believe that if they did mean all souls that they wouldn’t take a more definitive stance on slavery. If they believed all were capable of salvation, wouldn’t that imply a certain level of equality? In Josiah Henson’s piece, he remarks on the ending words of the sermon he attends. The death of Jesus Christ was “for every man.” Every man means every man. In my mind, I have a hard time understanding how the church can preach the Gospel of salvation “for every man” and still allow slavery to continue.

There is an interesting argument in After the Fact. It said that slaves stories were not necessarily true. I agree with Katie C. in the importance of slave’s ability to dupe their masters into having them think that they agreed with and supported them. As Davidson and Lytle said the slaves had to live a double life, expressing them selves on way to their peers and to their masters another way. They seemed to have a unique ability and knowledge of how to survive even though they lacked a formal education. As with Susan Hamlin, for example, she had two completely different stories for two different people.

An interesting fact I found in the textbook was that some slaves had bought their freedom and become slave owners themselves. I know it was a very small amount, however to make that shift in roles one would think they would all be more compassionate to the other slaves. The ex-slaves who bought other slaves and forced them into hard labor sort of shocked me.

One thing that these opinions showed me was the importance to look at evidence from all sources possible and everyone that is involved. Also it is important to look at the circumstances surrounding the way in which the evidence was collected. Nothing should be accepted at face value, it should be looked at to find preconceived notions.

I feel like a broken record as I state yet again how Davidson and Lytle challenged my traditional forms of thinking about historical events. As an aspiring high school history teacher, I now constantly question how I will present material to my students…how can one possibly present the complete scope of a historical event in a small allotment of time?

The aspect of slavery is certainly no different. While I doubt that any school in the nation claims that slavery was a good thing, it also seems like the harsh realities of the system are glazed over. The Union is painted as the heroic rescuer, out to save people from the barbaric slaveholders of the Confederacy. However, as Davidson and Lytle point out—and as Orion stated in her posting—“Many Yankees strongly believed that they were fighting a war to save the Union, not to free the ‘cursed Nigger’” (p. 152.) This certainly is not the history lesson I was taught. I guess I question why we, as a nation, seem to be so hesitant to teach children the harsh realities of historical events. How can we move forward if we seem so unwilling to truly acknowledge wrongs of the past?

I question whether we will ever be able to fully understand both viewpoints of slavery—that of the slaveholders and that of the slaves themselves. Despite attempts to gather oral stories from the freedpeople, it seems like too little, too late. The issues of deception seem to run too deep to allow much credibility in most of the gathered stories. The two vastly different accounts from Susan Hamlin attest to this confusion…not to mention the problem with stories told from memory anyway. Psychologists have shown that we unconsciously distort our memories, choosing to remember some things and block other things out—and Davidson and Lytle point out similar problems with cues and leading questions in interviews (p. 157.) Will we ever truly to be able to have a fully representative view of this period of history?

Edited by author 01-23-2003 07:00 AM
No Chat Today
To maintain continuity with yesterday's lecture and because of the sensitive nature of today's materials we will not have a virtual chat class today.

Optionally, feel free to post messages or comments here, even if this is not your day.

I will be online from 9:25-10:40 if you wish to chat page me or e-mail me with individual questions. Otherwise, sleep in, catch up on your reading, or roll up a big giant snowman.

All items on the schedule are now officially pushed back one day. Presuming we have class tomorrow (Friday) we will discuss slavery and antislavery rather than war causes. Check back here for further instructions.

Chapter Seven of After the Fact is by far the most revelating (if that’s a word) historical reading I’ve had since SC History with Dr. O’Neil (which is a great course by the way and I recommend taking it this spring). In grade school we always, well I learned that the Northerners were abolitionists and wanted the peculiar institution of slavery ended. Likewise, the Southerners fought to maintain the institution that made them wealthy. Of course, both generalizations were incorrect, but until say high school, I never knew the extent to which I was misinformed. It never occurred to me that the soldiers of the Union were just as resentful of Blacks as were the Confederate soldiers. Segregation in the north was another concept that was excluded from the discussion on slavery in grade school.

While the attempt to obtain the perspectives of slaves a rather complicated task, I don’t find the ideal itself as revolutionary as the authors seem to insinuate. After all, with any issue both sides should be told regardless of the social and/or political status of the group. Learning about what the elite, their experiences and their activities which amounted to much of the same for the entire damn class is not nearly as important (in my opinion of course) as learning about what the slaves experienced and thought. I believe that their stories have a major effect on the course of history, and the lives of the “top-rail” people are “commonly repetitious”, and their “biographical details …appear both uninspiring”.

I find it amazing how the so-called deception on both sides endured for the time that it did. Both sides thought that to some extent they were deceiving or had the advantage over the other. The example given with Squires illustrates that the slave was obviously cleverer than his supposed superior simultaneously the master ridiculed the slave’s feigned ignorance which to some degree comforted him. While retrospect plays an important part, I cannot fathom how the slaveholders felt betrayed by the slaves who “deserted” them upon the arrival of the Union soldiers. I mean are these not so-called educated individuals. Seemingly, they could mentally put themselves in the place of their supposed subordinates and they too could arrive at the same conclusion/decision. On the same token, attempting to fathom the slaves who refused to desert their masters initially seems unfathomable. At the risk of minimizing their position to “old habits die hard”, I suppose that this is their defense. This social structure was in actuality the only one they knew and the removal of it (as an “official” institution that would be replaced with arguably something worse) appeared intriguing and uncertain for the freedmen.

In the After the Fact book I found the entire chapter to be interesting. I found it really interesting how the story of Susan Hamlin was told in two different ways depending on the person who she was talking to. This shows you how hard it is to rely on information at face value because there could be many reasons to why the information was given that way. When she was talking to a white person she portrayed slavery in more pleasant terms, but when she was talking to someone of the same race her comments were different.

Also when they kept calling the slaves freedman I believe the term was used too lightly. If there is still discrimination against them it is basically the same as being enslaved. The blacks were still enslaved to the white man's law. They were not really treated any better after their freeing they just took off the title of slave. I believe that the freeing of the slaves was just a means for the white northerners to exert power over the white southerners. They didn't really care about the actual freedom of the blacks saying that when they were free the white northerners didn't treat them with any respect as humans. The blacks were still considered inferior and still couldn't enjoy the freedoms of the white man. So, What freedoms did they actuall obtain? They didn't have any land so they had to continue to work for the the white man to survive. They also couldn't vote which meant they didn't have any political power. So really things didn't change for the black they were basically put right back into slavery having to work for the white man, except this time they didn't have the title to slave. I believe this probably made things even harder. Imagine having to go ask someone who you just were freed from for work. The relationships were probably much more intense.

Chapter Seven in After the Fact and the Josiah Henson story were two of the most interesting readings I've read since I've been at Furman. In agreeing with Ms. Shealey, I too found it interesting how Susan Hamlin's story and her dialect changed depending on who she was talking to. In her account to Butler, slavery was brought upon blacks because they "forgot about God and didn't have no religion"; basically it was their fault and the whites were just trying to help them "learned some sense". However, in her account to Ladson, "de white race is so brazen". And like Ms. Grant, I never realized the extent to which times where some times "easy, if unequal" in the South more so than the North.

In the story of Josiah Henson, which again I thought was good. I understood to some extent why religion was so important to slaves, besides the fact that it gave them hope and when singing they were able to relay messages in kind of a code-like manner, it gave them peace (not really the word I was looking for but..) to know that someone died for them, "for me among the rest, a poor despised, abused slave, who was thought by his fellow creatures fit for nothing but unrequited toil and ignorance, for mental and bodily degradation". But to know that someone loved them so much and that he was for every man might be why religion was important.

 Like Deshara, I thought the article in After the Fact was very interesting. I think that all of us could learn a lesson from the interviews with Susan Hamlin. While we do our research papers we all need to keep this article in mind, and remember not to take any interviews or newspaper articles, that relate to our topics, lightly. We have to act like real historians and be as scrupulous and critical as possible. We also need to try and look at all sides of an issue objectively.
 I also thought that D, T, and S did a very good job in talking about the Antebellum South. So many times, the South as portrayed as all rich plantations, like in ‘Gone With the Wind’, but rarely are we told of the middle class. Although seeing this side of the South, really doesn’t help the image of the South. True, some people didn’t on slaves or only owned one or two, but the many of the owners still wanted more slaves and aspired to own a large plantation.

I agree with Deshera in her opinion that the slaves were really never free. The term freedman was used way to loosely and did not really explain what was really going on with the blacks. They were called freedmen but were opressed over and over again in hopes to prevent them from moving up in society. The blacks were always held inferior to the white man, and never had a chance to clim b up the ladder of society. THe blacks basically had no rights, and werent even treated as if they existed at tiems, therefore they were still looked upon as slaves. so they were not really freedmen

I disagree with Katie’s view that Josiah Henson had a hegemonic relationship with his masters, but rather a counter-hegemonic one instead. Katie is right in her assertion that Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony involves a stratified social order, of which the institution of slavery offers an excellent example. But her definition of hegemony is incorrect. What hegemony also entails, in addition to this stratification, is the subordinate’s (in this case, Josiah Henson) internalization of the rulers values and an acceptance of the dominator’s dominion as the natural order of things; thus no one, especially the subordinate would ever even consider questioning the legitimacy of things. It’s like being brainwashed into submission.
The underlying notion behind hegemony, according to Michel Foucault, is “that it’s much easier to dominate people in their minds than to try to control their bodies”. Methods by which this is accomplished, Foucault continues, include the continuous threat and acts of violence, monitoring one’s beliefs and activities, and separating and isolating subordinates. These practices associated with hegemonic ideology were extremely prevalent in slave life as seen in the Narrative of the Life of Josiah Henson and in the slave interviews such as that of Mrs. Susan Hamilton. Slaves were beaten, separated, their relationships with other subordinates (slaves) monitored, and their activities restricted. However, Josiah Henson did not internalize the system of “values” imposed on him by the slave owners. His “high opinion of himself” and “obsession with his own intelligence, strength, and potential” illustrate his belief that slave life was not and is not his only possible existence—he has more than just subordinate slave potential; thus, he rejects the “naturalness” of such an institution. Josiah Henson’s individual acts of subversion and his belief in his own potential point to a counter-hegemonic (as opposed to hegemonic) relationship between Josiah and his superiors insofar that they entail resistance to the dominating ideology. You go Josiah!!!

I think I'm going to have to jump out here and disagree with Katie "Fulla Beans" C. (/m133) I do not agree with her position that the slaves somehow retained their freedom while in chains. Rather, they retained their chains even when exposed to freedom.

In his account, Josiah was asked by his master to take the the other slaves to his master's brother. The journey took the whole group through free country -- where they could have easily attained freedom. Josiah had the opporunity to free himself and his unforunate associates. But the idea was too foreign at the time to take hold. He left Cincinnati earlier than anticipated just to avoid changing his mind. His companions were too complacent in authority -- his in particular -- to challenge or question.

If Josiah was secretly grinning inside in his "challenges" of authority -- the stealing and butchering of animals, for instance -- then he would have jumped at the chance to truly challenge and destroy the authority of his master. But when the opportunity blatently presented itself, he would not take it. When he "stole" and "butchered" the master's animals, he wasn't challenging authority. He was just surviving.

On the subject of religion, I recall a very interesting discussion from Religion 11 about the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Later on in the book, Josiah even makes reference to this concept of the slaves' similarity to the Jews under the oppression of the Egyptians. What is ironic, is that the whites also saw themselves as the "New Israel" -- as a people of God oppressed by another power. So the question becomes -- who really was the "New Israel"?

Once again I may find myself

Since finishing the novel, i have been contemplating whether or not I believe Custer is a "hero" or a disobedient solider. From the interpretation of the battle in this novel, I feel as if he was not disobeying his orders. Instead, it appears as if he received very vague orders that were not well defined. However, other evidence in the novel indicate that he had disobyed orders before. For example, he was charged with "absence without leave from his command and conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." So i am left perplexed, questining whether or not his past actions were repeated at the Battle of Little Bighorn, or the hero that his wife depictes him to be. I suppose, this question is the "one" that all historians have asked and continue to ponder.

I agree with Lindsey in believing if Custer is a hero or not. I think I am leaning to the side of him not acutally being a hero. The way it was portrayed made is seem like he was not really good at his job and he was the reason they lost the battle. When he didn't follow orders and came to the battle a day earlier it through everything off. Therefore, he was not following orders and caused a lot of people to lose their lives.

I think that his Elizabeth was obcessed with her husband and didn't want to be left with a bad reputation. So she built Custer up to make him seem like a hero when he really wasn't. I think it was a way to off set her mental illness and bad financial problems. She needed something to cling to, so she wanted to build her husband up. I guess overall she was a loyal wife in wanting the world to remember her husband as she had, even if he wasn't actually a hero.

IN all honesty, this book though at some points was interesting it wasn't an easy read by any means. However, I did like the fact that the reader could read about the Civil War from the prespective of the people not directly involoved in the war, such as Libbie and her father. It was good to get a different point of view that was not just the facts that you read in the everyday textbooks. This book also falls in line people needing someone to look up to. Just like the Paul Revere situation, "the Little Bighorn occured at a time when Americans . . . needed desperately to extract heroic lessons from that tragedy." and Elzabeth Custer helped to make sure that her husband was the one revered and no one wanted to disillusion her. It was also cool to watch Elizabeth Custer learn how she can use pity to manipulate people into doing what she wanted at such an early age.

Before reading the novel, I had never really heard about Custer’s involvement in the Civil War. I always just associated him with the Indian battles and Little Bighorn. I was surprised at how much he contributed to the fall of the Confederacy, especially in the Battle of Gettysburg and Petersburg. He was a Civil War general in the Calvary, but his fame concentrated mainly on the Battle of Little Bighorn.

The novel also showed a side of Custer quite different from the myth. Custer was very self-involved, doing almost anything to advance his career or income. The Custers attended many, many dances, parties, and meetings that further propelled them into the upper crust in Washington, D.C.. Libbie, herself, dreamed of being famous when she was younger and marrying a boy general fighting for the Union in the Civil War helped her to realize her dream. Quite decidedly though, they both worked to promote Custer and to increase the lining in their pocketbooks. The contacts that the Custers made at these different galas probably helped Libbie perpetuate the Custer myth. It’s always nice to have friends in high places.

 I was also surprised at how Libbie didn’t seem to mind all the mentions of different women in Custer’s letters to her. Her almost indifference to the matter makes me wonder if she carried on more than the novel tells us she did. Many different men escorted her to different parties while Custer was away, and who knows if that led to more intimate situations following these balls. Eliza, the maid, precisely summed up the Custers when she said that no matter what Libbie will side with the General. I also think that is one reason Libbie created the myth. Despite other accounts, she believed her husband of no wrong (except gambling sometimes) and could not comprehend that he would be disobedient.

What I remain interested in is the way in which Libbie controlled the image of her husband after her death. She essentially acted as a tyrant over the historical interpretation of her husband. To what degree is it important to understand this effect that family members have over the interpretation of our public figures? Should we allow such power to be exercised by family members of our public figures? How do we separate sympathy for family members and a legitimate historical interpretation? It seems that Libbie had to be allowed by some to control the image of her late husband. If I remember correctly, there is a place in the book that speaks of Libbie "approving" a history. In light of this it is understandable how Leckie had to sort through "histories" and separate myth and true history. It is also important to think about our reading about Paul Revere in light of this, does our view of Custer hold similarities or value as the lone rider myth does?

Elizabeth Bacon Custer seems to have been a self-serving, spotlight-desiring woman. Throughout her early life and marriage, there appears to have been quite a focus on materialism and reputation. So it seems only natural that she would want to paint her husband as the hero—after all, if he were immortalized, so too would she be forever remembered. The setting was convenient as well—1876 was termed a year when there was “a stronger need than usual for heroes and heroic events” (p. 204.) She even arranged the most prominent time for a West Point burial so as to attract the most attention. Overall, as Joe commented, Elizabeth manipulated the images and stories told of her late husband so as to paint him in a positive light.

So why did Custer become the national hero? Because someone spent more time fighting to have him since as such than did anyone fighting to have his true character shown. Elizabeth makes the fatal error that we have discussed so many times in the class—she presented situations based solely upon heavily biased sources. Leckie says that “in covering the Hancock campaign, Elizabeth relied heavily upon Armstrong’s correspondence” (p. 249)—which, of course, is going to defend and romanticize his actions. Elizabeth could not possibly have thought of her husband as some sort of saint—she knew of the other women, she knew of his gambling habits, and eventually she knew of his enormous debts. However, she had a dream of being known, and so the halo effect became the prominent view of her husband—an American hero who feel victim to the poor strategizing and faults of others, a man who was “an intelligent surveyor taking in the entire scene in one glance before moving on to glory” (p. 280.)

How ironic that the very fact that we read this book written about her seems to accomplish Elizabeth Bacon Custer’s goal in life…to be known.

Elizabeth and George Armstrong Custer, throughout their lives, were motivated by her own selfish ambitions. She grew up in a world of luxury while living with her father, and she was not willing to give up this world after marriage. Granted, Custer did have a severe gambling problem, but she didn't alleviate the financial situation in any way by her indulging shopping trips. She was self-confident in her ability to charm men and was proud of the fact that she had numerous suitors, both before and after marriage; she tortured her husband with this fact repeatedly while he was away at war. He, likewise, charmed many women and led them to have faith in his "true" affection. Similar to his wife, he also made a point to mention his admirers when he was away from her. Consequently, both found satisfaction in making the other jealous. Armstrong was obsessed with advancing himself through the ranks of the military hierarchy, and Elizabeth support her husband wholeheartedly, reaping the benefits of being married to a successful soldier.
Furthermore, the legacy which she constructed after her husband's death also served to advance her socially, or rather to keep her from digressing. Had she allowed historians to portray her husband as a rebellious officer who refused superior commands, she probably would not have been invited to as many social functions. Besides that, no army widow wanted her husband to be remembered as an unruly soldier.

 I agree with Kim that it was very interesting to "see" the war through the eyes of common people. Not only to see events from their view but to see other people was even more interesting. In most cases you just learn the facts about a person or an event that give no insight into the real situation. I think it is enjoyable being able to read about specific conversations and telegraphs that were shared hundreds of years ago. That is what history is about, the relationships and struggles between individuals that have shaped the world.
 This brings us to another different aspect of the book. Leckie let us in on very personal matters between Armstrong and his wife. I feel that their conversations about their desires and their behavior shows us a lot about their personalities. For instance, the letters written about the men who tried to kiss Libbie or the multiple women Armstrong took out reveals a very childish mentality. I found it very strange the way they seemed to try to impress and anger each other with people of the opposite sex. Then later we are able to see their growth/maturation as these letters change into apologies and assurances of their love. Although this is maybe a little too personal it is interesting to be able to know so much about this heroic figure.
 Thus although this was not one of my favorite books I enjoyed gaining insight into the personalities of Custer and Libbie who played such an important role in making our country's history.

Although Leckie's book seems to want to explain how Custer got to where he is in American history (all due to his wife), I enjoyed it for other reasons. Leckie presented a woman who influenced history in an unknown way, however what we did KNOW was the event and person in history she pushed towards immortality.

What I had known about Custer beforehand was truly one sided, although an important point of view, that of the Native Americans. Growing up in the midwest, and making frequent trips to South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming several times a year, one got used to the idea presented in these places that Custer was (pardon my french) a bastard. Despite having towns, forts, counties, and parks named after him in these states (I might say this includes Sheridan as well), people still did not like the looming figure of the blond boy hero in western history. My favorite evidence of this is of course the bumperstickers that say, "Custer had it coming."

Even lately, some movies today portray him as being an egotistical, self-involved looney tune. One of my favorite movies (which shall remain nameless for fear of embarassment) had a scene where a scout working for Custer tells him that he had better be careful, this was hunting season for the tribes of the Northern plains. There would be hundreds to thousands of warriors up in Wyoming and Montana. "We're talkin' 'bout Crazy Horse and Sittin' Bull!!" Custer turned and replied to him simply and matter of fact like, "We're the seventh calvary." After that run-in, the scout declared that the Colonel was crazy and he deserted. I just had to share that movie moment with you.

Despite my prejudices, Leckie not only gave great insight into "the making of a myth" as well as a very interesting glimpse into a Victorian Era American marriage. Their relationship, and the ALMOST egalitarian way they consulted each other on just about everything. I also enjoyed Libbie's personality, although somewhat grabbing and spotlight searching, she seemed more free reigned than I imagined a woman from that time period to be. So Leckie gave me more than just a different picture of Custer, but a different look at people in that day and age.

Ain’t technology great? For some reason, I can only read the last 6 entries. Although I’m sure the rest of you had amazing things to say as well. J As Hope stated, I was amazed by Custer’s involvement in the Civil War. I do not think I have heard his name associated with this event until now. One would thing somewhere along the lines I would have heard this mentioned. I guess this just goes to show the monumental effect Elizabeth had in creating Custer’s heroic stance at Little Bighorn. I wonder why his involvement in the Civil War is not as memorialized as his role in the Battle at Little Bighorn.
 I found Leckie’s account particularly interesting because it took personal accounts and intertwined them with military accounts, instead of the other way around. Often times, when books are written about historical figures, the story told is one of accomplishments and facts. Each of these is important in understanding an individual, but they offer little information about the figure on a personal level. This is where the truly interesting stories of history take place. All to often, historical figures are made legendary, and we loose sight of them as ordinary people. We forget that these individuals struggled with many of the same things we do. Leckie’s portrayal of Custer and Elizabeth shed light on the intimate workings of their relationship. The inclusion of excerpts from their letters to one another revealed the passion in their relationship. This is something that would certainly be left out of a textbook, but it helped me to understand one of the driving forces in their lives.
 I believe one word sums up Elizabeth and Armstrong’s relationship – devotion. Throughout the book, I was amazed by acts of their pure devotion to one another. Libbie willingly accompanied Custer on many expeditions that I’m sure I would not be thrilled to go on. Even the threat of court martial did not keep Custer from Libbie. While many of her motives were self-serving, the time and energy Elizabeth placed in memorializing her husband is astounding. Custer has become one of the most recognized names in American history, and this is due in large part to the devotion of his wife.

Leckie showed in this book the amazing affect someone can have on the memory of another after the first had died. Elizabeth Custer essentially controlled the viewpoint that the public received about her husband. Through her hard work and with the connections that she established throughout her life, she kept General Custer from getting a bad reputation. Very gifted in the talent of writing and persuasion, through actions as well as words Elizabeth controlled his memory. I found it amazing how she could get West Point to take down a statue. Even though it took a lot of work and dedication, I do not see why she would have not wanted the statue to stay it would have allowed his memory to live on with all who saw it, although it was not completely correct.

I think one of the things that shocked me the most was, as Joe mentioned, was that she approved a history. Stories did not get published because people did not want to offend the widow. However if the opposite viewpoint does not get out how are people supposed to make educated decisions? It was also amazing that Elizabeth managed to keep General Custer in the limelight for such a long time. Even through all the other conflicts that were going on in our country it was interesting to see how one issue kept resurfacing.

When we look at how this one women changed the view of a well known solider it makes you look closer about how we get the stories of other well known people. Could other people have left the whole truth out of our history? How do we know that the stories we read and have read are really true and not tainted by personal biases?

This book was pretty good, although at the end it seemed to drag out a little bit too long.

I think that Leckie makes a good point by saying that George Custer could not have asked for a more suited person to convey a positive image of him after his death than his wife, Elizabeth. Things such as Libbie’s love for writing, her love for family, and also her want for personal prestige in social circles all seemed to play an integral part in her role as historian for her husband. When looking at someone’s biography, I find that its imperative that you pay close attention to the early years of that person’s life as those years are the most fundamental years to one’s personal development. Its interesting to me that Libbie was reading female writers like Fannie Fern and Grace Greenwood who both warned against trusting men in their writing. This may have had an effect on the way Libbie perceived men and their behavior as well as how women are to act in relation to promiscuous men.
I really like the question that Joe asks about the validity of family members in portraying their deceased kin. As it is always important, I believe it is important to understand the source of a written work and to question the authors relation to the subject matter.

Perhaps I’m being cynical because I don’t feel well and I’m exhausted, but what is wrong with being honest? At least attempting to be objective? The more I read for this course the less enchanted I am with the grade school education system in the United States. Between what children are not being taught in school, at home and the media (especially Disney) the future looks rather bleak for a genuinely informed, not merely “educated” society. I digress.

Elizabeth Custer was widowed and merely left wither her husband’s disputable reputation and debt, but somehow managed to remain faithful to her husband and created a legacy in “his” honor. I suppose “faithful” is inappropriate here considering the lengths (i.e. rallying for donations in honor of a monument here, imploring someone to change the name of a song, or park there) she went to, so that her God-fearing, loving husband’s name was venerated. I’ve associated Custer with being this larger than life general, but now we know it is all attributed to the myth his wife concocted not his actions. According to Leckie’s account of his actions, Custer was not exactly the dedicated leader. Rather he actually adhered to the orders given to him, or if he was so ambitious as to lead many of his troops to their deaths at Little Bighorn remains a point of interpretation amongst historians, but his other activities are perhaps less contentious. Custer’s private exploits appear well documented, at least by our author. Amazingly, his wife acknowledges and appears to have accepted his gambling problem and obsession with other women. I suppose her stance could be attributed to the period in which they lived. She was to play the role of the supportive wife and “homemaker” while he went off to fight and partake in other activities. Elizabeth portrayed as a devoted, loving wife and from the documents her husband apparently valued her opinion concerning the war (though I’m not sure what reason he would have to take her advice) and other aspects. I’m quite certain that he failed to consult her about affairs and squandering their funds, but early on I recall reading that Custer supposedly said his “Libbie” influences his actions/his conduct. What motivated Elizabeth Bacon Custer to make it her life duty to ensure the immortalization of her husband? Perhaps her life as a military wife dedicated to erasing any criticisms of her husband from the minds of Americans motivated her. On the other hand, her life as a military wife, specifically, the type of wife she actually was as displayed by Leckie is coordinated with her measures to ensure her husband an admirable place in history. Personally, I think it was a great way for her to get out of debt…being a widowed woman at the turn of the century, I’m sure writing paid well.

It has become a very hard decision of what to believe about historical figures anymore. The question between myth and truth has played a key factor in what the class has read so far. Everyone has their own opinions about people and that will never change, but I wish I knew which one is the facts.
With that said, I think Elizabeth Custer was driven by money and social acceptance. This is not uncommon, but can get ugly depending on how far you are willing to go for it.

Elizabeth Custer was always trying to make herself and husband look better in the public eye. She knew she was pretty, tactful, and manipulative. Those assets allowed her to gain sympathy from most people, especially men. Her power over men opened many doors in her defense of her husband. She could make men write essays defending General Custer that completely ruined the writings of others that didn't think Custer was a great hero. The book said Elizabeth loved lecturing and enjoyed it more when she could see the audience believing that Custer really was a hero. She even had mothers approach her and say that General Custer was their son's hero! These are the kind of reactions that kept her going for so long. To think that so many people kept their mouths shut about what they truly thought of Custer to avoid stepping on the poor widow's toes is outrageous. It's ok to disagree with someone and let the person know about it.
I agree with Melissa when she said that us reading this book is exactly what Elizabeth Custer would have wanted: Her and her husband's name still in the limelight.

OVerall i think that the custer book was a pretty good book. I believe that it had many things in it that are relevent to today. I believe that general custer was driven by material things such as money, and things like that. BUt in this world you see a alot of that. it happens to people all the time so it doesnt surprise me. He was in the limelight and when that happens it has an effect on people. Also, custers wife. she was vaery manipulative. i beileve she could get anything she wanted from anyone she wanted to get it from, she just had that skill i guess. She made people do things to benefit her and her husband, but people in power today do the same things. The things that she did worked, so she didnt stop, why should she, she was in the limlight and what she was dong to stay in it worked.

     While I grew up knowing that Custer was not the hero popular culture had made him, and that his image had been propagated by his wife, I did not actually know the story so Shirley A. Leckie’s book, Elizabeth Bacon Custer and the Making of a Myth, was very informative. While I agree that Libbie was self-serving in the process, and was tyrannical about how her husband was portrayed, I think that she should be applauded for how she did handle the situation. What amazed me about her was her ability to combine her ideal of a quiet woman with her mission to keep her husband’s image pure —whether it deserved it or not. Her method for this, Leckie writes, is “by publishing her well-written book on her private life with ‘my husband,’ Elizabeth expanded her personal influence and infused her domestic role with public power.” Libbie was not a threat to the politicians because she was not trying to meddle in the affairs of men. Libbie was especially concerned about giving lectures. She did not want to be viewed as a “platform woman,” but a newspaper reporter assured that was not the case. Rather, because she was “not actively engaged with any of he great reforms of the day,” and because her “chief ambition in life [was] to honor her husband’s memory through her books and lectures,” Libbie was able to remain feminine while controlling the public’s opinion of her husband (264).
    As I was reading the book, I had the same questions about Libbie’s indifference towards Autie’s relationships with so many women that Hope mentioned in her message. I was also surprised by Autie’s role in the Civil War, and that he was committed to radical Reconstruction. Libbie, for her part, seemed quite racist through most of the book. And example can be found on p. 95 when she is scared of the black soldiers. However, by the end of the book she at least begins to realize some of the injustices the Native Americans suffered (301). Although I am left with many questions at the end of the book, even more of my questions have been answered.

Once again in history we encounter a myth and heroization of a major general in American history. But what else can we expect from his wife? Grieving, and "prostrate" she had to reconcile the degenerate character of her husband after his death, for his whole life she was able to cover it up. Now this begs the question: is this harmful? Now, normally it wouldn't be, but considering we live in a nation that puts a great deal of its faith in the heroes of its' past, it can be harmful. If we have an inaccurate view of our heroes, what purpose do they serve? we are only believing a lie, living in a false view of reality. I think a honest, sincere dipiction of her husband would have done more service to American history. We can more easily relate to a man with personal failings, confused, and making mistakes. Plus, in making her husband a perfect legend she pointed away from the only perfect One she claimed to put her faith in, Jesus Christ.
We could live with a bit more honesty here at Furman as well. I do appreciate that about Dr. Benson, how he cuts away the crap and the lies we live by sometime here in the bubble. We need an honest look at life and to live by a reality greater than this temporary schoolwork, especially during this insane winter term.

Edited by author 02-03-2003 08:52 AM
I thought this was a brilliant book, but I think it needs a new title --perhaps "How to make your spouse a hero in just under a lifetime". I think the hob-nobbing that Libbie was able to do in Washington was pretty impressive, and I think that there's alot to learn from that situation if one is to be remembered.

I don't think that it's a terrible thing to build someone up as she did. On the contrary, it gave Custer's men -- and much of the Union army -- something to believe in in a time when disunion and war were the key themes. Just because he wasn't the perfect man or leader, people still needed a hero to rally behind -- whether or not that person is a great leader.

I think the most interesting thing I learned from this book on a more sociological level was the role that Libbie played as the typical Victorian wife -- whose purpose was to instill virtue into her husband. If women were raised to be virtuous and then to convince their husband of the same lifestyle, why not just raise the young men to be virtuous as well? I guess they were given a "get out of jail free" card in their youth to enjoy it, and then to be corrected later in life. I thought that was rather amusing.

On the subject of whether or not this was "right" or "wrong" for Libbie to cast her husband in such a good light, I do not disagree with her actions. The history that the general public recalls is often highly inexact and shares only a few threads of truth at best. In the timeframe we are talking about, they still wrote hand written letters and it could take up to two weeks just to get a message through. Perhaps, in our own modern era, the expediency with which we can acquire informaiton (take the shuttle disaster this weekend for instance, within two hours there was an article on TIME.com about how it might have happened), people's access to information will shape a more accurate memory -- but I doubt it. The era in which history is remembered accurately will be the last era in which we have historians.

The book Elizabeth BaconCuster by Shirley Leckie was not one of the most interesting books we have read but it was informative. There was one main point that Mrs. Custer did everything necessary to make sure her husband was depicted as a "twenty-three-year-old… in a quick moment of rejection" or as an "intelligent surveyor taking in the entire scene in one glance before moving on to glory."

Elizabeth Custer was called a warm hearted loving wife, but there were several times Elizabeth was shown as bitter and depressed. She was very cautious to make any statements that would destroy her husbands image. Only when she was surrounded by audiences and pictures of her husband was she genuinely happy. Elizabeth did not want to belong to women's political or social organizations. "Her chief ambition in life was to honor her husband's memory through her books and lectures." Was Elizabeth obcessed with the attention of being General Custer's wife? or Was she really living her idea of " a reflected life"?

I found Leckie's treatment of E. B. Custer to be fascinating and eye-opening. I only wish she had devoted less of the book to such a detailed biography of Libbie and more to how Libbie was able to mold her husband's image.

It's so fascinating to learn how Libbie was able to affect this opinion of her husband due largely to her role as a woman. At the same time, her role as a woman forced her to exploit her dead husband's memory. Here is the double-edged sword of gender roles in the 19th century.

Once again, D and L have brought a new perspective of an old situation to my attention. They vividly describe the accounts of rats, rat droppings, and even human body parts in the packer meat. While those images disgust me, I often wonder what goes on with the canned products we eat now. I'm sure we've all heard horror stories of fast food restaurants and even some packaged food items. But somehow the images Sinclair writes about in The Jungle are much more powerful than what we hear now. One image I found especially disturbing was the story of man who fell into a cooking vat and was cooked with the rest of the food and left the plant in a can with some other 'meat.' I was also shocked that the meat that they gave soldiers in the late 1890s was poisonous, and the government did not do much about it, at first. Sinclair's book must have placed the final log on Teddy Roosevelt's fire against the meat packing plants. Not only had Teddy seen good soldiers die from bad food, he had read the Jungle and learned how awful and unsanitary the meat packers were. All these events lead to the beginning of the food inspection regulations. But how much good are these regulations doing currently? In every restaurant there is the inspection number on a sheet of yellow paper, framed and hung on a wall, but who actually knows what this means? Could a restaurant with a rating of 89 be actually cleaner than a restaurant with a rating of 95? I assume that that is a feasible because I, like majority of the population, am ignorant of the meanings of the numbers. I have also noticed how the inspection sheets are hung, usually, far enough from the customers that they can’t read why the restaurant lost points. It seems to me that the restaurants, like the packers, are just trying to cover up their mistakes, hoping that no one will catch on and reduce their profits.

Edited by author 02-04-2003 09:00 AM
From the D and L article, USDA Government Inspected, the thing that kills me the most is the fact that Sinclair's, The Jungle, was not the beginning of the meat industry problems. The packers started having problems in the 1870s when European governments had begun to ban "unhealthy" American meat products. I am wondering why the US government didnt tighten down on the meat industries when the problem started, and why it took Sinclair's book to spark the fire in the publics eyes? Like Hope said, Roosevelt even witnessed troops die from poisonous meats. Why didnt he say something before he got into office? He started to punish the meat industries, but it took Sinclair's book to really push his fight. It seems kind of scary to me that it takes a public outcry for the US government to take actions on certain things. On the other hand, some things might be better unsaid to the public.
Another thing about this article that seems interesting to me is how Sinclair got his knowledge about the packers. Is it possible to make things up, or say it wasnt as bad, like Neill and Reynolds said Sinclair did? The stuff about the rat droppings. Who would make up something like that? I feel there is a little bit of truth in everything that people say, so maybe Sinclair could not have been making everything up. Anyways, the mentioning about how the milk producers diluted their products scares me because I always think Furman's dining hall dilutes their salad dressings sometimes.

I find it incredibly interesting that one of the major problems during the 1920s involved the restriction of immigrants. I was appalled to read that President Coolidge pledged: “America must be kept American” (p431). Obviously everyone in American had forgotten that the first “Americans” weren’t really Americans at all. They were immigrants, just like those who were continuing to flock to the US. The only reason some of these people against immigration were considered Americans is because they were born in the US; probably many of them had parents who had come over to the US from other countries. To make matters worse the proportion of immigrants they were allowing into the country was heavily weighted to certain parts of Europe. It is rather ironic that the country labeled “The land of opportunity” had so many restrictions and rules—just to get into the country.

Also, I often forget what a critical role the advancements in technology played in narrowing the gap between the social classes. Henry Ford wanted to create a car that everybody could afford and everyone could have. With the development of the airplane and the automobile, all Americans had access to an easier means of traveling. What is ironic, though, is that today it seems that these inventions which helped to lessen social class distinctions, have now been developed so greatly that they once again create the distinction between classes. We pass a BMW or Lexus on the highway and we automatically assume that the driver is of a higher class. We longingly look at the spacious seats in first class as we trudge past these passengers and head to our less roomy, less expensive coach seats. Henry Ford’s dream still lives on in that almost everyone everywhere can afford a vehicle of some kind. But the kind of vehicle you can afford will stereotype you into a particular social class.

hey class. i remember someone saying they were doing a paper topic on the development of radio and tv in the 20th century...or am i just making this up. anywho, i'm in mass comm this term with Dr. Armstrong and we just watched a very informative video about the development of radio today in class, about 30 minutes long. i'm sure you'd find it helpful in your research. email me scott.christopher@furman.edu if you want to borrow it, or just go to dr. armstrong...there ya go

I am very interested in gathering an understanding of Imperialism and how it lead up to World War I because this summer I will be taking a 6 week course on the subject. After reading the text I have come up with the following reasons for why America focused attention oversees: The new steel navy, exports of both manufactured and agricultural goods raised, Secretary of State Blaine aimed to open Latin America at the Pan-America Conference, the Samoan Island controversy, and so on. But most interesting was the opposition to this new American outlook. The Democratic National Platform of 1900 warned “ We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home” (Bailey, Thomas, Kennedy, David, and Cohen, Lizabeth, The American Pageant: A History of the Republic p. 641). The Democratic Party, under the led of William Jennings Bryan, found many negative aspects in Imperialism. For example, they argued that while McKinley had expanded American power, he had also imprisoned millions (ex. the Malayans). However, all Americans did not share Bryan’s views, and the presidential election of 1900 went to McKinley (Roosevelt proceeds after death of McKinley in 1901), ensuring that expansion would continue. Anti-imperialist continued to formulate debates against America becoming a world power. They now argued that Roosevelt was succumbing to international peer pressure. Nevertheless, Imperialism continued until it took a halt in the Wilson administration. Wilson immediately upon entering the White House attacked Imperialism through the repeal of Acts and anti-imperialism legislation. Finally with troubles erupting overseas and the likelihood of a World War in the future, Imperialism left the scene.
I realize that this is a brief assessment of Imperalism, butI am excited about learning more this summer!!!

I loved the way the text called out all off President Harding's shortcomings. He was a regular guy believed by the American public to be faithful and trustworthy, possibly the best President yet... until news of his corruption, including overlooking oil scams in Wyoming and an extramarital affair, hit the press after his term. Harding had the nation duped, as did so many presidents after him, most notably being Richard "Don't Call Me Dick" Nixon.

You know our Founding Fathers were messing around behind closed doors. The only reason we have less dirt on them is that the industrial, urban, and technological revolutions had yet to occur. Privacy stayed private until America made advances in communications and transportation. For example, trusty old Thomas Jefferson was the fouder of the ideology or Republicanism. Not only did he continue to own slaves after the American Revolution, whose purpose was to free colonists from tyrannical British "slavery," he pursued affairs with the women!

As the mass of citizens, we tend to forget that presidents are just people, too-- and men at that. Not to say that women are incapable of corruption and other nefarious acts; we just know better than to let news leak to the public.

I think the last message speaks to larger issues of how our culture does historical interpretation. I believe that we should not focus our historical conversations on what I might classify as simplistic attacks. Thomas Jefferson may have had a relationship with a slave woman, his owning of slaves may have been in contradiction to his words in the Declaration? But, have we fully examined the complexities of the slave/master relationships in 18th century Virginia or of his financial crisis that kept required him to keep his slaves? I could go on, but that would be futile. My point is that we should have learned by now from the Fischer and the Leckie (both 400 page plus surveys debunking that which we thought we knew) that simplistic myths or interpretations are rampant in our culture and do they might not serve any good? Does it serve us any good to set up history as bad men and good men? Surely it is much more complex than that?

Two things struck me as interesting in Tindall, Shi, and Percy, p. 430-449. First, the discussion of the “new era” seemed to indicate that the decreasing distance between classes was a trend, as if to indicate that at some point classes would no longer exist. The majority of people were said to have been becoming middle class, and the changing consumer culture was making it possible for more people to buy products such as cars, washing machines, and other such luxuries. Ford claimed that “everyone will be able to afford…and everyone will have” his automobile (on p. 447)…which seems to imply some sort of optimism that the classes will no longer be an issue. Perhaps I am off base in this thought process, or maybe I am willfully looking to find fault with this so as to have something to write about. But did people like Henry Ford really believe that classes would one day ALL be able to afford these products? Seems unrealistically optimistic…

Second thought is just about the repetition of history…particularly while reading through the Jazz Age information, I realized how society acts like a pendulum, swinging from extreme rebellion of social norms and roles to extreme conservatism and adherence to those roles. It seemed like a reminder about why we study this stuff…chances are that the mindset is going to come back around sometime in our lifetime.

Edited by author 02-05-2003 12:06 AM
It is very interesting to see that in this age the presidents and congress tried to reverse or modify the work that the other party did before them. I find this interesting because one of the worries of our founding fathers was rule by a tyrannical mob. I am not saying that the political parties were mobs, however there actions seemed to just be swayed by the moment and not have much thought, other than personal gain, put into them. Harding lessoned the effect of the progressive laws that were put into place. If the American government is supposed to be set up to avoid sudden changes in policy, how come this happened. What I am trying to get at is that government can sometimes be swayed by the powerful and its moblike mentality, even though it is under the blanket of democracy.

After reading chapter 9 in D and L, it is easy to see why some people choose not to eat meat. To think that slime, rats, or poisons could be in the food you serve your family is astonishing. In situations such as these, it was imperative for tighter regulations to be put in place. The Jungle was just the piece of propaganda that society needed to demand reform.
Sinclair did the public a huge favor by exposing the nasty reality of meat packing facilities. While people had speculations of the problem before the book was published, I do not believe they knew how bad the conditions were. The public was being lied to in regards to what potted chicken actually contained. It actually had no chicken at all. Even more scary, most cans of meat had no date or label identifying the contents of the can. Even with the Meat Inspection Act passed, most people have no knowlegde of where their meat comes from. We can eat meat without worrying as much as in the early 1900s, but there is always the chance that some bad meat gets to the public. It might be foolish, but I trust the inspectors to provide me with only the best parts of a pig (or whatever) for my hot dogs! Thanks meat inspectors.

After reading the section in T,S, and P on "Spectator Sports," I started to think about the social implications of sports at the turn of the 20th century. As the industrial revolution promoted business, America searched for a way to counter the strict business attitude and thus sports became popular leisure time activities.

I thought that the way the authors discussed baseball as being distinctive from the rest of the sports as the most "democratic" of the sports was interesting. I think even today, baseball is the most open/inclusive of sports. Members from all classes seem to embrace baseball as the common "strictly rooted American sport". What are the social divisions between other sports?

Here's what I think: Soccer, for example, is definetly a sport that seems to appeal to the middle and upper classes in America. Dr. Benson refers to the "soccer moms" often that drive the minivans and, interestingly, live in the SUBURBS!! (I smell another book coming) Imagine that, a way for a certain social class to separate themselves not only in the workforce, but on the playing field as well. This topic is of interest to me since I grew up playing "club" soccer. I distinctly remember hanging out in eighth grade with my "soccer buds" like a little clique or gang. We all had indentical soccer warm-ups that we wore and we all came from upper-middle class families and there were only two African-American boys on the team.

Basketball, on the other hand, seems to be more appealing to the African-American community (at least where I come from). Its not that African-Americans are just worse at soccer and absolutely better at basketball (though white boys REALLY CAN'T jump), its just that there seems to be a certain social barrier that keeps them from participating in soccer. Is it a group thing? I've been reading in sociology about the concept of "Groupthink"-the idea that people seem to conform to groups. "Groupthink" seems to applicable in this case. Society has such an interesting way of setting social barriers. What does everyone else think? I'm not the only one interested in this, am I?

I found today’s exercise very interesting and (gasp!) fun. Way to go, Dr. B! By entering into the mindset of ordinary people, I now have a better understanding of how national issues affect the daily lives of individuals. When I first thought about issues such as monopolies and labor unions, I missed the connection they had to everyday events. The idea of “big business” dominating the industry is certainly one a small business owner would have on his mind. This exercise also helped me to see the common concerns or alliances that could be formed from individuals of very different backgrounds. Even though two people may come from different religious, socio-economic, and educational backgrounds, the issues dominating their lives may be very similar.
 I also found the parallels to today’s society shocking. Corrupt business practices and alliances between business and politics are as evident today as ever. Does Enron sound familiar? It is difficult to pick up a newspaper without reading a headline about another corporate scandal or corporate merger between two major powerhouses. I think there was a time when business made an effort to “clean-up their act.” However, I think we have fallen away from this idea. (A Jeremiad, perhaps?) On a more personal note, I would like to comment on the power struggle over water Dr. Benson has alluded to. I am from Columbus, GA, which is about 80 miles “down stream” from Atlanta on the Chattahoochee River. There is a constant battle being waged in my town over the allocation of water. Atlanta is using more and more of this precious resource, which leaves less and less for me. In addition, the water Columbus does receive often has high concentrations of toxins. A water shortage can have devastating effects on business and industry, as well as individuals. This is not a monumental issue now, but I am certain this debate will only become more heated in the coming years.

Like Bradleigh, I found yesterday to be much fun. I enjoy breaking into groups to confer and see other perspectives. It's also more welcoming to give your own opinion in smaller groups of your peers.
And like Jackie, I was amazed when reading the section on McKinley and Cuba, how McKinely was persuaded by media and the Congress. Lord knows that Congress probably always was and always shall be the little angel and devil sitting on the President's shoulders. However, the presence and pressure of the media from papers like Hearst's and Pulitzer's upon the President to take action is mindboggling. Also their influence to conduct "war fever" among the people when nothing had been declared by the President and Congress is also maddening. Shouldn't it be the government representing the people who decides these kind of things with the best of intentions for the citizens in mind? And here we are, even today, with the media dictating policy as much our government. It's crazy and a little unsettling to think about.

ANTI-McKinley
War for economic reasons only
Yellow Journalism
Spanish Government’s overtures for peace rejected
War produced further involvement in world politics, not in America’s trading interests
Trading a lot with Cuba, lots to gain, Cubans gaining power didn’t need the U.S.
Blockade of Cuba April 1998 declaration of war issue of pride

PRO-McKinley
Battleship Maine exploded Feb 1898 (Reason to believe that Spain did it.)
April 22d first actual attempt at controversy
People of the U.S. in support of the war, appropriate to go with consensus of people
Pressured into war by press, congress, cabinet,
Protect American trade, interests, rid North America of Spanish outsider colonists
Spanish letter (Deleon) insults the United States
Remarkable leadership in Roosevelt and a well-equipped military
July 3 Defeat of Spanish fleet

Anti-Philippine revolt suppression
War a poor excuse to exert world domination and world policemanship
We helped them win independence, and then annexed them, we imposed government
We killed a lot of them. Poor excuse.
Expansionist fever created by brush with Cuba, imperialism out of control
Revolt suppression expensive and uncalled for
It wasn’t our place to exploit Philippines what benefit?

Pro-Philippine Revolt suppression
Prosecution accuses president of acting out of self interest, not nat’l interest
German threat to Philippines, American intervention prevented war
Unfair to neglect the needs of the Philippines.
After capture of Aguilanaldo McKinley worked with former insurrectionists
Philippines wanted annexation
Not acting in any way imperialistic. Free treaty of liberation with Spain
Not to exert power, but to protect peace and freedom

Anti-Roosevelt / Panama
Columbia is a sovereign nation
Not fair to sever a province from an independent country
We incited the Panamanians to revolt
Columbians prevented from exercising their legitimate rights by U.S. Navy
Could have built a Nicaraguan canal
Roosevelt has an election coming up, needed a quick canal construction.

Pro-Roosevelt / Panama
Key opportunity for enforcing American debts
Time for the U.S. to get out there and make money and assert its rights as great power
(excluding Columbia) every state needs to defend its rights
Tribute to American engineering, boon to economy

Wilson wrong for Intervention in Mexico
Defense says no win situation, but we have to defend our interests
Goes against Monroe doctrine of ensuring sovereignty of New World nations
Wilson’s policies based on obscure principles, helped one side over other, but never honest and forthright.
Inconsistent in his support of generals, esp. Huerta, by denying foreign aid
Preventing foreign aid is hypocritical, goes against principles we benefited
Wilson’s rash response 200 Mexican citizens,
and interference with independence of independent country
and engaged in defacto declaration of war without real declaration
Attacks on American citizens

Wilson good to intervene in Mexico
Intervened on behalf of American interests and Democracy
Always supports side of democracy in Mexico
Initially supports Carranza, versus dictators, then Villa, to prevent bloodshed
America got involved in rapidly evolving situation, hard to predict or control
Villa, initially for the people, turned out to be not who we thought he was.
School brawl, teacher rarely sides with a student
Get involved for sake of democracy
Changes to neutrality, doesn’t get involved again until Mexican attacks

Wilson bad for intervention in Europe and limiting domestic civil liberties
Callous wartime disregard for civil liberties Goebbels-like director Creel
Spills over into postwar witch hunt
Betrayal of very American right of free speech and dissent
Claimed neutrality, but set country up for bitter ethnic conflicts and attacks on Germans

Wilson Good
Free speech rights not possible if they pose a clear and present danger
Rights must be restricted and opinion mobilized in order to maintain unity

 After looking for information last night about the Panama Canal and Roosevelt's decisions regarding Colombia I found a quote that I thought was interesting. Additionally, it relates directly to what we discussed in class today about presidents acting on behalf of the will of the people or otherwise. The quote was in an AP History book, and it was from 1911, several years after the Panama Canal issue. Roosevelt's statement reveals quite undoubtedly that he did not care what reservations or qualms Congress had about Panama. Likewise, he probably did not concern himself with the issues the people of Colombia wanted to express. Although several of the sources that I found were probably biased and exaggerated they suggested that Roosevelt simply wanted to back up his words and wave his big stick. Still, it does seem convenient that the elections were fast approaching and Nicaragua was an option that would have simply taken more time. Additionally, the quote I mentioned early from the textbook shows that even in hindsight Roosevelt believed what he did was the correct decision. He felt that Congress would have debated and disagreed for too long and then the effect he hoped for would have been irrelevent.
 So do our presidents work in their own self interest? Do they realize later that they may have inacted more harm than good? As with many things it depends on the man, the years he is in office and the issues with which he is faced.

I find myself continually amazed at the resiliency of the American people under hardship. I am concerned, however, with how the American people would handle such drastic and devastating times.

I love the way that Roosevelt handled the situation. He wasn't afraid to try new things with his alphabet soup of organizations. I think that's a great attitude to have in the face of such harsh times -- even if the Supreme Court kept declaring his actions unconstitutional. I also find it interesting that in harsh economic times that those insulated from the harsh reality (Supreme Court Justices have jobs for life, can't be threatened with lower salaries) weren't afraid to cast down the efforts of the government to help the common man. But as soon as a war comes around -- the time when our civil rights are most important -- they look the other way as the government slashes those freedoms into little bits of confetti paper.

In any case, way to go FDR!

Oh yeah, the fireside chat idea was probably the best thing he could of have done to instill confidence in the public, and even serves to legitimize the media as a solid, respectable form of communication -- no longer just a novelty.

Edited by author 02-05-2003 08:05 PM
After reading T, S, and P pages 230-249 and Katie's posting I began to think about the issues mentioned in the section called "A Corrupt Administration." In this section you learn that Harding and his administration were having serious problems. (Which I haven't heard about before)

In 1923 Harding learned that the head of his Veterans Bureau was stealing the government's medical and hospital supplies. His Attorney-General named Daugherty was convicted of fraudulent handling of German assets seized after the war. Also there was one major scandal that was a disgrace to Harding was the Teapot Dome. This was an Oil Deposit on federal land that was set aside to be administered by the Interior Department along with Albert B. Fall who ended up exploiting the deposits without allowing competitive bids. (444)

I have never heard of the Teapot Dome scandal. It was interesting to hear that this was just as big as Watergate. Although Harding's administration had so many problems they still mention him as one of the most "beloved Presidents." Does scandal in the White House eventually lead up to making presidents important? Because I know that after reading this passage I will always remember Harding and his "corrupt administration".

I found Chapter 9, of After the Fact, the first few pages at least very disturbing. To think that you're eating food that's been rat infested, dead rats with poison in them at that is just absolutely disgusting. And how could the people packing the food not even care, what if the food somehow ended up getting eaten by their families, cause Im sure the reason they didn't care was because the made sure that they didn't bring any of it home. And its sad to say that yes the inspections have become stricter, but they haven't stopped completely things like this from happening. A friend of mine was telling me the other day what he saw happening when he worked at the movie theatre. Its a sad day when one goes to the movies and can't buy popcorn because of what could have been done to eat.

After reading T,S,and P on page 350 I found a statement that I agree with completely. "Spectator sports became urban extravaganzas, unifying the diverse ethnic groups in large cities . . ." sports has definitely in most cases transcended the racial barriers that occurs in society. Though unfortunately it did not eradicate racism, for instance in the movie Pistol Pete, the all white team was afraid to play the blacks because for one they just didn't want them in the same gym and two the stereotype that blacks are better than whites in basketball. Thankfully we have come a long way, stereotypes still exist in terms of sports, but I can verify the White Men Can Jump.

I find the section on the twenties to be very interesting. It is so much that went on during that time I didn't know about, but know I can understand why it was called to roaring twenties. The most interesting thing I found was in the mist of all the moral issues being debated, entertainment still flourished. It was neat to see that more people began to attend movies and jazz became popular. I think the entertainment was just a way to relax and get away from all the morallity issues resurfacing. It was also really cool to see how the youth of the day rebelled against the moral issues by becoming more immoral. Its funny to see how with the development of more entertainment came the development of a more liberal way of living.

I also found the "New Negro" movement to somewhat resemble the KKK movement. It's ironic to see how much each group haters the other but they actually had things in common. It was interesting hearing about Marcus Garvey and his seperatiion ideas. It's kind of funny because when you read text books and see movies they always portray the KKK as being the only seperatist racist group. However, the movement by Garvey was basically the same, so the two groups have more in common that one would think. However, I feel that both groups are in the wrong and Garvey's message goes agaist the 14th and 15th amendments. He in a way goes against the equal rights that the blacks were fighting for. If he expects the two groups to be seperate they can not be equal, as we have seen play out in the seperat but equal laws.

After you hear about the KKK movement, and the new negro movement, which are the most opposite sides of the spectrum, you read about the bringing together of races by athletics. Me being and athlete i have to agree that sports has planned an important role in americas society blending races. It started out segregated, where blacks and whites could not play together on the same team, as well as not even against each other. Thoings eventually changed and playres of both races were competing against each other and competeing with each other. I believe that this is one of the most importnat parts of american history because athletics has becoem such a huge part of what america is about. All the barriers that once were have been broken and its made athletics better and america better as a whole.

The Great Depression is a subject that I’ve never given much serious thought to. But after four years at Furman, and with the help of ECN 11, a poli. sci. major, etc, etc, some of it makes sense.

It’s really a shame that Hoover’s efforts got the shaft from the public. Hoover was, in many was, just a victim of the times and of contemporary economic understanding. FDR, however, proved innovative and radical enough to bring the nation up from the bottom. Michael Elder’s point on the constitutionality of FDR’s programs is so well made. I always enjoy a good example of inconsistency in the implementation of American “ideals” (I very much enjoyed class discussion today, by the way).

Another point of interest for me was Roosevelt’s abandonment of the gold standard. Some may be interested to know that “The Wizard of Oz” was written about the gold standard. The writer was very much in favor of abandonment, but only to include silver. Dorothy’s “ruby slippers” were originally written as “silver slippers” (changed for the obvious aesthetic advantages of ruby slippers on the big screen) that proved useful in taking her home to safety once the yellow-brick road (i.e. the gold standard) proved futile. I’ll bet you never knew that such a seemingly innocuous movie was actually written as political propaganda. Maybe Dr. Benson should consider adding another movie screening to the syllabus the next go ‘round.

I’d like to take this opportunity to perhaps “flesh out” my previous posting on Leckie. As mentioned earlier, I found the double-edged sword of nineteenth-century gender roles to be particularly fascinating. One of Leckie’s main points seems to explore how Libbie was both advanced and hindered by her femininity. On the one hand, she was forced to live and die in the shadow of her husband, which, according to Leckie, exacted a large toll on Libbie. Nonetheless, her entire widow career was possible only because of her role as respected wife and embodiment of virtuous womanhood. Only out of respect for Libbie did many of Armstrong’s critics remain silent. A few even changed over to her side after all was said and done.

I liked the book. Even if it was, as I said before, a little too focused on Libbie’s pre-widow life for my tastes. If she lived to be nearly 91 and was widowed at 34, shouldn’t the book reflect the same rough proportions? (i.e. two-thirds of life widowed = two-thirds of book about her life as a widow) But it really doesn’t matter that much. I guess if you find all those diary entries and letters to Gen. Custer, you, as a historian, want to make good use of them.

Friday Virtual Class

Postings are due by midnight Friday.

If you are a "Corn," a single post for today will suffice, though you can always post more (see below.)

You should work on your postings a minimum of one hour. I would suggest thinking about posting a short message and then coming back later to post a response message, but you could post one large message if you want. All normal rules for discussion requirements, etc. are in effect. See the syllabus (http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/21sylw03.htm#online) for more info.

Your message will need to deal with all three of the following things:

1) The movie itself
2) The critique of the movie in D and L, chapter Eleven.
3) The official policy response to the movie, in the form of the New Deal measures described in Tindall and Shi.

The twenties presentation pictures can be found at (http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst21/show/twenties.htm)

As noted in Davidson and Lytle, “the enormity of the dust storms at first inspired amazement and awe,” and many plains dwellers wondered if “this was the wrath of God.” But awe soon gave way to despair, as crops withered and died and the once-fertile plains of Kansas and other Midwestern states became the Dust Bowl in the mid-1930s. The black and white photographs interspersed throughout the article coincide neatly with the stark images presented in “The Grapes of Wrath,” a movie so harsh and blunt it feels like a documentary.

 “The Grapes of Wrath” follows the life of so-called “Okies,” or sharecroppers displaced from their farms in Oklahoma and Arkansas and forced to migrate West in search of jobs, land, and most importantly, a home. The black and white film portrays the allous reality of poor, rural life during the Depression, from the tears of the old mother as her family crumbles, or Tom’s gaunt shadow cast upon the old house wall as his grandfather sprawls in the dusty dirt, begging for spareribs and his land. These people sought freedom, the right to life, liberty, and property. “There ain’t sin and there ain’t virtue,” says Casey, the ex-preacher. “It’s just what people does.” The Joads are not immigrants. They are not criminals. They are Americans.

America means progress. Change is all around, and as the film shows, the Joad family must adapt and adjust quickly or their very livelihood, the family, will dissolve. The family provides work, stability, and most importantly, a unique, innate understanding that keeps hearts beating. After Tom’s parole, he finds the family at Uncle John’s, ready to flee the merciless “dusters” that “blow land, blow crops, blow people” away. According to Muley, a tenant farmer unable to relinquish his past, the Shawnee Land and Cattle Co. wasn’t pleased with the farmers’ production, and sought to replace people with Caterpillar tractors. Herein lays the problem of the Corporation: because Muley defers to his landlord, who defers to the company, who defers to the bank, there is “no one to shoot,” or no one to blame, for this injustice. The poor farming family must pack up and get out, or be leveled along with their crooked fences, their dusty fields, their ramshackle homes.

So this is Progress. With $150, the Joad family heads for California in a $75 jalopy laden with the possessions of twelve people. Before she leaves, Ma Joad burns an old New York City postcard and a newspaper clipping announcing Tom’s jail sentence. She wants to forget her old life and look only towards the future. They bury Grandpa in Oklahoma and Grandma in California along the legendary Route 66, following the promise of a handbill: “800 Pickers Wanted.”

Most actions in the film symbolize the ubiquitous devastation of the Depression in one unique microcosm. Many mothers burned their pasts. Many grandfathers died of grief. And many rough, young men were guilty by association, easy targets for bloodthirsty policemen to indict on an act of pure self-defense. These ashes and shadows haunt you until you become “just another graveyard ghost” like Muley, or Casey, or the widower at the New Mexico camp.

The Joads, like so many other starving families, arrive in California only to realize its scorched landscape is not unlike that they just escaped; worse still, the over-produced handbills duped thousands of unnecessary workers into following pipes dreams. Subject to random inspections and unsympathetic policemen, the family’s numbers and morale dwindle as they continue to drive into a dead end. “Okie” discrimination is a popular pastime among local Californians, as demonstrated by two gas station attendants: to them, Okies “got no sense” and they’re “not human,” because “no human would live so miserable.” Human is a relative term, as is miserable. The ragtag family, crammed into a rickety truck threatening to collapse or overturn at any minute, certainly does not present the classiest image, but these people have a mission, to which they remain dedicated no matter what the odds.

So what can be said for these people, for America, and for progress? Davidson and Lytle’s article pointedly reveals many of Steinbeck’s inaccurate details in the novel, which were undoubtedly transferred to the film. Fiction or not, it’s the tone of the film that truly captures the indefatigable spirit of the Okies, a voice uniting those that suffer under The Man, best spoken by Grandpa Joad’s prophetic final words: “This is my country… My dirt— it’s no good, but it’s mine.”

In chapter 11, Davidson and Lytle to some extent are today’s Siskell and Ebert (well, Siskell and that new guy!). They took The Grapes of Wrath and, although praising portions of the movie, did an in-depth critique to help us better understand. I thought that the movie was interesting; it’s hard for me to say that it is on my top 10, mainly because the mood of the movie is so depressing. Even while watching it I was able to assume that not everything was entirely accurate, but it did make me appreciate what I have today. D and L do a great job of pointing out that Okies were not the only ones traveling to California. And the drive—it didn’t take several weeks like we thought. And everyone being a farmer—well, that’s not true either. As they pointed out, less than half were farmers or involved in agriculture. Just like any moive that is based somewhat on truth, I think the producer wants to give us a picture of how life was to some. Then it is our job to realize that it is Hollywood, and the truths will be stretched. Or we will realize, like with Steinbeck, that although there was some research involved in gathering facts, a full-fledged study of the migration to California was not a priority. With the movie in particular, we have to combine the principles D and L are trying to enforce. We must look at the movie as a photo by Riis and realize that there is more to the picture than what we see. Then we must also make a critique as a historian and understand that the history they are portraying also needs to be analyzed.

As I watched the movie, I found that there was one ray of hope during the entire 2 hours. What was interesting is that this one moment was when the Joads found the homes that were provided by the Department of Agriculture. It was the government that was giving them something to look forward to, which I find rather ironic. After all, could we not blame the government, who established the bank, who owns the landowners, who forced the sharecroppers off of the land, for the hard life that many people were now experiencing?

Also, the textbook talks about the different minorities and the ways in which they suffered. The Mexicans and many Chicanos were those that suffered the most because they usually didn’t have a way in which to prove that they were citizens of the United States. I do sympathize with them because I cannot imagine how discouraged they must have been. But it also brings up another critical discussion: is it really the government’s responsibility to give aid to those who are not citizens? Many of the Mexicans had immigrated to Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico, and were not truly citizens of the U.S., so why should those who do pay taxes and are suffering be obligated to help those who are not paying? Refusing aid to non-citizens in that way is not a racist action as some may perceive it, but in this instance, it just happened that the majority of people who were not citizens happened to be this particular race. Also, would it be more beneficial for a country to put a ban on immigrants when there is such an economic crisis? Or is it better to allow them to come and suffer without any help from the government? Or is it the government’s responsibility to go ahead and provide aid even if they aren’t citizens?

And one last thing—I just think it’s incredible how America is the “Land of Opportunity” yet we ban all Asians from coming over to California. Basically—“Everybody come and join this melting pot of prosperity and equality—except certain people. We don’t want you. Not THAT diverse!”

WOW. Watching the movie last night i had a chacne to think about the "what if" question. What if i was in the same perdicament as they were waht would i do? Honestly i have to give my hats off to the family. I dont know if i could have made it. THe family went through so much in hopes just to live. I think what really hit me was when the bulldozer totally demplished the house. This act pretty muched seperated the people from their land, and they had to go somewhere else. The guy that bulldozed the land basically said it wasnt their land anymore. I did have a question about this. Who was the authority in the bulldozing of the houses? Who was in charge of this act?

Basically the bulldozing of the house, and making people leave their property sent people wiht no place to go, right out in the street, basically homless. So people are decideing to go to california in search for jobs with good wages. At the same time the family sees tommy, hes just gotten out of prison. I was wondering , why did everyone ask him if he busted out? was it common for inmates to escape during htese times? For this family everyone is not all about going to california. Grandpa simply said he didnt want to go, and i dont blame him, who would want to leave their home, somehting they worked so hard for in order to go somewhere they have never been before. BUt he goes, even though he got drugged to do it. Then the journey begins

It seemed like it took forever for them to get to california, then i remembered that cars back then only went about 30 miles per hour. On the trip the family faced many things, tough things that could have digeraged them. Granpa died for one thing, and later on so did grandma, and the family took it really good, like it was exepcted or something. They stopped and slept in tents and ate wahtever, dont know if i could have done that. These people were determined. Took baths in a lake, atleast thats what it looked like they were doing. And finally they got to California.

In california the family was focused on working, like they had set out to find. They found it alright, boxing peaches, for 5cents a box. Thats not alot of money, so that proves how desperate everything is right now. They din another house thats in bad shape but they suck it up and live there. the daughter even says she liked the tent better.

Finally they get some where that treats them right and i had the feeling like , they really deserved it. I thought this movie was pretty good, i got confused at some points but i got the point and ralize the situation peopl were in during this time. IT did a good job portraying what was going on.

AS i was reading davidson and lytle, I oculd only imagene what it would be like to open my door and get hit with dust. while reading the book i reflected on the movie and i reallky like that part that he relates casey and the joad family to the bible and situations that occured there. I think the reading gave us insight on many more details such as how many people were int he pea pickers camp. The numbers were astonishing.. that many people in one place in those condidtions. It ilistrates how tought htese times were. The book also says that factors other than the drought and sudtbowls were driving peopel to california. and then it tells us all about how th tractor was a symbol for a process of landownership, mechanizatoin, and corporatizing. Davidson and Lytle does say there is a difference in the numbers of migration and that we need to go back a study those, because in the move the imgaes of dust overwhelm it. they raise the question that in the 1910-1930 are those the same kinds of people who left in the 30's? and for the same reason. They tell us that people left for opportunity and not jsut because of harsh circumsatnces. the difference in the 30's werent so mcuht he numbers but who actually left.and the were the southwest plains.

Davidson and lytle also brought up the questoin of why would people risk this journey, i asked the same thing. But it says that for most people the journey wasnt so bad. what happened to the Joads didnt happen to everyone.

Once again we encounter an example of a history being portrayed for the purposes of the portrayer. D&L expose the social motives of the photographer, Dorothea Lange who was working for the FSA to awaken the nation to this crisis. Steinbeck in his story of the Joads sought to depict the story of a family journeying through the trails of the Great Depression in America, seeking refuge in California. Concerned primarily with writing a good novel about the destruction of agrarian ideals (281), Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath does not display a very realistic tale when one looks at the facts D&L bring up. Both Lange and Steinbeck were acting to get the nation to respond to this desperate situation, so their depictions of the Okies were not totally accurate. In D&L chapter on the Dust Bowl Odyssey, they are most concerned with presenting the entire, more accurate picture rather than just settling for Lange’s or Steinbeck’s socially motivated portrait of this era. They desire to portray the collective and not settle for a part to represent the whole. When we look at D&L’s evidence we find that the Joads were not the typical Okie family. We find that they probably would’ve gotten there a lot quicker, 3 or 4 days; the hardships they experienced on the road probably wouldn’t have occurred in most cases; usually the people sought refuge in CA because they had relatives living there and the Joads do not. Also they headed to the San Joaquin Valley unlike most of the migrants who headed to Los Angeles. But once we consider Steinbeck’s concerns, we understand his portrayal of the Joads. “Unlike a historian, he was not bound by strict rules of evidence and explanation, only by the true expression of the human condition” (260). And that is what we get in the story.

I really liked the movie and it's portrayal of this family during the Dust Bowl times. I found that the story of the Joads sounds a lot like Perry Miller’s Errand into the Wilderness, as it likens the Joads to God’s chosen people in their wanderings in the wilderness. D&L point this out as well. They are driven from their land by the tractors and banks. They encounter many hardships along the way, but don’t stop even to give grandma help. They are heading to the promise land, California. “California was the place to come for a grand vacation of sun and fun” (271). When they get there, Ma Joad even describes in those terms, “California, the land of milk and honey.” And even once they get there they still are on a search for jobs. Tommy Joad complains in the search that they are “working on our spirits, trying to make us cringe and crawl up.” Tommy Joad before he leaves near the end also emphasizes their collective identity as a people, saying he’ll go on because he is acting with his “piece of a soul” for the collective “big soul” of the people. The trials for the Joads are rough, just like the Israelites in the desert wandering, as strangers on the earth with no home. But just like God’s chosen people, there is no reason to fear with the hope that they have. Ma Joad reinforces this at the end, after they have survived all the trials, saying to her husband that they will “go on forever pa, ‘cause we’re the people!”
Did anyone else see this parallel?

First of all, thanks Dr. B for selecting this movie. Somehow I’ve had it to my junior year at Furman without ever reading the book or seeing the movie The Grapes of Wrath. To be honest, I did not even know the story line before watching the movie. I can now say I feel like a more well rounded individual. Even without knowing the plot, the movie was not what I excepted. I’m not really sure I can say that without having any background, but I was pleasantly surprised with the movie. I seem to be going against the grain with most of my comments. Maybe someone will agree with me. To me, the movie was not all heartache and strain. Steinbeck was able to effectively tell the Joad’s story without getting bogged down in their misery. Yes, the toil of the journey to California was overwhelming, but I would like to think the hope Ma possessed was the driving force of the family. Maybe I am too romantic in my ideals, but I would rather cling to the prospect of hope. In any historical period of depression, there will always be a concentration on the despair of the people. Daily survival is at the center of everyone’s mind. The struggle of food, clothing, and shelter take precedence over loftier ideals; this is rightly so. In the case of The Grapes of Wrath, it was nice to see a deviation from this path. Steinbeck included a balance of the driving forces of survival and hope.

 This is the first D & L piece was not quick to agree with. When reading, I was torn between two reactions. First, I thought D & L were too quick to dismiss Steinbeck’s contributions to the understanding of this era through The Grapes of Wrath. One area of contention is the identities of those migrating to California. D & L state that 43% of Southwesterners were farmers before moving to California. The After the Fact piece criticizes Steinbeck for placing too much emphasis on the role of farmers in the migration. However, farmers were the overwhelming majority of those moving westward. The 43% of farmers is double that of the next closest group, white collar and skilled laborers at 21%. D & L seem to find fault in the fact Steinbeck is relying on the majority to tell a story that may not be representative of the whole. However, a few pages later, D & L again criticize Steinbeck. This time it is for not telling the story of the majority. Once in California, the Joads chose to take the route into the San Joaquin Valley. This is not the course most migrants selected. They opted to head for more urban areas such as Los Angeles. In this case, Steinbeck is not telling the story of the majority. D & L seem to be willing to accept the role of the majority in some cases but not in others.

 At the same time, I do agree with D & L in the fact there should be more emphasis on the role diversity played in this time period. The Chinese and Japanese added valuable expertise to the cultivation of crops. Who knew the Bing cherry was the result of a Chinese immigrant? I was particularly surprised the by the role of skilled Mexicans. I fell into believing the stereotype that most Mexicans were unskilled and seeking work in the fields due to the lack of other options. D & L are also correct in the need to identify Steinbeck’s purpose for writing The Grapes of Wrath. Steinbeck “viewed the Okies as victims, not victimizers.” (281). He “ wanted to the government to give the Joads more than a handout.” (281) These two facts alone greatly influenced the point of view Steinbeck assumed in his portrayal of the Joads. There needs to be an integration of Steinbeck’s story and more conventional means of evidence. D & L offer a suggestion for the achievement of this goal. “The structure of the numbers allows us to give Steinbeck and other evidence its proper due without mistaking a part for the whole.” (274). Neither one should be dismissed; each plays an equally important role in the portrayal of the Dust Bowl.

The Grapes of Wrath certainly painted a picture of hardship, suffering, and pain in the life of the Joads. I was amazed that death seemed to be accepted as difficult but almost commonplace—the deaths of both Grandpa and Grandma were basically glazed over. In fact, some crying is shown after Grandpa died…but I don’t recall any tears after Grandma passed away. I also was surprised by the disillusionment faced by the characters. They headed west with naïve optimism—after all, they were heading for what they thought to be the land of milk and honey. It never seemed to dawn on them just how many people would be headed west for the same hope of jobs and money and land and happiness… and how could they possibly anticipate the treatment they would face upon arrival? No wonder they felt oppressed—those who couldn’t eat (i.e. they had no money) were run over by those who did have money, and the cops ruled over all of these migrants.

There seemed such an accurate portrayal of human character in this movie. When life is good and there is plenty to go around, we tend to take pride in our benevolent natures. We commend ourselves for being such giving people, and we strive to be kind to all—essentially, we try to at least appear to be focused more on others than on ourselves. But when things get tight, our true natures emerge, and we blatantly focus on personal gain and survival…and this was quite clear in the movie. There was quite a contrast between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” and there was little effort made by most of the “haves” to help the “have-nots.” Even those who had been in the same position as the Joads—migrants headed west looking for employment—had little sympathy. Take, for example, the police officer on the street in California. Although he initially connects with the family because of similar backgrounds, soon the façade of intolerance and little compassion is reestablished and the Joads are sent on their way back into the unknown. Ultimately, everyone is just trying to survive…and some are more successful than others. But it saddens me to think that this tends to be our nature—look out for #1, and then help others if you can possibly spare a little.

It doesn’t surprise me that Davidson and Lytle picked apart another American illusion in their discussion of the Dust Bowl and The Grapes of Wrath. But, after reading D & L, I guess what surprises me is the way that The Grapes of Wrath is heralded as an accurate representation of the times. I was discussing the movie with a friend on Thursday night—mostly the way that watching this movie has taken the place of actually discussing this period of history. It’s the attitude of “watch this movie to see what it was really like”—or at least that was my high school experience with The Grapes of Wrath. But as D & L would point out, while it is not inaccurate in representing the migrant families, it is not an all-encompassing representation of the experiences of most of the families. In fact, D & L would propose that the Joads odyssey was unusual for many reasons, including the time it took to get to California, the age of the family members, and the point from which they began their journey (not even really in the Dust Bowl!)

I think it almost masterful how artists (I am including photographers and authors in this category) have learned how to play our emotions so easily. In both The Grapes of Wrath and in Dorothea Lange’s pictures, children were used to play on the emotions of viewers. In The Grapes of Wrath, how can you not feel the pain of a situation in which children are starving? How can you not be upset about the lack of money and the lack of government relief? It seems like the greatest fear of all loving parents is the inability to provide for their children—bingo, there's the instant connection with the audience of adults watching this movie. Lange’s photography hits on the same emotions. While the Migrant Mother #6 picture is powerful because of the mother’s expression, is it not the buried heads of the children on her shoulders that really get to you?

As a final note, I found Scott’s comment about the parallels between the Joads and the Israelis quite interesting—it didn’t dawn on me while I was watching the movie, but now that Scott has pointed it out, it seems quite clear how similar they were!

The Grapes of Wrath is one of the few main sources that historians use to get a feel about how lower class ordinary people lived during the Great Depression. The director of the film did a great job of setting the mood of the movie. The viewer really gets a taste of how hard it was for some midwestern farmers as they lost their homes, and got uprooted, and had to pack their families up and head west across Route 66 to California to look for basically a new life. The movie showed how hard it was for some people to just leave their land that has been in their family for many years. Grandpa Joad fought a hard fight against his own family about not leaving the land and Pa Joad threatening to shoot the man on the tracker for bulldozing his farm house. The most interesting thing about the movie, and the real tale about some of the migrants, was how Californians treated the Okies, or the people from the so called Dust Bowl region. The people who ran the camps were basically the upper class people who had local authorities,the police, in their back pockets. The upper class put the migrants in camps and treated them like dirt, and did anything they could to try and get rid of the Okies. This was a conflict between upper class trying to control the lower class. They offered cheap wages that couldnt feed the migrant families. The film maker did a great job showing how hard it was for some of the migrants to try and make a life for themselves in California. Also, how the dream of many migrants got turned into a nightmare. As I was watching the movie and saw how sharecroppers got basically uprooted, it reminded me of the Trail of Tears. Just like how many migrants, as many of the Native Americans, died along a long journey across the land.

Davidson and Lytle do a great job of clearing up the details about the Joad family, and the migrants, as they headed west to California. As hisorians looked into it and found out that the Joads were not actually part of the dust bowl region and the fact only 2% of the people who migrated to California were actually part of the Dust Bown region, in the 1930s. D and L really put that time period into better perspectives. I like how they show that the migrant farmers and farm laborers were minorities compared to the other people migrating to California. They also inform the reader of the acutal age of the migrants. Unlike in the movie, where some of the family members were in up in age, the average age for the migrants were in their twenties and thirties. D and L also inform the reader that the migrants to California were white because many of the African Americans living in the Dust Bowl region migrated to the cities where they already had relatives and friends. I like the fact the D and L state the fact that it didnt take weeks for people to get from the Midwest region to California and vise versa. It was and simple trip of about 3 or 4 days. I also like how D and L inform the reader that once people get about 150 miles into California they have to make a decision if they want to travel into Los Angeles or the San Joaquian Valley. So many of the migrants went into the city to look for work instead of going into the mountains and to the farmland. I really like how D and L put everything into perspective. Even though D and L inform the reader of how different migrants really were during the Depression era to how Steinback pertraded them to be, Steinbeck still did a great job of giving an impression and setting the mood of what many migrants went through.

In Tendall and Shi, the policy reforms of the New Deal really hurt the minorities in the California region. Driving many of them from the United States, like the Mexicans, and not providing gov't funds to many groups. Half of these groups were not even citizens though. I do feel bad for them. Giving my point of view on what Merritt said about "is it the gov't responsibility to give funds to those who are not citizens?" I feel the government shouldnt give funds. If the govt gave funds to people who were not citizens then it would bring up a huge controversy about what the govt should support or not. People everywhere would be complaining that the govt dont support us or put enough money into welfare and social secuirty, blah blah blah, etc. That fight would never end. So with my agrument I say we shouldnt provide non-citizens with funds. Even though this is the land of the free and home of the brave, it is not the land of free money.

The Grapes of Wrath was so painful to watch. Almost every minute of the movie was overflowing with pitiful desperation and grief. Steinbeck (and Ford) masterfully plays on the emotions of his audience in order to affect his desired outcome: awareness and sympathy. And he was so successful. I was on the verge of crying with Ma Joad as her son walked off into the obscurity knowing that he would never see his family again. For most of the film, I was overcome by a sense of helplessness, uncertainty, fear, and pain. Through this film and the novel, the plight of the Okies is given a “face,” something to identify with.

Beyond that, however, Steinbeck and Ford, as Davidson and Lytle point out, miss a lot of what is going on in these migrations. Much of the complexity of the situation is overlooked. To begin with, the Joads are, on average, older than the average dust bowl migrant. And the Joad extended family is somewhat atypical of the small nuclear family that made up the majority of those moving west. Perhaps Steinbeck’s choice of age is designed to pull harder on the audience’s heartstrings. I confess that I felt more pity simply because they were older. Grandpa and Grandma die, Pa had “lost his place” as provider, while Tommy’s younger generation is not portrayed as nearly as bad off.

Secondly, Steinbeck and Ford ignore the fact that most migrants already had family in California to which they were going for help. But the Joads’ sense of homelessness is much more effective in evoking pity. It is also interesting that, as Davidson and Lytle note, only 28 percent (nearly 50 percent according to Tindall and Shi) chose the San Joaquin Valley and its agricultural lifestyle once in California. The urban areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco proved much more able to provide employment to migrant workers than the fields. But since it makes Steinbeck’s story a little more heart wrenching, then I guess that’s OK. [sarcasm]

I was really very surprised to learn that the journey was so much shorter than Steinbeck and Ford depicted it. Rather than the weeks it took the Joads, actual migrants spent only a matter of days on the highway. While it makes the story good, it makes me feel a little betrayed by the author.

I also felt some disappointment in Steinbeck for failing to mention the plight of the other immigrants to California in this era. There was no mention whatsoever of the many Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, or Mexicans that faced the same harsh conditions as the Okies in California. Steinbeck seems to be declaring a type of racial prejudice in omitting their stories from the novel.

Finally, it was most interesting to learn that the government and Roosevelt’s New Deal programs may actually been the root cause of much of the Joads’ problems. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 motivated landowners in Oklahoma and elsewhere to evict the sharecroppers (like the Joads) from their land in order to collect the government subsidy for decreased production. Such complexity, as much of the other complexities, did not fit into Steinbeck’s plan, however. Some editing of history was required to get the point across.

Edited by author 02-07-2003 05:15 PM
It is pretty safe to say that director John Ford is one of the most important figures in the Western film genre, right up there with John Wayne. Several of his most famous Westerns include She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, How the West was Won, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. Most of his Westerns contain the gritty cowboys, the beautiful women, and the evil villains that are typical for the genre. It could be said that many of his films have contributed to what is commonly known as "the myth of the West."
Ford's adaptation of John Steinback's novel The Grapes of Wrath explores a mythological West from an entirely different point of view. The days of cowboys and range life have passed and The Great Depression has set in. The Joad family, through a flyer advertising a mere 800 jobs, packs up and makes a trek to California to escape the desolation in Oklahoma. Both their journey to and their arrival in California are not quite what they had expected. The amount of labor is minimal and the conditions are harsh. The family, in a sense, fell victim to a "myth of the West."
Another theme that seemed to run constant throughout the film was repressive authority. When that family's home is destroyed the shots of the bulldozer give the machine a terrifying, monstrous quality. Davidson and Lytle back this point up when they say that Steinback's "tractor is a symbol for a complext process of agricultural reorganization through absentee landownership, mechanization, and corporatizing." Ford also puts an interesting spin on this symbol when he actually gives the man bulldozing the houses a voice. We find out that, just like the Joads and other Oklahoma families, he is just doing what he has to do to support his needy family. The Joad family also deals with many instances of police brutality as well as a cruel and repressive labor camp in California.
I enjoyed Davidson and Lytle's analysis of this period of time as well. The fact that the extremely personal stories told by Lange, Steinback, and Ford cannot do justice to the "collective experience of hundreds of thousands, even millions of people" is an extremely valid point. This seems to be a prevelant issue in both literature and film. Films such as the Hollywood spectacle Titanic have made attempts at representing a moment in history by telling the story of several fictional characters. Just like Lange's photograph of "The Migrant Mother," however, I beleive that The Grapes of Wrath conveys something that simple historical figures cannot, a genuine expression of the human emotion and feelings of the time.

I am very interested in the way Davidson and Lytle highlight the influence and importance of the Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino workers in the Dust Bowl era work force in California. It is unfortunate that in the case of the Japanese workers, these were probably the same people who would be interred by the Government during World War II. As for the Steinbeck's failure in mentioning these workers, I think his writing would have been less effective, based on his audience and the time he was writing, had he focused on or considered their story.

I was also amazed at the role new technology (the tractor) played in the crisis. The way the tractor uprooted and replaced the people, who had a great bond with the land, is just an amazing the power that instrument wielded over the people and the land.

I also love the way the movie and to some extent the Davidson and Lytle portrayed the astonishing desperation of the people, beginning with the way they were so helpless in fighting the terrorism of the faceless company and bank. This seems to be the prototypical struggle of the worker class in our time. How compelling when the comment is made after the Grandfather dies that the "government cares more about the dead than the living" what a scathing indictment of the Government.

I am not particularly bothered by the discrepancies between history and the way Steinbeck and Ford portray the Dust Bowl migrants. I think they do a very fine job of portraying the desperation and difficulty with which the migrants lived their daily lives. It is striking to consider that this occurred within the 20th century and in the United States, unfortunately this is quite foreign to our modern understanding. It is also interesting to note, as I believe it is with all desperate situations shared by a community, how the poor begin to treat their fellow human beings and the way the upper classes treat those who are so dependent on them. It is really depressing to see this happen and it is quite clearly portrayed in the film.

Overall, this whole thing, film and reading, are very depressing. However, I think we can look at this period as a positive period of development and growth for our country. I think the New Deal and the recovery from this period was very important in defining what America was to become in the 20th century.

I’m going to add a few thoughts to my entry about the Grapes of Wrath. I agree with Melissa in that the movie did portray an accurate picture of our selfish humanity. We trials come, our true colors come out, and it was sad to see that many on the trek on Route 66 were just out for themselves, not helping their fellow human. But what can you expect from humans? I also found it interesting though that at one point,( I think it was a gas pumper, maybe a CA person from the upperclass), anyway, he gets this glimpse of the uglier side of humanity, he denies it. He says, “They ain’t human beings, no human being could stand to live the way they do.” This character does not want to accept this uglier side of humanity, perhaps because it is the result of his greediness, or perhaps he believes humans are called to a greater image of truly living, not just surviving. Why do you think he said it?

Also, I agree with Bradleigh, that the movie was a nice balance of despair and hope. After all what is hope without rough times? If it was easy right now, we wouldn’t have any reason to look to our future and hope for better times. But it was interesting to see how the trials affected Tommy Joad. Having been driven from his home, with nothing to hope in in this life, he complains that he can’t keep his head “clear.” Casey though, he believes has a clear view of things. What was this has-been preacher now looking to?

Now for Tindall and Shi’s coverage of the New Deal policies that caused/solved the situation of the Joads. When FDR came into office, his main goal was to wage war against the Great Depression, to boost the economy. He did this first on the farmlands in the West, passing the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This act was passed, as best as I understand it, to improve the economy by raising commodity prices by decreasing farm production. This Act caused tenant families like the Joads to lose their farms as the big bad machines leveled their houses, which is depicted in the movie. But for these jobless families, FDR had many other policies: the CCC, the FERA, the CWA, and the WPA, just to name a few. Like Merritt, I found it ironic that the government, that first caused the problem, now provided relief for the Joads in the movie. I guess the crashed economy was really to blame, so really the new consumer myth and credit buying that had become popular a decade before was to blame. Who do you think is a fault in this situation? Could FDR have dealt with the situation in a better way?
I also found our class discussion the other day about the birth of modern advertising rather interesting. In my mass Communications class this term we’ve discussed a lot about how advertising affects our view of our selves, and is most manipulative when it plays on our fears and desires. After convincing us that we have a problem, they offer their product as the solution to that problem that they make us think we have. So, I found it interesting to learn about the birth of this technique and Watson’s influence in the research. If ya’ll haven’t looked at the 20s pictures Benson has, check them out. Here are some of my favorite quotes from another Fleishmann’s Yeast ad: “I had often read of the wonderful results others had obtained with Fleishmann’s Yeast, but for a long time I did not think of Yeast in connection with myself…{so I tried the yeast and now} I am a strong robust man. My ailments have disappeared. I weigh 186 pounds of pure bone and muscle and feel a picture of health and happiness.” It’s saying a yeast cake changed my life. It’s a YEAST cake for crying out loud. Ridiculous! But I bet they sold a lot! Today it’s a little more subtle, but it’s just as crazy how they manipulate us!

I found it interesting the other day in class when we mentioned how
Woodrow Wilson, although advocating democracy and freedom for all people
in the world, at home in the White House he was really only preaching
equality for white Anglo-Saxon Americans as he desegregated the offices.
Did he not see his own inconsistency? Or was his understanding of the
equality for all men just messed up? I’ve noticed this “double speak”
that the inclusive New Left school talks about when they look back on our
American history. We see in Calhoun, as well as many other leaders who
spoke one thing, but their actions showed otherwise. Humans, even in
leadership are still humans and still inconsistent.

 Watching the movie and reading both Davidson and Lytle and the textbook I felt several different ways. Although I had seen the movie before, many years ago, this time I was struck by the desperation of it all. I think the last time I watched it was in middle school and I am sure that I did not give it my full attention. Yesterday though I realized how trying a time the families must have had and like others have said wondered if I too could have survived. Actually, I wonder if I have any conception of what their experiences were like. I suppose I have probably become too accustom to the amenities of today's world to even imagine what they had to deal with on their journies. Which leads to Davidson and Lytle's piece about the Dust Bowl and the movie. I was glad to know that everyone didnt have to endure the hardships that the Joads suffered in their search for a better life. Additionally, I thought that the point about Steinbeck's and Lange's exaggeration of the conditions was interesting. I agree that it is obvious that they were trying to prove a point and draw attention to a problem. Thus they may have let their biases get the best of them. I feel, however, that if they did embellish the story or pose the subjects its understandable. Maybe not everyone was as bad off as the Joads or Florence Thompson but some were. I feel like it is important to be aware of the extreme cases in such matters. So what if not everyone had to sell personal items for food, she did and she deserves our sympathy. I understand the need to realize that this kind of poverty was not as widespread as the book made it seem; to realize that the roads were not awful and the situation in California not so disheartening.
 
 Another interesting point from the text and After the Fact was the other groups of people who struggled in the early twentith century. The Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese and African Americans. Here to is another example of people writing simply for their own interest and again in middle school and even high school I am fairly certain that the Chinese Exclusionary Act or any of the mentioned legislation forbidding entry of Asians was discussed in any detail. Nor were we told about the Mexicans who were kindly told to leave. It seems so strange the way our government justifies hurting in order help. Which is another aspect of the movie that struck me. The government housing was their savior and the reason they needed salvation. The government gave them aid by denying it to others. It all seems very backwards and very familiar.

The "Dust Bowl" era was a period of history plagued by darkness and desperation for many Americans. The Great Depression caused an economic crisis on Wall Street and great strife for those who lived in the western region of the country. Many of the midwestern tenants who were pushed off their land turned westward to California, which was portrayed as "the land of opportunity."

Similar to the Virginia Company in the 17th century, California businessmen used the booster ethic to lure people out west. The fliers they handed out promised economic freedom and security. These fliers appeared at a time of desperation and played on one of the basic desires for any American: liberty, economic freedom, the ability to provide for oneself and his family - the "American dream." Similar to many Virginia Company investors, many California emigrants were disappointed with the bleak situation they encountered once they arrived: shortage of jobs, deplorable living conditions, and contempt from the economically powerful. According to Steinbeck and Ford's portray of the Dust Bowl experience, California was not the promised land of "milk and honey."

Another important issue in the Dust Bowl emigration process is that of control. The migrants' worlds were controlled by the bank and corporate entities to whom they had pledged their land and their nonexistent crops and money.
Steinbeck emphasizes the importance of family in the emigrants' trek westward. Ma Joad is a model of perseverance and consistency throughout the novel. As D&L point out, after the men were unable to make a decent living and provide for their family, they lost self-respect, and it was up to the women to hold the family together. Another important theme of the novel/movie is the idea of family ties vs. idealism. At the beginning of the movie, ironically, it is actually one of their own who drives the tractor, and the driver reminds the sharecroppers that he, too, has a family he has to provide for, and he's looking out for their best interests. Throughout the movie, Tom Joad worries that his impulsive actions might cause trouble for his family, but Ma usually convinces him to stay. At the end, however, Tom decides to leave his family "for the good of the cause." On behalf of the migrants, he wants to make a statement and defy the conventional authorities, but he doesn't want to be a threat to his family by doing so.

I thought that D&L did an excellent job pointing out the shortcomings of Steinbeck's work. In particular, they implied that the migration fostered racism in the region, a fact that Steinbeck and Ford ignored. According to D&L, Steinbeck "failed to acknowledge that the ideals he cherished . . . applied only to whites" (281). The influx of migrants intensifed job competition, and the Mexicans in the San Joaquin Valley were displaced to accomodate the new white labor. This displacement process is also similar to the VA colony in that just as the Indians were displaced to make way for the settlers' farms, the Mexicans were displaced to make way for the migrants' jobs. I also found it interesting that the other ethnicities were more successful than the whites in establishing themselves in California. The Mexicans and Japanese, for example, set up networks or communities of family and relied on one another to survive. Perhaps the migrants discouraged such social structures because it was vaguely reminiscent of a diluted form of communism. I think that the white migrants justified this condescension towards other ethnic migrants by using a form of the American Jeremiad. They viewed themselves as chosen because they upheld the entrepreneurial code of virtuous thrift and self-sacrifice. The small white farmers, therefore, in their minds were God's chosen people who had a right to any American land or jobs they wanted. In their eyes, this moral superiority legitimizes the removal of other cultures or ethnicities from California.

Dr. Benson and D&L have continually reminded us in class that some of historians' most important points consist of the information they leave out. Likewise, after comparing Steinbeck's novel and Ford's adaptation of it, I've concluded that the movie's ending is extremely inconsistent with that of the book. I'm sorry if any of you haven't read the book because I'm about to spoil the ending for you. If you're planning on reading the novel, stop reading this message now. At the end of Steinbeck's novel, pretty much everyone dies, even RoseofSharon's baby. The book doesn't have quite the poignant sense of optimistic hope and independence the movie inspires. The movie was made in 1940 on the eve of WW2. Americans had been receiving reports from Europe about the atrocities of the Hitler regime and the peril in Japan. Ma Joad's last line, "We'll go on forever because we are the people," reinforces the American Jeremiad that we are, or should at least think of ourselves as, a "chosen people." The statement also evokes patriotism in the common man, the backbone of American society; this patriotism was a crucial element in rallying the American public against the Germans. Another important parallel to society at that time was the head of the communal camp the Joads finally reached in CA and his striking resemblance to FDR. The gentleman saved the day with his heroic democratic community among the immorality of corporate business. Likewise, migrants, white migrants at least, took advantage of FDR's New Deal.

I don't really get into black and white movies, but I must admit that the movie Grapes of Wrath was very entertaining. Good directing, good producing, good script and good acting. And After the Fact was a good read, even though some of the parts were difficult to read (difficult in the sense of not so interesting) simply because they were statistics. These stats helped put a clearer view on things neverthelss.
The movie told me a story that like Bradleigh I didn't know before either. This movie was sad (all these families hoping against hope that they'll get a break) and at times funny (Grandma and Grandpa Joad were hiliarious). Like Brian I couldn't imagaine myself in their places, I guess because I've been blessed not to have to worry about situations like that. But maybe if I was forced to be in a situation like that,I'll probably handle it the best way I could just like the Joads did. Like Ma Joad said "we're the ones that'll go on forever" because they faced the tough times and made it through. They are used to having nothing which makes it easier for them to appericate when they get just a little. Speaking of Ma Joad, she reminds me of my grandmother-the backbone of the family; it was her faith that held the family together and kept them strong. She made sure eveyone in her family got something to eat, but then she was generous enough to share the rest of what little food her family had with the rest of the children in the camp. Kindness was proven to still exist in mankind when the Joads stopped for gas and food and they were able to buy a 15 cent loaf of bread for a dime and 5 cent 2 for a penny.
It's terrible how they get bulldozed off their land with no place go, no destination in mind (or so the movie suggest, but as proven in D&L this was not generally the case)moving from camp to camp. When they want to find out "who to shoot", there was no one to blame; the ones who bulldozed the homes were just trying to feed their families and they were just doing what someone told them and these people were just doing what someone told them and the chain keeps going.
Socially I noticed that when Ma Joad sees Tommmy for the first time since he went to prison, she doesn't give him a hug or kiss him, just a touch on the arm. I thought that was interesing, then she said "I know we aint a kissing family . . ." I wonder if many families were like this. Also the movie stayed with the times when at the first camp all the men where sitting around while the women were at the tents. Also when a car pulled up all the men gathered around to see what they wanted.
What upset me was the discrimination still going on, seperation within the race. I believe its bad enough when it's race against racem but within your own race, because one class feels they're better than the other is ridiculous. The two attendents at the "Last Chance for Gas" station summed it up: "Them Okies ain't human, a human couldn't live so miserable. They ain't got no sense, and they don't know any better". The Okies get taken advantage of b/c they aren't seen as smart, when they prove they are and refused to be scammed again they can get arrested on trumped up charges b/c the big dogs gave the local sheriffs and his deputies in their pockets. Treated almost, not quite like slaves because they get paid (though it barely enuogh to feed a family of 4 let alone 12). and some of the living conditions . .bad.
But D&L as usual put another spin on the movie. For the simple fact that farmers refused to "heed the warnings of those who described the area as the "Great American Desert", it was as much their fault as it was the banks and the weather that they were forced to leave their lands. D&L also showed that the migrants weren't only from Oklahoma and also as mention earlier, many of the migrants did have some where to go family more than likely. Also the ride wasn't as strenuous or as long as the movie suggested.
Finally I agree with Brad and Kyle when they suggest that the New Deal and it's policies probably hurt more than they helped if anything.

After watching the movie and reading D&L I feel I know a lot more of what it would have been like to live during the 30's. Its hard to imagaine living in the depression much less being in the dust bowl states. It was an awakening watching the movie and seeing the struggle the Joads had to go through. One thing that made it really depressing was the fact that people lacked compassion. I think it would be really difficult to kick someone off of their land and destroy their house. Even through the difficult time the Joad's continued to strive for a better life. I can understand why their story was compared to the story of Job. It you look at his story and theirs they both have a lot in common. They both faced many obstacles but kept their faith and never gave up. I think the Joad could have given up many times along their journey but they kept going. They could have folded in the begining when they lost every thing, or when they were struggling to get into California, or even when they could find work in California. I think that Ma Joad could be the one who most closely resembles Job, though. She was the one who never lost faith and continued to be the cornerstone of the family. She seemed to always provide even when there wasn't much to work with. Overall, I think the movie was interesting and it gives us all some insight into knowing what its like to live in a tring time.

I think that the D&L makes the situation seem a little lighter than Steinbeck did in the "Grapes of Wrath". The book suggest that Steinbeck used his literary skills to make the story catch the attention of the readers/viewers eye. I think that this probably was true and I found it interesting how D&L proved this. First, when they went through the numbers of the migrants traveling to California at first glance they fit with Steinbeck's story. Taking a deeper look you see that numbers were high in the 20s to 30s but they were even higher during the 30's to 40's when the drought was over. D&L says that these numbers suggest that something else much have been drawing the migrants to California. The thing they suggest causing the migrations was the development of more technology in farming, which lead to lower needs for tenant farmers. I find this theory very interesting because it shows a point in American history where we as a country because more industrial and less agricultural. Now instead of there being a whole lot of small farms and many farmers, there are a few large farms with tractors doing all the work. I also find it interesting how the people living during this viewed the tractors as evil, but today tractors are wonderful time saving tools. However, I think this situation could possibily resemble what it will be like in the future. As we continue to increase technology there will be a decrease in the need for manual labor. This decrease will lead to harsh times like the Joads faced.

In the Tindall and Shi book I found the story of Eleanor Roosevelt really cool. It is awesome how she changed the role of the presidents wife. I wonder what the wives did before her? It's kind of neat how she took progressive stands and political risks that Roosevelt couldn't take. I find her role to be very influential to women and their roles in society. From Eleanor on you hear just as much about them as you do about their husbands.

Also in the Tindall and Shi the story of Huey Long was interesting. I read a novel kind of based on him called "All The King's Men", so it was neat to see his name again. The novel gave a lot of insight on the political machine and how government ran during those times. One man would have so much power and control so many people. It shows all the dirt behind politics. Before the novel I had never heard of a political machine, but after I read it I had a some what new perspective on politics.

 After reading Davidson and Lytle and watching the Grapes of Wrath, I was must surprised by the differences between the novel’s presentation of the dust bowl and the actual historical facts discussed in After the Fact. Although I had read the Grapes of Wrath and seen the movie version as well, I was never made of aware of the historical accuracy of the novel. It was presented to me as a precise example of the heartache and conditions of the day. Therefore, when I read the Dust Bowl Odyssey I found the part mentioning Steinbeck misinterpretation of the dust bowl must perplexing.
 First, the Joads did not live in the area that was technically considered the dust bowl, but instead migrated from the eastern part of Oklahoma. Next, the wave of migration to California had actually begun years before the Joads’s packed up and headed west. In the 1920’s, 10 years prior to the great dust bowl migration, families was driven west by factors beside drought, dust bowl, and depression. Steinbeck, however, attempts to make up for this small point by describing a broader trend. His account alludes to factors such as the bank and New Deal program that while formed to help farmers actually led tenant families such as the Joads to seek haven in the west. Furthermore, the despair of the road, which Steinbeck, describes in great detail, in reality was less harsh. Many people, unlike the Joads, had friends and families already west who were able to help support the migrants. These elements and others have led to a more clear understanding and perception of Dust Bowl Odyssey.

Edited by author 02-07-2003 09:59 PM
I enjoyed the movie, Grapes of Wrath, but I felt that it was more informative than entertaining. John Ford does a good job of directing a movie that focuses on such a dismal time in American history. Its good that we’re discussing this movie and its relation to the text and Davidson and Lytle because the Grapes of Wrath seems to define what we think about when considering the Great Depression. Megan made a great point about how the move toward CA is similar to the Booster Ethic of the Virginia Company. This goes along with what D&L were saying about how unlike the movie, people really wanted to move West to seek fortune. In the movie, the Joads acted as if they didn’t have a choice to go work in California. I think the Booster Ethic of voluntarily going on a journey to a far away place to seek your fortune is a better way of pointing out this migration. Megan makes a great point.

Another thing that I thought was interesting in D&L was the fact that the migrants had a choice once they made it to California. That choice was to go toward LA or move into the San Joaquin Valley. These types of atmospheres obviously presented two different types of environments to live and work in, and the movie kind of discredits all of the people that chose to go towards the city. Personally, after viewing the movie, I thought the only choice was to go into the fields to work. Its crazy how I had not even considered the city dwellers until reading D&L. They sure don’t miss a beat.

One thing that I’ve always thought of when considering the Great Depression is the psychology of the whole situation. In class yesterday, Dr. Benson discussed how the people of the “roaring 20s” spent so much (especially on credit) that the debt they had incurred led to the depression. That was a new point that I hadn’t considered. Something that I’ve always been told to consider is the question: What are people thinking about the economy when the depression comes around? This has always made me see things in an interesting light. When the economy starts the slip and people KNOW ABOUT IT, that is a recipe for disaster. The general populous tends to buy when stuff is cheap and sell when it isn’t so that the market cannot often stabilize itself. Does everyone understand what I’m trying to say? What everyone thinks in an economy, MATTERS. Especially when an economy is going under. When the stock market collapsed, everyone was thinking “SELL, SELL,” so that when the market went under, it did so quickly and all at once.

I must admit that I read Grapes of Wrath back in high school grudgingly. And I will admit again that I came to the movie last night grudgingly as well. I'm not keen on the depression, but then again I don't know who was or is, and I can hear my grandparents lecturing me for saying that all the way from Arizona. But in all actuality I'm glad I watched the movie, which refreshed the memory of the book in my mind. I'm not a Steinbeck fan, but I think now that I'm older I can appreciate the story of Americans struggling to just exist. Perhaps it's because now that I'm more on my own than I ever was I understand the need of income and having a place to live and food to eat. I suppose it will be even more relevant when I'm totally on my own.

Davidson and Lytle's piece was a nice compliment to the movie. Paralleling the Joad's story and saying "that it could've happened for a few families, but not all and here's why" made the depression more three demensional for me. I think D&L were trying to get the point across that Steinbeck's interpretation is a good one, although it's not the whole story. The numbers provided for the migration of Southwesterners to California told a story within themselves, and the fomerly unheard voices of Asians and Hispanics during the depression gave a whole other perspective to this weary time. I also enjoyed the segment on Dorothea Lange. I had often seen the picture of the "Migrant Mother" before but I did not know the story behind it. I think the pictures showing formerly middle and lower class people now distraught without money, food, or shelter makes it all seem more possible in America to us, especially for those of us who have never known poverty.

I came across an interesting tidbit of information when I was on the phone with my mother telling her about the map on page 262 of Severe Wind Erosion in the plains. The darkest area where there was most severe wind erosion from 1935-1938 is where my family owns a few acres in southwestern Kansas. My mom said she could believe it because there is a large pile of dirt on our land, gathered up from the dust storms. And every year the farmer who works the land adds on another layer of dirt for the pile. However this pile has existed since the thirties, and even though they've taken away from the pile to add to the land, it still exists today. Mind boggling.

Lastly, like my fellow classmates have mentioned, I enjoyed the parallel of the Joad family to the stories in the Bible. I once heard that if you ever want to get a story or point across to anyone (anyone I think meaning being a Christian and an American) parallel or liken the story to the Bible. The Bible is probably the most widely read and owned book in our nation, and sometimes it seems that everyone knows at least one story from the Bible. If Steinbeck was following along this pattern, I believe he was pretty clever. What better away for your novel to spread like wildfire across the country than telling the Biblical like trek of a poor family looking for better times. What American isn't looking for better times? What easier way to relate to and sympathize, empathize with the Joads than to parallel Grapes of Wrath to the Bible?

Like some of my other classmates, I had never read or seen The Grapes of Wrath before last night. I’m so glad that now I know what people are talking about now! Like Kim, I usually don’t like black and white films. They usually bore me, but Grapes of Wrath held my attention, probably because I didn’t know what it was about and couldn’t predict the ending, like so many old movies. I kept waiting for things to get better for the Joads, but they never did. I didn’t even think the ending was that uplifting. Tom leaves, knowing he will never see his family again, and the other Joads are left driving to find another job. That’s not a very happy ending. I also think that it ended kind of abruptly. I kept waiting for Roseofsharon to have her baby because it seemed as though they were on the road for months traveling to California and looking for work in California.

I thought one of the more poignant scenes in the movie is when the Joads stop at the Colorado River and look across at California, wondering what promises it holds. This scene greatly reminded me of scenes I have seen in paintings and movies of the settlers moving westward. There is an interesting parallel between the two groups. Both groups traveled west to try and start over in life. The journeys were also very difficult, although the settlers had it much worse since they didn’t have roads or cars. When the Joads looked across the river, I could almost see the sun shining over the mountains, like a picture of manifest destiny.

While reading in D & L, I kept thinking about the current migrating labor force we have in the United States. Mexicans were moving west looking for work during the early 1900s, just as they are now. The images of the camps, except the government run one, remind me of pictures I have seen of the slums and shantytowns migrant workers live in. D &L said that most of the people who went west were single men, this is also true with the Mexicans. Everyone has seen trucks or vans here, full of Hispanic men. Isn’t that very similar to people seeing the jalopies going down the road looking for work during the ‘Dust Bowl’ times? The Mexicans are also exploited today, like the people in Grapes of Wrath were. The men are forced to work for little wages because they are not citizens and the bosses don’t have to follow the minimum wage for non-citizens. I also found it ironic that the United States were so willingly to pass the Chinese Exclusion act to stop immigrants from China, but they do little about immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries.

After reading D &L, I think that Grapes of Wrath, like so many stories, is a sensationalized story. Steinbeck tried to make the journey look as bad as possible, while adhering somewhat to the text. The Joads were also created to extol sympathy from the readers and viewers. I don’t think the novel or movie would have had such a powerful effect like it did. If the novel had been about a group of men moving west, or a young family moving west, then it would not have been as emotionally moving.

Near the beginning of the movie, Tom Joad says “It seems like the government has more interest in a dead man than an alive one.” I think this is a very accurate quote for the time. When the movie begins, Tom is coming home from prison. He had been imprisoned for killing a man. That shows that the government cared about the dead man. When the Joads bury grandpa on the side of the road, they leave a note saying that grandpa died of a stroke, so the government doesn’t think that he was murdered or something. The police kill migrant workers without hesitation; it was just another useless life in their eyes. Part of the New Deal influenced landowners to kick people that were sharecropping their land. That policy did not show much caring for the farmers and their families. But the policies that effected dead people were vividly documented.

D & L also talk about the flood event in the novel, and I wonder why it was left after the movie. Isn’t it ironic that what D &L classify as the most accurate part of the novel wasn’t included in the movie?

Edited by author 02-07-2003 10:50 PM
Grapes of Wrath was a very good movie. It shows an intesting and disturbing view of the depression and the effects that it had on farmers of the midwest. The trials the Joads went through on their journey to California and their misfortune once they arrived their was depressing. No matter how hard they tried to work or what they did the Joads could not get ahead or even caught up. The farmers were ruthless in their methods to use the emmigrants against each other. When they used families like the Joads to break the strike, they formed rifts amoung the emmigrants and played them against each other. The farmers were trying to get the most out of the situtation and paying the workers the least amount possible. Since I had never read the book or seen the movie this was a new view of the depression I had not seen. I did not even know that there were dust storms the same time as the depression or that the situtation had been that perilous for the midwestern farmers. The farmers in California seemed to think that the Okies were stupid. I do not know the whole situtation seemed very messed up and everyone tried to be making the best of every sitution. The farmers where trying to make it themselves and the Okies and other workers were trying just to survive. It was a horrible time where croqueted actions prevailed.

One specific event in the movie that made me think twice and seems to say that humanity in and of itself is naturally cruel were the guards and policemen. They were unneccesarily mean to people. The strikers were just trying to get their promised pay and the police came after their head, the preacher, and killed him for inciting the people. Then at the dance the police were trying to break up the whole community. I do not see the problem they had with the people that lived in that community or why they had the problem.

In reading D&L it gave a whole new view to the trek to California and the situation that exsisted there. Finding out that the conditions that the Joads faced on the road were probably not the conditions most faced was a little comforting. It seems to be a going trend in our country's history that when a new group of immigrants comes in to work we accept them for a while and give them our grunge work. Once some Americans need the work, though we fell we need to help them and therefore get rid of the foreigners, in this case the Mexicans, we often treat the helpless Americans no better than we treated the Americans. One of the interesting things I found in the D & L reading was that there was not this great migration that the Grapes of Wrath led you to believe there was. First of all the number of ex-farmers from the midwest that head out to California in the 1920's was almost equal to the number in the 1930's. However those in the 1920's had better luck setting up than those in the 30's since there was the depression going on. And often it seemed according to D & L these new emmigrants had it better than the Joads because they new where they were going and they already had family there present and established in California.

D&L also showed that the Okies and the other emmigrants were not the worst off, those who refused to leave were often in worse shape as were the Mexican workers who dpendeding on the income from their migrating labor. The character at the end of Grapes of Wrath, the man in the white suit, who was supposed to signify President Roosevelt was interesting. In D&L it said that the book came out before the end of the Great Depression and was to spread the message that the farmers needed help and the help needed to come from the federal government. The movie coming out a few years later could have been thanking the government for the help it gave to all the people.

All of these wonderful government plans and actions that were supposed to take place in the 1930's and help the Depression and be part of the New Deal, in the movie you really did not see those. The first deals the government put through to try and help agriculture, although they helped some big farmers really hurt the poor tenant farmers. The Agriculture Adjustment Act in 1933 gave the large farmers and owners of the land a chance to make a profit off their land and they took it although it forced many others farther into dispare. Although the government was trying to help the people get on their feet, the efforts really did not reach many of these farmers and they were large losers in the Great Depression. Why wasn't more done for them, or was it because they were such a small group that they were just overlooked.

I knew nothing about The Grapes of Wrath before watching the movie yesterday. I had no idea what to expect and wasn't completely diappointed with the film. By focusing on one family, Ford was able to get the audience to care about the characters. It makes it that much more possible to imagine yourself with no place to live, work, or have no food. This film tries to show how a man will go to extreme lengths to provide for his family and how a woman will do the same to keep her family intact. The movie might not have been the most accurate for the masses, but I'm sure this was a similar story for many families. In the encyclopedia, the movie was described as a search for human dignity. I think that sums up the movie quite well.

D and L show an image of the "okies" that is more relative to the masses. It does a good job of clearing many discrepancies someone that only watched the movie might have about the time. As many have mentioned, the Joad's were not actually from the dust bowl region. They were part of the group known as displaced agricultural labor. These were people who had their farms taken away by banks or landowners. D and L also provide accurate ages, avg. family size, and tell how most workers were more educated than the Joads. While the journey was hard for some, others could get to California in 3 or 4 days in a good car. Another reason people made the journey was because the relief fund in California was much higher than in the Southwest. People figured that even if they did not find work, they would be fine. One thing that struck me was the cultural predjudice. The "okies" were viewed just like foreigners. Thier own people were treating them terribly. Steinbeck viewed the "okies" as victims, but I can see why the Californians mistreated them. They were trying to protect jobs for themselves. It was almost like they were being invaded and they were defending their land. I enjoyed the contrast between the movie and the thoughts of D and L.

Like many others have posted, I believe the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 hurt people more than it helped them. This was the very reason many people were forced off their land. Money makes people lose regard for others. This fact is shown when the guy runs the tractor over Muley's house in the movie. He comments on how he has to take care of his family first. In T,S,P they commented on how bankers, factory workers, and professionals suffered during these times. With all the focus mainly on farmers, it's easy to forget about the struggles of these people too. Like Megan, I agree with the fact that Mexicans, Japanese, and Filipinos were successful because they worked together as a qausi-family unit was interesting to read about. The one thing that startled me was that Mexicans, born in America were deported because the government did not want to provide them relief. We actually deported citizens! I feel that was truly a crime and hope nothing like that happens again.

As for the “New Deal”, it was neither new nor a deal (yeah, yeah, I know, but I couldn’t resist, sorry). How much did this policy actually help the common people? Not much, if at all, like most policies that are supposedly geared toward stimulating economics (*hint, hint for current politicking), improving the standard of living-basically policies that fail to accomplish their objectives. Again, my apologies.

The Grapes of Wrath stunningly portrays the hardships, thoughts and emotions of those misplaced by technology and the Great Depression. I’m usually not one to cry during a movie, I dislike romance films primarily for that reason, however this film definitely appealed to even my emotional side. Like many incidents in history, its difficult to actual imagine that such things actually happened. The demolition of Uley’s (I’ve never heard of such a name, so I haven’t the slightest clue as to how it is spelled, sorry) home was incredible. As the film stated, everyone simply tried to protect themselves and their families, no longer were people concerned with the welfare of their fellow neighbor. I’m certain that having a friend of the family treat the family with such nonchalance after years of friendship is disconcerting and causes one to question the actions of those not considered as friends. The closeness of the families in Oklahoma makes me question why every family thought that they were the only family solicited for work. I suppose this comment is simply another one based upon retrospect, but when the Joads encountered the man returning from California they refused to accept his account of California. They, at the risk of sounding harsh…seemed rather naïve to everyone who told them of the mythical work in California. I suppose the pressure to leave their homes overwhelmed them so greatly that no one considered the competition that they faced, nor considered that California may not have jobs available.

The engineers of such a scheme should have been included in the film, for it is easier to despise them when we only see the impact of their actions on the poor farmers. Not only were their obvious economic repercussions, but social and mental blowbacks as well. The familial roles changed during the journey to California. Grandpa Joad, formerly the head of the family died, but even before his death he was replaced by his grandson Tom. Their disillusioned image of California was dreadfully pathetic. I noticed how the word “promise land”, the land of “milk and honey”, and how Grandpa used such imagery to describe the grapes that he would eat, and bathe in once they arrived. After the hardships of burying to family members and one deserter the family endured further, but only to encounter further hardship once they reached California. The individuals they encountered treated them with such disdain as if they were carriers of some type of plague. While the cashier in the diner/truck-stop changed during her brief scene during the film. The initial stares and condescending looks on behalf of the gas attendants and the police officers were certainly not necessary and ironically provincial. The Joads, specifically Grandpa Joad maintained his sense of dignity and paid $0.10 that he did not have for a loaf of bread for his wife and buying candy for the children. In this instance, he continues to act as the provider.

Once the Joads reached the Dept. of Agriculture ranch, I felt relieved, for I knew they would find some peace there. Aside from Tom getting in trouble at the previous harsh peach picking ranch it seemed that their situation improved. So-called deputies continued to harass the workers as well as the locals who prohibited the Joads from entering their town. This story is an original catch-22, but in the end, it seems that there is hope for not only the Joads, but also the families like the Joads. Tom’s monologue provides a glimmer of hope for the audience. The glimmer diminishes after beginning our readings. I figured that Davidson and Lytle would debunk the portrayal of the Great Depression as described in the movie.

According to Davidson and Lytle, the so-called “Okies” were not the only people in search of work in California; minorities/non-US citizens were present as well. While I’m sure that the “Grapes of Wrath” wouldn’t have the same impact if it included a portrayal of every disenfranchised group, a Polaroid would have been nice. The numbers displayed by Steinbeck, and those presented in the book are drastically different. Evidently, the Joads were a special case, for most people ventured west had family already there and apparently the journey was not has strenuous and certainly not as long as the movie implies. Unfortunately, both the book and the film are considered authorities on the Great Depression and while admittedly a thought provoking, emotionally charged film, should not be the basis of historical events for society.

Edited by author 02-07-2003 11:42 PM
After watching the movie "The Grapes of Wrath" and reading Chapter 11 "The Dust Bowl Odessey" I realized that there were many differences between the movie and the book we read. Both the book and the movie were informative. They opened up a new side that isn't necessarily talked about in a class.

In 1934 when the dust storms arrived during the time of the Great Depression, these storms were known to crush the dreams of many people who sought "the land of opportunity." The soil eroded, the crops died, and the weather was a failure. All of these things forced families to borrow from the bank making them resort to sharecropping. The movie and the book told the story of the Joad's, just one of the many families, who had experienced these trials. There was now only one place to go. Good Ole' California!! California gained more than a million people in the 1930's which will all migrate from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas and Missouri.

After the Fact explains that not everything that was discussed in the movie was true, and not everything was discussed either. The statistics support the hypothesis but there were other factors that helped drive people from the Southwestern Plains. In 1933 Franklin Roosevelt knew that the agricultural crisis had to be put at the top of his agenda. The Californians treated them badly, mobs attacked them, labor agents cheated them, and a good source of income was almost impossible to find. The government knew that the state was taking advantage of the families from the plains so they set up organizations such as The Farms Security Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. In this time of depression this hatred for foreigners was developing everywhere which could be understood. Many locals who were already living in these places did not want foreigners to come into their towns and take their jobs. Foreigners would have excepted the low pay, and storeowners would have been more than willing to pay them a cheaper income as we saw in the movie. Families were doing everything and anything to make money. This was a struggle for survival and the opportunity for many males to crawl back to the top of their households.

In T, S, and P it talks about Roosevelt's many reforms that were suppose to help with the economy during the 1930's. Roosevelt's Second New Deal along with other controversial acts were passed. The National Labor Relations Act and The Social Security Act were the most significant of the New Deal. Roosevelt makes a statement saying that he doesn't love socialism but in order to save his capitalistic system he must make a more equal "distribution of wealth." If Roosevelt's statement was to apply to these families of the Southwestern Plains Do you think we would have had this problem of families fighting for jobs?

I've never seen the Grapes of Wrath before, but I thought it was a great movie. I loved the resilency that was demonstrated in each of the characters. Even with all of the terrible problems that befell them, they kept moving and kept searching for a way to survive. I liked the character of the mother and the disillisioned Tom Joad most. Each of them portrayed different aspects of personality required to make it through such harsh times.

Ma Joad struggled to keep the family together. Even when her mother died, she lied to the authorities and refused to break down. The solidarity and success of the family unit were utterly more important than anything else -- even the lives of individual members, such as Grandpa and Grandama Joad. Each of these characters portrayed the inability to cope and grasp the times. Because of their inability to cope, one had a stroke and the other died of a broken heart. The old America could not handle the times -- it took the efforts of the following generations to hold together and rise above the trials. Ma Joad demonstrated this necessity to adapt. The family model was changing -- the deadbeat husband ran off because he couldn't handle the stress of a pregnant wife and lack of funds. Yet, she was not rejected -- instead she was held to the family even more dilligently by Ma in particular. In only a few decades later, the same situation would have brought about the rejection of the wife as some sort of dysfunctional side effect of her own inefficiencies as a wife. Ma Joad also put the family above helping the hungry children. She basically forced them to eat even when their conscious made them feel guilty for depriving those children; but their welfare and survival were paramount. She also demonstrated the need for unity with her final line "We're the people".

Tom Joad -- a great incarnation of the times and a wonderful literary character. Tom, in particular, demonstrated the disillusioned generation that sought answers to the question of why. Tom lacked a solid education and could not effectively understand the predjudices encountered. He seemed confused when they entered Arizona and were questioned by police (Did this really happen for interstate travel?). He also couldn't understand the way that they were treated at the Keene Farm. He sought only honest work -- and yet was stomped on time after time by those in power. When he eventually was presented with a comforting, kindly response from the blatent FDR character (Yay FDR!), he and the family greeted him with distrust. In the end, he had to run -- continually he stayed on the move seeking a way to survive -- ever determined not to be beaten. I think that America was built more by people like this than anything that Jefferson or the founding fathers could have done. We, as a people, began as a nation of survivalist -- by those seeking something better. I loved his final speech -- particular because I recognized the lyrics of the song "The Ghost of Tom Joad", which I've heard many time (even have it on a Rage Against the Machine CD), but I never truly understood its background. He stated just that -- that he would be the people -- no matter where you looked, he would be there. In the scene of a "cop beating a guy" or where a "hungry newborn baby cries". He embodied their semi-rebellious spirit. He would not be beaten. His continued resilience and determination -- like many of his fellow people, both men and women -- were what got the United States through the Great Depression. As much as I like FDR and his innovation in challenging the existing economic theories of the time, in the end it was the Tom Joads of this country that brought us through those times.

This was truly an interesting portion of the course. It's the first thing that I've seen that's so close historically. For instance, we have a family friend that we've known for years that survived the Great Depression right here in Greer, SC. I've heard her talk about it, and it's some impressive stuff -- yet we got through it. It's the kind of situation that gives me confidence that America will survive -- as long as we keep alive the philosophy of Tom Joad and those like him.

Edited by author 02-08-2003 02:15 PM
Deadline Extended

The term paper is now due Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. You must attend class on Tuesday and Wednesday or have a valid university excuse to recieve this extension.

Please submit a printed copy and e-mail me an electronic copy of the paper by that hour.

To me, the Watergate scandal has always been a mystery. I knew Nixon was a bad, bad man and that he lied and everything, but I never knew where a water gate fit into the story. Now I have seen the light; Davidson and Lytle's easy style breaks down even the most compliated of incidents in American history-- and I think that we call all agree that Richard "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon was a complicated man.

I like the angle from which they told the story, through the tecnhological development of cassette reacording as well as the development of Presidential corruption in the White House. Until just now, I had no idea that Nixon essentially sold himself up the river through the use of secret tapes that ultimately provided the incriminating evidence needed by the Supreme Court to convict him. Details concerning the shoddy recording technology and complicated transcribing process made the article seem that much more sarcastic and derisive, and the President's individual actions that much more ludicrous and paranoid. It's definitely one of our best yet.e.

Davidson and Lytle's Chapter 12 "The Decision to Drop the Bomb" along with the discussion in class helped me to realize that what is printed in a textbook isn't necessarily the right information. Many people who are in school depend on books to portray the right information. Authors don't necessarily lie but they may misquote things or take them out on context.

Harry Truman has always been known for the order of dropping the atomic bomb but I don't think I ever realized how many people actually effected his decision. Truman's order was passed from the Pentagon to the secretary of war along with a few military advisers. Truman did not make this decision by himself. In D and L it mentions that Truman's real reason for dropping the bomb was to intimidate the Soviet Union. Alperovitz goes on to say that Truman killed hundreds and thousands of Japanese people for reasons that didn't pertain to the war. Does anyone believe that Truman killed all of these people to scare the Soviet Union? and If you believe he did, was it the right choice? Did it work?

Today’s class discussion about the decision to drop the atomic bomb was extremely interesting to me…and it confirmed a recurring thought that I’ve had all term. I think that we, as a class, have an extremely difficult time putting ourselves into the mindsets of those making decisions in the past. I’m not saying that we could every fully understand the exact situation of the times, but the tendency is to apply today’s morals, knowledge, and attitudes to past situations, and I don’t think that is a valid way to evaluate history. I sincerely think that if we were Harry Truman in 1945, recently in office and at the helm of an administration about to make an extremely large decision, we likely would have made the same choice. He was elected to serve the American people and to represent their interests. America was a few years into a bloody war, with far too many already dead and an invasion planned that guaranteed many more American lives lost. Along came the news that a bomb could be eliminate the need for the invasion…and while they knew the weapon was going to be more destructive than bomb had ever been, they didn’t know exactly how devastating it would be. So the decision was made to drop the bomb, and many, many Japanese lost their lives…and many Americans kept theirs. People today look at that decision and think it unfair and wrong to willingly sacrifice the lives of so many foreigners in order to save Americans…and yet in a poll taken on August 8, 1945, 85% of Americans agreed with the bombing of Hiroshima and supported further bombings. So a question: in the case of a war, doesn’t there have to be some degree of ethnocentrism involved in decision-making? Is it really possible to serve the interests of the entire world and still “win” a war?

Also, a side note on the actual bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki…Truman and his administration were not random or heartless in choosing the targets. Truman insisted that the bombs be used in accordance with the rules of war—in other words, he insisted that they be dropped on military targets with important war production centers. Their first choice of a target, Kyoto, was eliminated because it was a cultural and religious shrine of the Japanese. Hiroshima then won out as the most important military city. The other three choices ultimately were determined by weather conditions on the desired day of the bombing.

This entry was not an attempt to say that I think that the bombings were completely justified or morally correct. However, after having spent hours upon hours pouring over books and articles about this decision and trying to understand the conditions in 1945, I’ve found that I can not say that Truman made the wrong decision. You all have to decide for yourselves what you believe about this decision in American history…but my challenge to you is to critically evaluate history instead of applying today’s mindset to yesterday’s situation. Don’t be so sure that you would believe exactly the same thing then that you do now…

From Tindall, Shi, and Pearcy, I gather that the families of the 1950s had very much a fairytale sort of life. The women were “pretty and popular” and they were great at bearing a good number of children. They were completely involved in the social aspects of life. Their husbands had average jobs. They lived in suburban homes that were perfectly arranged. To me this seems so fake. I think the authors of our text also have this idea when they state that, in reference to the surge in religion, “People did not want their consciences overly burdened with a sense such as segregation or inner-city poverty.” It was very much a feel-good society.

I feel as though now in 2003 we have almost come full circle again. The women who do get to stay home with their children are a rarity and many often covet that position. Religion is still a way to build community. And I swear I live in a modern-day Levittown in the greater Dallas/Ft. Worth area toady. In the 50s we weren’t happy being labeled as moms and homemakers. We didn’t want the fairytale life anymore. In the 60s and 70s we were wild and free and rebelled against it all. Women wanted to work and have important places in the business world up through the 90s. Now we are back where we started. I think it’s just a matter of not being content. The grass is always greener on the other side, so we are always trying to get away from today’s stereotype.

I find it interesting that in history trends tend to repeat themselves. The teen rebellion against the parents listening to rock and roll music seem to happen in every age in the twentieth century. Today it is Rap, in the early part of the century it was Jazz. Rebelling against parents and using music as front to do that has been a common theme. Another trend that seems to be repeating itself is a cycle of women in the workplace. Although men no longer (normally) say that the woman's place is at home it seems to be a wanted thing. The women want to get out of the house and work, then once they are in the workfield they want to get back into the homelife and raise a family.

The exodus from the city was very profound in the 1950s. People wanted to get out and get out quick. Now developers, at least where I am from in Charlotte, are trying to rebuild up the city life and get people to move back there. They seem to be attempting undo work done in the past. Why does history seem to go in these patterns? And why are they never broken? Since they do not seem to be broken that much why does America get involved in so many things when there is not a real need?

OK, so I’m a little late on this one…sorry bout that! I heeded Dr. Benson’s advice and got caught up on the news this afternoon. The parallels between our class discussions and the world today amaze me. Almost every aspect we covered in class was addressed specifically on the news broadcast. First of all, the CIA has learned North Korea possesses a missile capable of reaching the western United States. There is also talk of the disillusionment of NATO. Turkey has request aid to defend its borders in the event of possible war with Iraq. France, Germany, and the United States are not in agreement over whether this request should be honored. Only 50 years after its creation, the stability of NATO is in question. Where is all this leading? Is there a possibility of another Cold War? While nothing is certain, I would have to agree we are on the verge of something monumental here. There are too many forces pulling in opposite directions for these conflicts to resolve themselves. History certainly has a way of repeating itself. I can’t help but wonder if this is one of those situations.