Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart.
ugg classic cardy

u6HQSJ Great work, webmaster, nice design!

A0F4id

9qtNk0

Final thoughts...

The History Engine provided insight into the fact that history is a largely interpretive process. Looking through primary and secondary sources and then framing an analysis around them gives historians a degree of authority I had not before realized. What is also difficult about this process is inevitable influence of the interpretations of others; reading their analysis can profoundly influence your own understanding of various texts.

It was interesting to examine snapshot events that go largely undiscussed in the broad sense of history. Textbooks still have their value by providing a framework into which we can assimilate our interpretations, but looking at specific instances in history which appear to have only a small realm of influence can further our understanding of an event by examining its local impact as opposed to only its national significance. The opportunities provided by the History Engine gave me a nuanced understanding of historical importance.

Backfill for 10/25

The comparison of Natchez, Mississippi and New Albany, Indiana elucidates the sectional and geographical differences in the young United States. The distribution of population emphasizes different approaches to a primarily agricultural economy; though both towns relied on farming, there is a great contrast in the dispersal of people over the land. Similarly, the absence of a railroad route through either town had a profound impact on the degree of industrialization. This further highlights the fact that the railroad drastically altered the economies of the geographic regions it touched. Railroads caused a shift in focus in the towns through which it ran, and the absence of this industrialization in Natchez and New ALbany sheds light on the fact that agrarianism was perpetuated in the absence of this mode of transportation.

backfill

T believe it is interesting at the end of the term look back on readings from the middle or beginning of the term. This allows us to understand the growing process of learning throughout the term. in the instance of week 4 when we studied the Sumner caning. The focus during this session was that the South was on the brink of secession and the Civil War was right around the corner. Now after the term is over we know that there was a long period of time of about 4 or 5 years that passed before any shots were fired. These larger than life events tend to overshadow the less glamorous events in history. They also tend to be bunched up even skipping years with little or no "significance."

backfill

with the assigned reading on the statue of liberty combined with my opt-ed research on the statue i was able to learn the intended meaning o the statue. The statue was meant to symbolize Franco-American friendships that were created during the Revolutionary War. I find it interesting and slightly ironic that the meaning of the Statue has grown to become an international symbol of American freedom and democracy. The Statue also grew to be a sign of hope and identification of America for immigrants entering our country. The true agenda by France in the generous gift to America was in essence a cheap way for the newly established 3rd republic in France to strengthen diplomatic ties.

Edited by author 12-12-2007 06:09 AM
Final thoughts

my final thoughts on the course was that it could be exhausting at times. But the experiences that i gained with the new study techniques helped me to think in ways i i hadn't thought of before. The history engine project has made me think differently about my major which i didn't think was possible at this point in my education. I am very pleased with the history engine project and i think it should be incorporated in future years. As much fun as the southern history database was i think it might be too much of a load to have two major projects and a regular curriculum along with it. But i have a heavy schedule so it just might be me complaining for no reason. Overall one of the top 3 classes i have taken at Furman.

Final thoughts- just a few comments on the limitations of the History Engine as it was employed in the case of our final exam essay question.

One of our exam essay questions involved using a series of History Engine episodes from select dates as a core body of evidence for assessing the entire history of America in the 19th century. While reading the dozens of episodes for the selected months and years, I was struck by how almost every episode seemed to relate to either slavery, the threat of secession, or the Civil War. I think I would be underestimating if I said that 50% of the episodes could easily be categorized in one of those three topics. This seems astonishing: we were given almost unlimited freedom in the types of primary sources that could be used, but still, the episodes ended up being almost entirely about just a few select topics.

This raises the issue of a self-selection bias in the project: did students write their episodes about slavery, secession, and the Civil War because those are generally the only things that happened in the 19th century, or did students write their episodes about those topics because they had been taught that those were what happened in the 19th century? Suppose a student searches through the Furman archives for an "interesting" primary source to write an episode on. Which will seem more "interesting" and "relevant" to the student, an episode about topics he has been taught are important (slavery, secession, Civil War), or an episode about something unrelated and obscure?

An experiment could probably be done to try and avoid this bias: take a group of students and assign a huge body of primary resources from an obscure time period limited to a small geographic region. Providing virtually no historical context or secondary instruction, have them write episodes based on the primary sources, giving complete freedom in the area of episode selection. Ultimately, you could compare what types of episodes were written by students with what historians have traditionally done for that particular time period and geographic area. Though probably impossible to implement in an actual course, the results could be interesting.

Backfill post- Dun and Bradstreet company history as an episode

Having written so many episodes, it's now a bit easier to analyze this...

The writing style of the company history fits well with the way an episode might be written. It is very concise, direct, and informative-- it gives the who's and the what's and the why's of company growth and innovation. However, while the writing style works as an episode, the subject matter does not. Rather than focus on one "episode", the company history describes a series of events in chronological order. In effect, it is a "history" composed of a series of episodes (the company merger, the company's creation, rivalry between the Bradstreet Company and the Mercantile Agency) that might be found in something like the Summers book. Also lacking is an event described from the perspective of a primary source.

Of course, if the Dun and Bradstreet company history were submitted to the History Engine, questions would also be raised about the account's objectivity. The history is a series of endless praise for the founders and operators of the company, the company itself, and its business practices. Particularly interesting is the company's spinning of recent history: "D&B has undergone a period of restructuring in recent years, designed to make D&B a smaller, more tightly focused company. A.C. Nielsen, Cognizant, Reuben H. Donnelley and Moody's Corporation were all spun off to allow each company to pursue focused strategies for its specific business." This sounds more like a corporate spin-doctor's way of saying "we overexpanded, hit some hard times, and had to cut back on employees and operations", than an accurate description of what has happened to the company.

I think it's safe to say that corporate histories should be kept out of the History Engine.

Edited by author 12-11-2007 06:18 PM
Backfill post- Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Gettysburg Address, Chickamauga monument.

It was surprising to see from these documents how willingly Lincoln, and the rest of the Union along with him, adopted slavery as the reason for fighting the Civil War. You always hear people who say "the war wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights" or "the war wasn't about slavery, it was about saving the Union." Even Lincoln is often quoted as saying something to the effect of "if I could save the Union by saving no slaves, I would do it." However, these documents (or in the case of the Chickamauga monument, the plaque) are removed from the earlier part of the war and openly embrace freeing the slaves as a major reason to justify the fighting.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural clearly states: "All knew that this interest [slavery] was somehow the cause of the war."

The Gettysburg Address opens with the notion that "all men are created equal" and closes by talking about "a new birth of freedom."

The Chickamauga monument calls the Civil War "the conflict which made all men free."

I had always read that freeing the slaves was not a popular war goal in the early days of the war, and that some Union soldiers even deserted when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation because freeing the slaves was not what they were fighting for. However, it seems as if by the end of the war, fighting to free the slaves had become an even more powerful justification for fighting than "saving the Union." While it is obvious that Lincoln himself agreed with this, I wonder how much of the rest of the public went along with Lincoln, and how long it took them to do so. Clearly, by the time the Chickamauga monument was constructed, public opinion rested with Lincoln's interpretation.

Backfill-My final thoughts on this course

This was my last for my history major, other than my seminar. Thus I find it quite fitting that it was the most challenging. Coming into this class I didn't know what to expect,so when I began to be bombarded with SHDB, History Engine, and other topics, I became very overwhelmed. But I believe that this sense of uneasiness helped me to over become and better student and understand the concepts that the course was desinged to teach. This course was very different becasue the facts seemed to be a secondary concern, while patterns, ideas, and theories took a front seat. This was new to me becasue I was used to learning being taught the events and the narrataive that connected them, this class separated this fixed structure allowing the students to questions links, causation, and the overall narrative of "history." While this was challening to overcome at first, this new framework has helped me better understand the implications of history, while reinforcing some popular narratives and debunking others. This class helped me gain new insights and an appreciation for the "episodes" of history that often get overlooked in favor of narrative flair. It seems that a real historian should look at the facts objectively and then try to find these connections, not have preconcieved notions about how they fit together. The episodic nature of this course has helped me to think this way.

Backfill (10/25)

I think it is interesting that we are studying Natchez and New Albany. While looking at their websites, it appears that the object of both of them is to attract tourism to a historic location. Since the goal is monetary, the objectiveness of these "episodes" could be called into question, since there is an agenda in the writing and posting of the information. But it does appear that these areas are indicative of their "region," i.e. North and South. The Natchez website talks about it location and history, especially the "oppulent life style" of its former citizens. This was key element of many Southern planters, but this life style contrasts the life of hard work and discrimination that characterized the slaves. This life style isn't dwelled on as much. While in New Albany, the site talks about the industrial innovations of the town and how it was a center of technology and commerce, it mentions the famous and wealthy people of the town, but neglects workers that built the city. Both of these sites are interesting, but it is important to view them in the context of trying to bring tourism, thus they down play some of the "bad" or "nasty" sections of their history.

Mark Wahlgren Summers, "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884" (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000), pp. 211-222.

        My backfill post: Since it is exam day, and I’m not sure what I am allowed to write, and not write- I’m going to talk about the section of the Irish American vote…I think this will be allowed, and this section really intrigued me, beginning with the title, “Ireland sold for Gold!” In the first paragraph, Summers quoted Patrick Ford’s magazine that “the Irish vote is fixed and unchangeable.” Most Irish American men voted Democratic, if they even voted, but in 1884, the Republicans were making an effort to swing this “fixed” vote. In general, because of their mixed qualities and identities, this voting sector tended to stay away from the major parties in general.
 We spoke about nationalism in class; nationalistic symbols such as the Statue of Freedom, the Pledge of allegiance, and other symbols that could be seen as national coercion. Ueland, the Norwegian immigrant, wrote about the struggle of assimilation, the pain and humiliation of leaving his country, and his desire to still find a “dual sense of nationalism” in America. In most cases, we talked about how the nationalism for an immigrants homeland was suppressed by the United States as they were gradually assimilated and taught to pledge to “our flag,” not the flag of their native country.
 Interestingly enough though, Blaine and the Republican party capitalized on Ireland’s struggles with famine and crop failure in order to gain the Irish American vote. Instead of suppressing this connection with Irish Americans and their native country, the Republican Party encouraged their connection, hoping to encourage these patriotic sentiments of Irish pride to win over this “unchangeable” vote. While ultimately, this movement did not flourish into anything much because the Republican party simply did not have the means and did not make the sacrifices, but it did become obvious how “awkwardly Republicans first Irish Americans into the ranks.” The Irish Americans could not support reforms or create a unified vote. Instead, Blaine and the Republicans could not win over this vote, even though through an “interesting twist,” they tried to win the vote through Irish pride, not American pride in 1884.

Edited by author 12-10-2007 10:22 PM
BACKFILL for 9/21

Sweet, I missed the first post. Way to RTFM Jordan. Anyway, this is gonna take me way back to Year of Eclipse. I was reading the posts about the book, and whether or not the title fit the book, and I found myself in agreement with Saxton that the watershed moments in the book weren't necessarily huge at the time, but in the long run the events of 1831 played a key role in America's growth as a country. Specifically a couple of things. The invention of the reaper was an enormous advancement in terms of agriculture. Obviously, the railroad was a huge innovation for travel and business, but the full effects weren't seen immediately. 1831 was what i would call a watershed for the future.

Q: In our take home exam, just making sure, we don't have to cite do we????

A: Not necessary, but using explicit names of episodes may lend texture and richness to your accounts. These references may be as terse as you choose.
References and/or footnotes (again, not required) will not count against the word limit.

In our take home exam, just making sure, we don't have to cite do we????

CHAT REVIEW SESSION, PART II.
Lloyd Benson[7:19:24 PM]: Okay -- our next issue is "competing imperatives in the 2d Party System."
Lloyd Benson[7:19:33 PM]: Love the lights!
Lloyd Benson[7:20:35 PM]: Each of the major issues in the 2PS, including banking, tariffs, land sales policy, and distribution of surplus revenues, had different implications for different geographic sections of the country and economic interests within these sections.
Lloyd Benson[7:20:44 PM]: With me so far?
Garrison Ries[7:20:53 PM]: yup
Matthew Barnes[7:20:58 PM]: yessir
Jillian Mangum[7:21:03 PM]: yes
Virginia Cain[7:21:05 PM]: yes
Julia Gatten[7:21:09 PM]: yes
Lloyd Benson[7:21:20 PM]: Many (though by no means all, or maybe even most) Southern political leaders, opposed tariffs, for example.
Lloyd Benson[7:21:26 PM]: But.
Lloyd Benson[7:22:19 PM]: Each of the policy choices impacted the others. High tariffs brought high surplusses into the treasury, surplusses that could then be redistributed to states under various "surplus distribution" proposals.
Lloyd Benson[7:22:57 PM]: High minimum prices for government land sales also brought money into the treasury, which meant either distribution,
Lloyd Benson[7:23:08 PM]: or, that you could LOWER tariff duties.
Julia Gatten[7:23:18 PM]: okay - this makes a lot of sense
Matthew Barnes[7:23:21 PM]: i get it now
Virginia Cain[7:23:31 PM]: :)
Jillian Mangum[7:23:31 PM]: especially regarding that summer book
Matthew Barnes[7:23:44 PM]: huh?
Matthew Barnes[7:23:56 PM]: oh yeah
Lloyd Benson[7:23:58 PM]: Lower tariffs and the South was happy but the Northeast was mad. Or you could keep land sales and tariffs high, and adopt distribution, which the poorer states, esp. in the midwest and midSouth, liked.
Jillian Mangum[7:24:03 PM]: referring to julia's comment
Lloyd Benson[7:24:54 PM]: So any policy choice was a mixed blessing, helping some and hurting others, and in all kinds of unintended ways.
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:25:25 PM]: This is why the Land Act of 1830 became a debate between Webster and Haine over nullification and tariffs.
Julia Gatten[7:25:46 PM]: So the NE did not like lower tariffs because they wanted the South to buy from them?
Lloyd Benson[7:26:00 PM]: And why all the Whigs abandoned Whig president but strict constructionist and anti-tariff/banks guy John Tyler.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:27:13 PM]: [Simplified version of NE tariff policy follows:] NE wanted high tariffs to shelter its industries from English competition while they were still in their infant stages of industrial development.
Julia Gatten[7:27:36 PM]: okay.
Lloyd Benson[7:27:49 PM]: Kinda like all Southern senators regardless of party used to like high textile tariffs, to protect S.C. and NC. and GA mills.
Trey Massar[7:28:22 PM]: so its all about the money then? Even over 100yrs ago?
Matthew Barnes[7:28:59 PM]: but i thought you just said that southerners wanted low tariffs
Lloyd Benson[7:29:29 PM]: For someone like a Calhoun all of this represents something of a dilemma. Cut tariffs and you cut distribution and raise land prices, antagonizing the farmers of the Old Northwest and the Southwestern frontier of Mississippi, Ark, Tex. Raise tariffs and the S.C. nullifiers knee-cap you.
Lloyd Benson[7:30:11 PM]: Sorry, I've confused you. I meant to say that 20th century Southern senators liked tariffs. Think Fritz Hollings (D) and Strom Thurmond (R)
Virginia Cain[7:31:01 PM]: so the issue cut across class parties
Matthew Barnes[7:31:03 PM]: so 19th century southern senators would want to lower tariffs (tariff of abomination?)?
Lloyd Benson[7:31:04 PM]: Sorry about that. The majority of Southerners and the majority of Democrats in the 19th century opposed protective tariffs (See Summers for Gilded Age examples and exceptions)
Virginia Cain[7:31:17 PM]: ohmyword
Virginia Cain[7:31:22 PM]: that made no sense'
Virginia Cain[7:31:42 PM]: okay: so the issue cut across parties, and was decided based on geography?
Lloyd Benson[7:31:55 PM]: It will be better for you to think of Democrats GENERALLY opposing protective tariffs, and Whigs and Republicans GENERALLY favoring protective tariffs.
Jillian Mangum[7:32:17 PM]: and not in a sectional context?
Lloyd Benson[7:32:19 PM]: It was actually more of a party issue than a sectional issue.
Virginia Cain[7:32:22 PM]: summers just confuses me more, to be completely honest
Jillian Mangum[7:32:23 PM]: aha!
Virginia Cain[7:32:33 PM]: oh dear.
Virginia Cain[7:32:36 PM]: okay
Jillian Mangum[7:32:43 PM]: 4 hour rule :)
Lloyd Benson[7:33:14 PM]: But since the Democrats dominated the south throughout the 19th century, you can get away with saying that Southerners GENERALLY opposed tariffs, as did Democrats both north and south.
Jillian Mangum has left the chat.
Virginia Cain[7:34:48 PM]: mmmm . . . that makes much more sense now
Lloyd Benson[7:35:47 PM]: The beauty of SUmmers is also the challenge. He is not reductionist. The story of the book is how each party faction faced competing imperatives. Start with figuring out who the key players are (echo, echo, echo) and to what factions they belong. Then see how each of these people/factions identifies the choices available to them. These are usually choices that point in opposite directions. That is precisely the point of the book, BTW.
Julia Gatten[7:36:17 PM]: But didn't the North want to protect their industry? I guess the owners of the industries would be whigs? So it became whigs for protective tariffs and not the North?
Lloyd Benson[7:36:54 PM]: So, for example, the Democrats have to decide what to do about prohibition, and the Republicans have to decide what to do about the immigration issue.
Lloyd Benson[7:38:16 PM]: Correct. Whigs for protective tariffs. Exactly! But since there were more Whigs in the north (b/c more industry, more market economy, and ABOVE ALL, more middle class towns with evangelical women's prayer groups, [to follow the Sellers/Ryan argument]) there were more Whigs in the North.
Virginia Cain[7:39:05 PM]: who was ryan? i know sellers
Matthew Barnes[7:39:14 PM]: ryan? there's a ryan?
Lloyd Benson[7:39:16 PM]: Summer's story is the story of how each group struggled to find its way through these competing choices, and struggled to decide who to become allied with.
Lloyd Benson[7:40:46 PM]: Mary P. Ryan, "A Woman's Awakening," summarized by someone masquerading as Virginia Cain :-) on the DB, message #261. [I claim the 4 hour rule for both me and U]
Virginia Cain[7:41:23 PM]: well crap. sorry. oops!!!
Trey Massar[7:41:33 PM]: Just real quick I notice that there is a 750 word max but can you be around 650 and be alright?
Lloyd Benson[7:41:56 PM]: Ryan's evangelical ladies are Sellers's companionate marriage evangelical Whig women, all of whom lived along the Erie canal and in other market/commercial small towns.
Trey Massar[7:42:02 PM]: (Obviously if you have made your point and supported your argument)
Lloyd Benson[7:42:48 PM]: 650 okay, though with 80 episodes to pick from there may be other opportunities and themes worth highlighting.
Lloyd Benson[7:44:49 PM]: As Trey says, (wisely) if you make your argument compellingly and completely in fewer than the assigned number of words, then you will be evaluated positively. Think of 750 as a dart board -- get as close as you can to the middle, and try to avoid hitting the wall or the floor.
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:45:40 PM]: And think hard about how the patterns of the episodes match up with the general patterns and themes of the course. That should give you some valuable structure to work with.
Lloyd Benson[7:46:22 PM]: Then contemplate the exceptions and outliers, and "strange/true/facts" episodes for their meaning.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Garrison Ries has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:47:00 PM]: Are there other really pressing details from your notes, etc., that require clarification?
Matthew Barnes[7:47:11 PM]: so this exam is going to be easy, right?
Matthew Barnes[7:47:14 PM]: hahahaha
Trey Massar[7:47:17 PM]: hahahaha
Virginia Cain[7:47:20 PM]: YESSSSSSSSSS
Trey Massar[7:47:23 PM]: thats a joke right?
Lloyd Benson[7:47:28 PM]: There will be some kiddie pool questions, no doubt.
Matthew Barnes[7:47:50 PM]: like "what were three reasons Jackson opposed the bank?"
Lloyd Benson[7:48:13 PM]: And some others of more subtle and sophisticated ilk (or so I am hoping)
Lloyd Benson[7:48:57 PM]: There might be some of that. Note that the questions will be weighted more than half to material since the most recent preliminary exam.
Matthew Barnes[7:49:41 PM]: so how long is the in class portion supposed to take? normal test length?
Lloyd Benson[7:50:05 PM]: How about [T/F] "A key agent in stabilizing the nation's financial system after 1862 was James Montgomery Burns."
Lloyd Benson[7:50:56 PM]: Fifty questions plus a one paragraph essay. Which means [four hour rule quip follows] that some of you will be writing until noon.
Lloyd Benson[7:51:40 PM]: I hope, seriously, that most people will finish in an hour or an hour and a half, though there will be no formal time limit.
Lloyd Benson[7:52:06 PM]: There will be a six/seven sentence limit on the paragraph essay.
Matthew Barnes[7:52:07 PM]: just so we can prepare our minds, what kind of question will the essay involve?
Lloyd Benson[7:53:01 PM]: To quote verbatim: "Explain the meaning of human existence from the dawn of time to the present, using both philosophical and biochemical insights in your response."
Lloyd Benson[7:53:15 PM]: So all formulas and reactions.
Virginia Cain[7:53:18 PM]: are there year questions
Trey Massar[7:53:35 PM]: Should i laugh or cry at that question?
Matthew Barnes[7:53:41 PM]: i hope laugh
Virginia Cain[7:53:47 PM]: God. that's my final answer
Lloyd Benson[7:53:49 PM]: Yes, a few year questions. Not that many. Nothing you won't recognize from the Ayers or SHDB timelines.
Matthew Barnes[7:53:51 PM]: remember? four hour rule
Lloyd Benson[7:54:05 PM]: ITS A JOKE, FELLOW FOUR HOUR RULERS.
Lloyd Benson[7:54:11 PM]: ;-)
Matthew Barnes[7:54:15 PM]: i get it!!
Julia Gatten[7:54:35 PM]: I slept for 5 and I am still confused...
Lloyd Benson[7:54:42 PM]: The question will be open-ended, interpretive, perhaps related to articles or books.

[Editorial note: Discussion and comments followed on episodes from other schools.]


Lloyd Benson[7:55:30 PM]: Landmark decision-points and key turning points exclusively.
Matthew Barnes[7:56:28 PM]: i need to start on the essays, so i'll see you tomorrow
Matthew Barnes[7:56:37 PM]: good luck, everybody!!!!
Trey Massar[7:56:55 PM]: Yeah i need to go put a pot of coffee on and trick my roommate into thinking its morning
Lloyd Benson[7:57:06 PM]: Any last questions, then?
Matthew Barnes[7:57:22 PM]: can you take my exam for me?
Julia Gatten[7:57:23 PM]: I don't think so
Julia Gatten[7:57:31 PM]: I second that
Trey Massar[7:57:37 PM]: Thanks Dr. Benson
Lloyd Benson[7:57:53 PM]: I concur with Trey about the efforts you all have devoted to the class. If last year's pioneers are any indication, you will leave this class really well prepared to do research in other classes and in life.
Julia Gatten[7:58:23 PM]: sweet
Matthew Barnes has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:58:58 PM]: Just remember tha nobody will ask you what you got on this test after April of this year. Never. And [4HR] that C's in history are no barrier to world leadership.
Julia Gatten[7:59:29 PM]: on that note, i'll see you tomorrow......
Julia Gatten has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:59:37 PM]: Get some sleep, everyone.
Virginia Cain[7:59:44 PM]: yeahhhhhhh . . . no
Virginia Cain[7:59:50 PM]: peace out :]
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:00:14 PM]: Good luck Trey!
Lloyd Benson[8:00:23 PM]: Over and out!

Study log Second Study Session.

Lloyd Benson has joined the chat.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:32:07 PM]: Hi Virginia! First in!
Virginia Cain[6:32:13 PM]: Hello!
Virginia Cain[6:32:36 PM]: Would you briefly explain Thomas Cole's stages of development?
Lloyd Benson[6:32:37 PM]: How are you?
Virginia Cain[6:32:49 PM]: Good! yourself?
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Matthew Barnes has joined the chat.
Trey Massar has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:35:13 PM]: (Sounds like a psychological theory!) Look in the book 1831 for further discussion of Cole's stages. Essentially, the stages are a cycle that goes from (1) barbarism, to (2) agrarian/arcadian virtue, to (3) empire, to (4) decline into primitivism, and (5) back to barbarism.
Lloyd Benson[6:35:16 PM]: Hi Guys
Trey Massar[6:35:19 PM]: Some people might not be able to join this discussion. I know North VIllage is having some internet issues
Julia Gatten has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:35:48 PM]: Yes, I think Virginia just got bounced off. Cross fingers.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:36:03 PM]: Welcome back Virginia
Virginia Cain[6:36:17 PM]: yes i did. sorry. i'm in the library and the service is spotty at best
Lloyd Benson[6:36:40 PM]: Strange how dependent we have become on these little electrons
Lloyd Benson[6:36:58 PM]: An artifact of the 19th century, I'll note.
Virginia Cain[6:37:00 PM]: so is south housing i think. i talked to john briefly
Matthew Barnes[6:37:07 PM]: we could've had it here on campus... :)
Garrison Ries has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:37:32 PM]: Hi Garrison, Hi Jillian!
Trey Massar[6:37:38 PM]: Murphys Law. When you need the internet for finals.... it will shut down
Garrison Ries[6:37:39 PM]: hey Dr. Benson!
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Matthew Barnes[6:37:57 PM]: no kidding!
Lloyd Benson[6:38:23 PM]: This is precisely how everyone felt when the newly laid first ever Atlantic cable was severed in the mid-19th century
Garrison Ries[6:38:28 PM]: Don't know about the rest of NV, but E's certainly working
Garrison Ries[6:38:43 PM]: nice to apply another history episode to today's life
Matthew Barnes[6:39:07 PM]: how specific do we need to get on our studying for history engine episodes for the actual exam?
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Virginia Cain[6:39:47 PM]: yay ethernet cords
Lloyd Benson[6:39:56 PM]: Hold on, bringing back Virginia. (Also a 19th century thing to do :-)
Lloyd Benson[6:40:59 PM]: The HE episodes will not figure prominently on the exam, except to the degree that they overlap or confirm info in the text or lectures.
Jillian Mangum has joined the chat.
Garrison Ries[6:41:21 PM]: what about SHDB entries for the final?
Lloyd Benson[6:41:37 PM]: Hi Jillian!
Jillian Mangum[6:41:43 PM]: hello there
Trey Massar[6:41:43 PM]: Will specific authors/ writers like Elizabeth Varon and Rebecca Edwards be important or more the theories and subject matter they wrote about?
Matthew Barnes[6:41:52 PM]: good question trey
Lloyd Benson[6:42:37 PM]: Same rules apply. You may find it helpful to browse through the event list for review (one of its designated purposes, after all) and to think about the geography/category distribution and bias issues we discovered while using it, but not that many specifics.
Lloyd Benson[6:43:01 PM]: I would rather you really grapple more with the Summers book.
Virginia Cain[6:43:57 PM]: wait . . . i haven't opened up the take-home yet, but summers is not going to be on the class portion, right?
Lloyd Benson[6:44:06 PM]: Every theory should be paired with an author, and every author with a theory. I tried to keep these to an essential minimum, though you may judge that list's length differently from a study standpoint.
Matthew Barnes[6:44:10 PM]: to what extent? like, should we focus on the specific details within the book or the general themes?
Matthew Barnes[6:44:48 PM]: for the summers book, that is
Jillian Mangum[6:44:57 PM]: this question may already have been answered, but will dates be as emphasized on this exam as in tests past?
Lloyd Benson[6:45:20 PM]: There will be some Summers questions, I predict, largely focused on the study hint stuff I mentioned a few days before the book was due.
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Matthew Barnes[6:46:45 PM]: is that referring to the question of "how well did democracy work?" and such?
Julia Gatten[6:47:31 PM]: and the democratic index with participation/turnout, etc.
Garrison Ries[6:47:46 PM]: Anything we should look at from summers in particular?
Lloyd Benson[6:47:52 PM]: [Generally good advice for all history books, and a rehash of the "things to look for" comments earlier in the term] You will want to know all the major players (recall our indexing point here), their political affiliations (including party faction, not just party, if you really want to be impressive, and since that's a key question of the book), and should be able to identify what Summers thinks the key factors in the Democrat's triumph were.
Lloyd Benson[6:49:05 PM]: [Apologies in advance for any latent or unintended sarcasm -- the four hour rule is in effect and e-mail is not good for emotional status, grins, or facial expressions.]
Lloyd Benson[6:50:23 PM]: It is well to ponder the "how well did democracy work" question. I probably won't ask you any "Freedom House" related questions, per se, but you may find the categories and tests of the freedom house classification a useful tool for itemizing and systematizing your review of the book.
Lloyd Benson[6:50:54 PM]: And knowing something about the Freedom House classifications is an important thing for a well-educated citizen to know more generally.
Lloyd Benson[6:51:43 PM]: I promise not to ask "three of the most important categories from the F.H. list were....," however.
Matthew Barnes[6:51:53 PM]: thank you
Jillian Mangum[6:52:03 PM]: ditto
Matthew Barnes[6:52:14 PM]: i have a question: do you take any bribes? :)
Jillian Mangum[6:52:35 PM]: i'll second that one too :)
Garrison Ries[6:52:59 PM]: I'll pay cash...
Garrison Ries[6:53:05 PM]: ; )
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:53:24 PM]: Does all that make sense? You may also find it helpful to take the questions we applied to the Masur and Ash books and throw them against Summers, and vice versa. Could help on many parts of the test, and in your reading of books, generally, well after this class.
Lloyd Benson[6:54:29 PM]: No bribes, but dig deep, smile, and jump on into the water. It's not too cold, nor too deep.
Lloyd Benson[6:54:57 PM]: You all have made me proud many times this term. I know you have really stretched and grown.
Virginia Cain[6:55:34 PM]: in my notes for the US in 1825, i have a line that reads Texas declared independence 5 or 6 years before . . . as in before 1825 . . . what does that mean?
Lloyd Benson[6:55:42 PM]: As I re-read your episodes and journals I'm very impressed with the seriousness, the imagination, and the commitment displayed.
Virginia Cain[6:55:49 PM]: and i could totally go for a kiddie pool, i always liked those
Lloyd Benson[6:56:15 PM]: There are several kiddie pool bunny slope questions, I promise.
Jillian Mangum[6:56:29 PM]: yay!
Matthew Barnes[6:56:34 PM]: whoo hoo!!!
Garrison Ries[6:56:56 PM]: (best Montgomery Burns voice) Excellent
Lloyd Benson[6:57:10 PM]: Hmmn. Could mean several things. Might be a discussion of Mexico's ending of slavery, which they did incompletely and through several means starting in 1824, 1829, and so on.
Julia Gatten[6:57:21 PM]: (I think more than one person here is one the four hour room)
Julia Gatten[6:57:30 PM]: (not room, rule)
Garrison Ries[6:57:33 PM]: guilty
Matthew Barnes[6:57:37 PM]: wow
Virginia Cain[6:57:48 PM]: awesome! me too!
Lloyd Benson[6:57:48 PM]: Garrison, you'll have to walk on tiptoes and rub your hands together -- extra credit for that ;-)
Garrison Ries[6:58:08 PM]: Thanks Dr. Benson
Matthew Barnes[6:58:29 PM]: see, Dr. B, you can portray emotions online! :)
Jillian Mangum[6:59:02 PM]: could you clarify the regulations on state banks that led to NY's rise to prominence in the financial sphere?
Lloyd Benson[6:59:40 PM]: Texas efforts at independence begin with conflicts between federalists and centralizers, with the Texans (of both American and Mexican descent) calling for federal autonomy, and then (in both cases, but in different ways and for different reasons) turning to independence. Very complex. Where's Emily when we need her for this Texas history stuff....
Virginia Cain[6:59:54 PM]: :D
Matthew Barnes[7:00:00 PM]: didn't it have to do with NY setting a precedence for state banks?
Lloyd Benson[7:00:48 PM]: Texas independence and NY banks? That's a fun "link these two events" challenge!!!
Jillian Mangum[7:01:01 PM]: please no!
Trey Massar[7:01:50 PM]: For the essay using the HE episodes, should we use just the furman student entries or all entries within the date range?
Virginia Cain[7:02:40 PM]: also . . . i have a flow chart around my notes for the development of the 2 party system. it shows land money going to tariffs to distribution surplus to internal improvements. can you explain that, especially land money to tariffs???
Lloyd Benson[7:03:21 PM]: [THIS WILL NOT BE TEST MATERIAL] Okay, the answer is the specie act of 1834, which, for the first time, excluded the Mexican gold peso as legal tender currency in the U.S. This (according to people who have studied this, which I have not, even slightly) this wiped out both the economies of Mexico and of China (!) setting the stage for destablized Santa Ana vs. everyone Mexican governments and the collapse of the Chinese economy that led to the Opium wars. Or so they say. Fascinating, if true, but not on the test. Makes you think, though.
Lloyd Benson[7:04:09 PM]: Good question about the HE. All entries within the date range, from any campus. (As of Noon, that was just us and UVa., but that may have changed by this afternoon.)
Matthew Barnes[7:04:16 PM]: wait...what? i think her question was about later on in the 19th century dealing with the relation between NY banks and state banks
Jillian Mangum[7:04:25 PM]: right
Matthew Barnes[7:04:42 PM]: really? all of them?
Virginia Cain[7:04:44 PM]: seriously abou the HE?
Virginia Cain[7:04:49 PM]: *about
Trey Massar[7:04:54 PM]: Ohhhh happy days!
Trey Massar[7:05:24 PM]: Really really important! Will there be coffee at the exam tomorrow?
Lloyd Benson[7:06:58 PM]: All episodes from 12/32, 5/56, 4/65, and 7/76. This is why you will notice some similarities between the study guide and essay question #1. Do read the instructions carefully, though -- Don't try to work all 80 episodes into your essay explicitly. Make good selections and choices. Does that make sense?
Matthew Barnes[7:07:19 PM]: study guide?
Julia Gatten[7:07:23 PM]: ?
Lloyd Benson[7:07:26 PM]: To be clear, not every single episode in the entire HE database.
Virginia Cain[7:07:27 PM]: ?
Lloyd Benson[7:08:20 PM]: Study guide = The e-mail I sent last week, along with passing mentions over the course of the term.
Lloyd Benson[7:08:35 PM]: Coffee is a great idea.
Lloyd Benson[7:08:44 PM]: Can do. Will bring the pot to the room.
Trey Massar[7:08:56 PM]: Either that or caffeine pills please
Lloyd Benson[7:08:57 PM]: Back to the banks. Can you give me the question again?
Matthew Barnes[7:09:28 PM]: Jillian Mangum[6:59:02 PM]: could you clarify the regulations on state banks that led to NY's rise to prominence in the financial sphere?
Jillian Mangum[7:09:28 PM]: my question was really regarding what regulations went into stabilizing state banks
Jillian Mangum[7:09:44 PM]: especially regarding the currency
Lloyd Benson[7:09:54 PM]: Use judgment, skim headers and first sentences, don't try to read every word and every footnote from scratch.
Lloyd Benson[7:11:02 PM]: Great question about banking regulation (though, alas, no duels, charging up hills with flags waving and guns blazing, or anything like that. Hard to make movies about the Free Banking Act of 1838....)
Lloyd Benson[7:11:47 PM]: Short version: rampant speculation led to the bank safety act of 1829 (a NY state act.)
Jillian Mangum[7:12:15 PM]: is that what i'm thinking of that set currency at "par?"
Lloyd Benson[7:12:20 PM]: Then Jackson vetoed the only national regulatory agency, the Bank of the United States, in 1832.
Lloyd Benson[7:12:44 PM]: This meant that most money was money printed by banks. "Bank notes"
Lloyd Benson[7:13:02 PM]: These had a face value, just like our federal reserve currency does today.
Lloyd Benson[7:13:18 PM]: ($1, $5, $20 $100, etc.)
Lloyd Benson[7:13:59 PM]: But since squishy shady undercapitalized local banks were often the institutions behind these notes, rather than the federal reserve, the paper was usually not worth its face value.
Virginia Cain has left the chat.
Jillian Mangum[7:14:08 PM]: oh i see...i guess the link i'm missing is how New York came into play here...
Lloyd Benson[7:14:13 PM]: Everybody with me so far?
Jillian Mangum[7:14:18 PM]: yes! :)
Trey Massar[7:14:24 PM]: gotcha ;)
Lloyd Benson[7:14:25 PM]: But here's where NY comes in.
Matthew Barnes[7:14:29 PM]: so i guess it provided a standardized national currency?
Jillian Mangum[7:15:08 PM]: that was kinda my understanding--kinda
Lloyd Benson[7:15:25 PM]: Because of the Safety Act of 1829 (requiring good capital reserves) and the Free Banking Law of 1838 requiring even more stability, paper money issued by NY city banks traded at the value listed on the face of the bill.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:16:00 PM]: If it said $5.00, then you could go to any bank in the country and get $5.00 worth of gold or silver.
Lloyd Benson[7:16:07 PM]: This was less true of other banks.
Lloyd Benson[7:16:51 PM]: If you took a $5.00 note of the Planter's Bank of Mississippi to another bank, they might only give you 50 cents of gold for a paper bill that said $5.00.
Lloyd Benson[7:17:17 PM]: This process of figuring out what a bank's paper money was really worth was called "discounting."
Lloyd Benson[7:17:43 PM]: NY money on NY banks was rarely discounted, always trading at face value, or "PAR".
Matthew Barnes[7:17:52 PM]: Virginia Cain[7:02:40 PM]: also . . . i have a flow chart around my notes for the development of the 2 party system. it shows land money going to tariffs to distribution surplus to internal improvements. can you explain that, especially land money to tariffs???
Matthew Barnes[7:18:10 PM]: i was wondering about that too
Jillian Mangum[7:18:13 PM]: thanks! that makes sense
Lloyd Benson[7:18:23 PM]: When the Federal Government began chartering National Banks in 1862 and after, they adopted the rules and regulations of the FBA of 1838 almost verbatim.
Virginia Cain[7:18:49 PM]: i think i understand all the NY bank stuff now :] thank you
Lloyd Benson[7:18:53 PM]: And, after some back and forth, it was the NY banks that defined the basic structure of National Banks.
Lloyd Benson[7:18:59 PM]: Cool.
Jillian Mangum[7:19:15 PM]: the light bulb just turned on :)

Hello everybody! I've had some problems posting my May 1856 episode to the History Engine, therefore I'm posting it here for the purposes of the exam.

Lucy Skipwith: Testament to Southern Reform
May 30, 1856
Greene County, Alabama

   Lucy Skipwith was a domestic slave on the Hopewell Plantation in Greene County, Alabama. Her owner, John Hartwell Cocke, lived in Virginia and ran Hopewell as one of his several absentee plantations. Cocke relied mostly on Skipwith, as well as J. Willie Carter, the overseer, and R.D. Powell, the steward over Cocke’s Alabama plantations, to stay informed about Hopewell and to transmit his own directives.
   In a letter written by Skipwith to Cocke from May 30, 1856, several facets of her unusual societal position were manifested. Early in the letter, she expressed attachment to her “Dear Master,” telling him that she, along with J. Willie Carter and R.D. Powell, “missed [him] a great deal,” and were “very anxious to hear from [him].” Also, Skipwith noted that she waited until the end of the month to write because Carter and Powell had written earlier in the month. Next, she reported the health and activities of the Carter and Powell families, as well as the family of John Cocke of Alabama, a relative of John Hartwell Cocke who had a neighboring plantation. She particularly reported the experience of Mrs. Powell on a recent visit to Hopewell. Skipwith wrote that Mrs. Powell “seemed to injoy her self here very much,” also noting both the time that the Powells arrived and the fact that Mrs. Powell neither visited anyone nor had any guests. Lucy Skipwith then discussed the progress of the school and Church meetings under her charge. Skipwith lamented that, “my school children have improved but little since you went away.” She attributed this to the fact that the ones old enough to make real progress were all “out at work.” The “family prayers,” on the other hand, were “regularly attended.”
   From this seemingly unremarkable account, there are several implications. First, it is clear that Lucy Skipwith’s influence far exceeded the normal “Big House” limits. The level of power she held is immediately evident in that she was included, and in fact was on an almost equal footing, with the overseer and steward in correspondence about plantation affairs, reporting even their doings. In many ways, her influence at Hopewell was at least as great as either of these two figures; she ran the day-to-day business of the plantation house. However, while such power was uncommon for a slave, it was not unheard of—the role has become a fixture in the American memory through the “mammy” stereotype. Lucy Skipwith’s social position was much more notable in her roles as teacher and preacher. Yet the letter is perhaps most interesting as part of an assessment of the degree to which Lucy Skipwith’s advantages represented an effective, and non-isolated, example of the reform movements’ ability to change slavery.
   John H. Cocke was largely a product of evangelical reform and progressive Upper South political ideology (specifically that of the Jeffersonian Republic). Furthermore, he was a leader in movements for education, temperance, and especially the establishment of the American Colonization Society (ACS). In short, he was considered one of the South’s preeminent reformers—especially as an anti-slavery gradualist. Indeed, much of Skipwith’s accomplishments wouldn’t have been possible without Cocke’s liberalism. His evangelicalism figured importantly first in her conversion to Christianity, but also notably allowed her to throw off slave-women prejudices and assume her position of power. Additionally, Cocke’s religion and his association with the ACS figured importantly in his support for both secular and Christian education; it was necessary as part of his paternalistic plan to prepare slaves for freedom. Surely, such education was appreciated by Lucy Skipwith and the many other slaves who benefited from these efforts.
   The broader significance of Cocke' reforms, however, are very debatable. His brand of conservative reform did, on the one hand, bring uncommon privileges to slaves, especially in the case of Lucy Skipwith, and he even promoted eventual emancipation. But also, his policies potentially lessened sincere agitation for abolition. Lucy’s attitude towards Cocke may attest to this; though sentiments of affection by slavers are approached very skeptically, a more in-depth study of Lucy Skipwith’s relationship with Cocke seems to suggest at least some level of sincerity in her respect for him—even in his role as master. Finally, Cocke is at best a reformer of convenience. For Cocke, a slave’s labor took clear precedence over their education, as shown by Skipwith’s remark that only the very young were able to attend school. More telling though is Cocke’s application of his colonization beliefs. Despite having been Vice-President of the ACS—and attributing his participation in it to the will of God, only one of his slave families was ever manumitted. Not even Lucy Skipwith gained freedom before the Civil War, despite the high praise and responsibility John H. Cocke afforded her.

Closing thoughts…I think this is the only discussion entry I’m due for.
 As I was researching for my episodes I discovered that very few books and websites went the extra mile to find correct dates or followed through with their sources. This kinda ticked me off, because it made it so much harder to find what I was looking for. However, I feel this corresponds to the span of time between 1820 and 1890. The relative interest in politics or parties for the American public was not very high. Things are rarely recorded. Just looking in papers or newsletters from 1820 to at least the 40s demonstrates this. There are fewer articles on national endeavors, than the local farmers markets, which usually bless the front page. Things were not unified or together as much. I do think life was harder. Life was maybe shorter in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. As the dawn of the twentieth century came about it seems as if all kinds of people had a place, a future, and a ticking clock. Time became more of a thing that people depended on. Trains were controlled by time, businesses, and schools. Technology advances freed people up and allowed them more time to participate in local affairs. Ideas were more universal, communication better. Especially after the Civil War.
 I think it’s hard to mash a bunch of dates together and say look at these and pick watershed moments. Each decade brought a different perspective or revived an old one. There could easily be three generations that appear in this time selection. I think that the change comes only from the views of the preceding generation. I know I’m rambling, but this is as good as its gonna get right now.

Backfill for 10/25:

I realize that we were supposed to have completed these on the assigned dates and, as such, not have access to information that we now possess. However, it is hard for me to read the website histories of both Natchez, MS and New Albany, IN without taking other class discussions and handouts into account.

While Natchez neglects to mention the Civil War, I feel that it is reflective of the general trend in Southern cities to gloss over the conflict that they lost. Instead, they focus on the economy that King Cotton generated. As mentioned by someone else (I think either David Ehrlich or David Saxton), the increasing development of railroads in the South helped stimulate an economy devastated by the Civil War. At the same time, Gavin Wright's thesis that some flocked to the South because it was more lucrative runs hand in hand with the agricultural simplification experienced as fewer people practiced subsistence farming, instead turning to cotton output. Also, the fact that Natchez does not lie on any particularly significant crossroads leads to its continued small-town feel and lack of industrial development. The lack of religion that (I think) Emily Franda mentioned is confirmed by the statistical comparison between Adams and Floyd counties. Nevertheless, the website still portrays Natchez as an antebellum haven during modern times.

On the other hand, New Albany was located on a significant and "strategic" connecting route (at least that's how the website portrays it) that allowed for significant industrial and commercial advancements. Once again, this aspect is reinforced by the class documents which reveal that the number of manufacturers (namely producing machinery and steam-engines) in New Albany far exceeded the number of manufacturers located in Natchez. Also reflective in the documents is how technology provided a force for the expansion of religion, as revealed in the higher number of churches in Floyd County, IN when compared to Adams County, MS.

Edited by author 12-09-2007 11:02 PM
Backfill for 9/24:

The organization and distribution of land by the Public Land Survey System marked the beginning of movements to regulate and distribute land following the Revolutionary War. As mentioned by others, the distinction between pre-PLSS and post-PLSS states is strikingly noticeable, as states become more boxy and organized when compared to the random arrangement of states originating from the Colonial period. However, I wonder whether the more disorganized division between Montana and Idaho was intentional or whether it resulted from acquiring land from Native Americans or else another foreign territorial gain. Also, as discussed in class, the lots assigned by the PLSS disregard the specific landscapes that might exist. For example, someone may be granted a parcel of land that is arable and fertile, while another person may be given a lot that is swampy and infertile. I thought that the French arpents were an interesting attempt to solve this problem (whether or not that was their intent) by allotting narrower, yet possibly more diverse sections. This way, the fact that part of the land may be productive would offset the potential incapacity of another part within the same arpent.

BACKFILL for 10/26

It is very evident that the Britannica pieces share in the muckraking attitude of the Adams' piece. At first glance, it seems that Gould's business ventures are attacked to a far greater degree than are Vanderbilt's. However, Vanderbilt's personal life, especially his will, in which he left his son a hefty 90 million dollars, and his wife and daughters only around 1 or 2 million to split between them. Gould is described as having outrageous financial manipulations which led to his 77 million dollar wealth, but there is no mention of whom he left the money to. Adams does not spare any detail of the business ventures of Vanderbilt, though. He points out the unethical ways in which Vanderbilt acquired his great wealth, and much of it was through "stock-watering." I'm still trying to understand exactly what this means, but Adams makes it clear that Vanderbilt definitely participated. Either way, these two famous, or infamous, American businessmen contributed to the transportation system we know today, and set the stage for many many businessmen to come.

REVIEW CHAT SESSION, PART TWO.


Lloyd Benson[7:17:09 PM]: Anyone have questions or concerns about the "restricted open book" format?
Virginia Cain[7:17:25 PM]: i have another giant question. how are we going to need to know 1884? i had
Virginia Cain[7:17:31 PM]: such a hard time with this book
Lauren Brearley[7:17:41 PM]: Thanks! I was actually reading through it right now
Trey Massar[7:17:47 PM]: Yes, will we be able to reference people episodes online while we take that portion of the test or should we be completely of the internet?
Lloyd Benson[7:18:14 PM]: I plan to distribute the take-home a little later this evening. You may work on it as long as you want until Wed. morning, but may not talk with anyone else about it once you open the exam attachment.
Julia Gatten[7:18:38 PM]: Wednesday morning? so the day after our exam??
Lloyd Benson[7:19:18 PM]: In response to Trey's question, you will be able to log into the History Engine and use it in any way you see fit while you are writing your responses.
Lloyd Benson[7:19:36 PM]: Oops. Tuesday morning. TUESDAY MORNING!!!!!
Lauren Brearley[7:19:58 PM]: haha I got equally excited about wednesday morning
Virginia Cain[7:20:09 PM]: [ i mean, if you want to give us until wednesday, that could be really awesome!]
Andrew Proctor[7:20:55 PM]: i agree!
Lloyd Benson[7:22:16 PM]: You will want to know the major players, major organizations, and major "decision-points" in 1884. I will ask a specific episode question. You will be able to consult 1884 while writing your answer. The question will ask you to connect the specific episode to trends and issues beyond the book. If (for some incomprehensible reason) you are reading the book for the first time, this process will go much more slowly than if you have really good comprehensive notes written in a separate place. You may/should use your book notes to answer the questions being posed.
Virginia Cain[7:23:10 PM]: ohmyword! we can use our book notes for 1884 questions??? that's totally amazing! thanks :D
Lloyd Benson[7:23:28 PM]: You may NOT, however, use JSTOR, Google, Yahoo, or any other Internet resource, except articles that have been previously assigned on the syllabus, to answer the question.
Lloyd Benson[7:25:44 PM]: This, as you know, is my great dilemma about giving the take-home. My intention is to give you the most comfortable context possible, with the least stress and pressure possible, and with a chance (thanks for your enthusiasm, Virginia) to look things over thoughtfully. This gives me much more interesting episodes to read, as well as (in theory) giving you more pleasant and fair breathing space to work through challenging problems.
Lloyd Benson[7:25:50 PM]: Better for you, better for me.
Virginia Cain[7:26:05 PM]: yessir!
Carolyn Vaught has joined the chat.
Julia Gatten[7:27:09 PM]: Can you talk some about Stock Watering in Chapters of Erie by Charles Francis Adams, Jr. (1871).
Jordan Sorrells has joined the chat.
Lauren Brearley[7:27:22 PM]: Sorry I am not really participating, I'm trying to catch up on what I missed, but tomorrow, I'm sure I'll have some questions
Julia Gatten[7:27:52 PM]: We never talked about it in clas specifically, and I am never really good with understanding complex financial things
Lloyd Benson[7:28:22 PM]: Alas, almost every term at least one student doesn't completely comprehend that this is a great freedom and a special opportunity. They panic, grab for Google, and then wreck lots of people's time with a plagiarism case. I'm hoping we'll not have one of these this go round. Nobody in this class really needs to, anyway, 'cause you're pretty good.
Andrew Proctor[7:28:22 PM]: I believe we did talk about it
Andrew Proctor[7:28:31 PM]: the Rise of Chicago
Lloyd Benson[7:28:55 PM]: Hi Carolyn, welcome back Jordan!
Lloyd Benson[7:30:18 PM]: The gist of Erie is that Adams makes a case for the need for state (and perhaps federal) regulation of the railroads, using the (breathtakingly clever but morally dubious) case of the Erie Railroad as exhibit A.
Virginia Cain[7:31:03 PM]: also, from wednesday 11/7 . . . there was something on the syllabus about Dun and Bradstreet. can you talk a little about that website/company???
Lloyd Benson[7:32:46 PM]: Think about how this produces a kind of convergence. Reformers and "muckrakers" wanted regulation to make the market fair and open. The railroads, killing each other as they were through direct competition, and suffering from what they thought was "unfair" competition from their rivals, were able to broker a regulatory consensus. Note that as with yellow fever (see above) state-level regulatory solutions did not seem to stabilize the situation for anyone.
Lloyd Benson[7:34:39 PM]: Dun and Bradstreet (and its predecessor "Mercantile Agency") were, in simple terms, a centralized, quantitative agency for rating the moral, ethical, and financial worthiness of potential borrowers. (In light of our other conversations above, think NYC and information concentration, as well as standardization and national market integration.)
Lloyd Benson[7:36:30 PM]: Just for fun, the founders of the agency were the Tappan Brothers (q.v. in the Ayers text index) who were leading moderate abolitionists. Think about the implications of a NY-centered agency, run by abolitionists, making moral judgments about people in the South, on the plains, and in the west. The agency hired reporters (ie gossipy spies) in every major town in America.
Jordan Sorrells has left the chat.
Julia Gatten[7:38:04 PM]: What were the dates for Tappan Brothers and Mercantile Agency?
Lloyd Benson[7:38:33 PM]: In thinking about the version on the company's website, it is worth imagining some corporate PR person having to write an "episode" about the company's origins. What do they put in, what do they leave out? What decision-points do they highlight? What benchmarks do they use to decide? How integratively complex (or not) are their accounts likely to be?
Lauren Brearley has left the chat.
Ashley Hazelwood has left the chat.
Virginia Cain[7:40:01 PM]: so just to clarify, we don't really have to understand stock watering?
Lloyd Benson[7:40:23 PM]: I think the dates are on the company website. Without having reviewed my notes, I want to say that 1842 is the founding point for the agency. The Tappans were active as businessmen from the 1820s and abolitionists from the 1830s.
Julia Gatten[7:41:20 PM]: I know time is running out, but one last question - I have John Reynolds Testing Democracy under democracy worked very well in the 1880s, but I don't really have anything about what his argument was
Lloyd Benson[7:43:22 PM]: The brief definition of stock-watering is the issue of the company of stock offerings without having either capital or growth to back it. The net result is to decrease the value of any specific share. It is exactly the same as a government printing paper money without having incoming revenue. (cue "Twilight Zone music") The result is to dilute (water) the value of a stockholder's prior investment. In the case of the Erie's directors, it literally involved feeding cattle salt to make them drink, and then running them across the scales for a higher total weight for sale. -- literally as well as figuratively watering stock.
Lloyd Benson[7:43:33 PM]: But I probably won't ask much about this on the test.
Lloyd Benson[7:44:05 PM]: Yes, we are a few minutes over and my daughter is tugging on my foot...
Virginia Cain[7:44:08 PM]: haha - awesome. i've had economics twice now, but that, unfortunately, doesn't mean i understand stocks :/
Julia Gatten[7:45:57 PM]: and the Tappan Brothers - they were kind of an early example of people trying to measure/standardize/quantify other people?
Lloyd Benson[7:46:14 PM]: John Reynolds argues that the patronage and political appointee system gave people a concrete reward (gov't jobs) for working for the party. Once hired, they kicked back revenue into party coffers (a paycheck rebate) which then funded party operations. If government employees didn't do a good job you could always vote their party out. Because parties were funded by party loyalists, they DIDNT have to turn to corporate donations to fund their activities.
Lloyd Benson[7:46:48 PM]: In other words, Reynolds challenges the Muckraker version of patronage as insidious corruption that Summers outlines in his book.
Julia Gatten[7:46:54 PM]: Is that a subtle way of saying that time is up for tonight?
Lloyd Benson[7:47:21 PM]: As soon as the patronage system collapsed under the assault of civil service reform, voters stopped going to the polls, and turnout dropped precipitously.
Lloyd Benson[7:47:52 PM]: Yes, exactly, Tappans were quantifiers and standardizers, and centralizers.
Lloyd Benson[7:48:10 PM]: And Yankee abolitionists, to boot.
Lloyd Benson[7:48:33 PM]: Yep, we're winding down.
Lloyd Benson[7:48:53 PM]: Maybe time for one or two more.
Carolyn Vaught has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:50:34 PM]: [The participants pondered, pondered logging off, pondered more...]
Lloyd Benson[7:51:11 PM]: As further questions arise, e-mail and the DB are available. Good luck with your studies!
Virginia Cain[7:51:21 PM]: thank you!
Julia Gatten[7:51:25 PM]: thanks
Julia Gatten[7:51:37 PM]: so tomorrow the session is 6:30-7:30 again?
Lloyd Benson[7:51:41 PM]: Glad to help, I hope it was useful.
Lloyd Benson[7:51:50 PM]: Yep.
Julia Gatten[7:51:50 PM]: yes useful
Julia Gatten[7:51:53 PM]: okay
Lloyd Benson[7:52:06 PM]: Ciao, everyone!
Julia Gatten[7:52:08 PM]: farewell
Julia Gatten has left the chat.
Virginia Cain has left the chat.

Lloyd Benson has joined the chat.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:30:32 PM]: Hi Virginia!
Virginia Cain[6:30:35 PM]: Hey!
Virginia Cain[6:30:40 PM]: So this is pretty nifty
Lloyd Benson[6:30:44 PM]: Welcome aboard! You are first in.
Virginia Cain[6:30:57 PM]: oh wow. i don't know how i feel about that pressure!
Lloyd Benson[6:31:23 PM]: Let's start with the big stuff. Do you have any questions about the format of the exam?
Lloyd Benson[6:32:16 PM]: Or questions about specific mysteries or puzzles from your notes?
Lloyd Benson[6:33:21 PM]: I really liked what your study group did about posting the article summaries. I hope the other two groups will do the same thing. The articles aren't so long that they couldn't be skimmed directly but this was what I had in mind to begin with.
Ashley Hazelwood has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:34:20 PM]: Hi Ashley!
David Bartlett has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:34:45 PM]: Hi David Bartlett!
David Bartlett[6:34:51 PM]: hi
Julia Gatten has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:35:23 PM]: Hi Julia!
Julia Gatten[6:35:27 PM]: hi
Ashley Hazelwood[6:35:28 PM]: Hi Dr. Benson, I don't think I have any questions about exam format that I can think of right now, but I do have clarification questions, should I wait to ask those?
Lloyd Benson[6:35:50 PM]: We're just getting started, but any questions on any topic can be posed at any time.
Ashley Hazelwood[6:36:11 PM]:
In my notes about Yellow Fever I have:
Public Policy Reponses
Private org. Howard Assoc. 1837
push for quarantine, create hospitals, blah blah blah

were these public policy responses or were these things that the Howard Assoc. did as public policy responses??????




Lloyd Benson[6:36:31 PM]: In past virtual sessions the transcript has had multiple simultaneous threads, but it all makes sense in the end.
Lloyd Benson[6:37:34 PM]: Good yellow fever question! I feverishly put a response on the DB about two seconds before we started here. i'll paste it in for reference.
Lloyd Benson: The general heading is PUBLIC POLICY RESPONSES.
The subsection beneath this is the (private) Howard Assn.'s efforts to respond to the epidemics, both by setting up private solutions (i.e. hospitals) and to agitate for public officials to respond through quarantine, etc. Until after the epidemic of 1853, no formal organized public efforts emerged at the community or state level. The creation of the Louisiana state board of health (disputedly but arguably the first such state board in the country) represented the first anticipatory (I hate the word "proactive") government entity that sought to plan in advance and to promote research about yellow fever. Everything before 1855, at the public level, was informal, temporary, or simply an expedient response to the disaster of the moment.
Lloyd Benson[6:38:18 PM]: Does that make any sense?
Ashley Hazelwood[6:38:53 PM]: Yes, thank you.
Julia Gatten[6:39:36 PM]: So the transcript will be posted on the discussion board?
Lloyd Benson[6:39:49 PM]: The Howard Association was a really important example of antebellum "public-private" partnerships, or what we would call a Non-Governmental Organization.
Lloyd Benson[6:40:14 PM]: Yep, the transcript will be posted.
Trey Massar has joined the chat.
Virginia Cain[6:41:09 PM]: i know we've gone over several historians, and that we have already been tested on some of them, but will that continue on the exam?
Lloyd Benson[6:42:00 PM]: A question to ask about yellow fever and public policy is to ponder why each level of solution (NGO, State, Federal) seemed to have its limits and to require a higher level of entity to resolve. Not the smallest reason for this was the inter-city rivalry and slander problem.
Lloyd Benson[6:43:08 PM]: Yes, there will definitely be a presence by our historians and their theories on the exam. These will not duplicate the earlier questions precisely, but some Historian/Theory pairs may be addressed again in a different way.
Lloyd Benson[6:44:12 PM]: What other kinds of "correcting my notes" questions do you all have?
Julia Gatten[6:44:56 PM]: In my notes about New York, I have have notes taken on 1) punctuality - regularly scheduled shipping and 2) ships also transfer info. but i don't really have what they go with - were these just reasons that NYC became a big city? I also have inventiveness and patents under that section but not numbered - was this more of a separate idea or was it intended to fall under the same category?
Lloyd Benson[6:44:57 PM]: [Julia writes busily....]
Lloyd Benson[6:46:33 PM]: Very important questions about NY factors contributing to its dominance. Yes, the fact that NYC had the first punctually-scheduled packets gave it a significant edge, something that became even more important a few years later when the flood of Erie Canal commodities came down stream, and English products went back out.
Julia Gatten[6:48:27 PM]: "when the flood of Erie Canal commodities came down stream, and English products went back out." --- what exactly do you mean by this?
Virginia Cain[6:48:33 PM]: under my notes concerning the many different Norths and Souths, I have a specific mention of a 3rd South characterized by its maximum level of self-control and autonomy . . . which i'm not sure what that means, but also, I don't have numbers one and two
Lloyd Benson[6:48:37 PM]: The info question is more complex, but, essentially, because the packet ships were predictable, they became the most predictable source of market information. Since London and England were the center of economic activity in the 19th c., whoever on the periphery (anywhere in the world, not just America) had the first and most predictable info. about what was happening in England always had an edge. This was a byproduct of regular shipping.
Andrew Proctor has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:48:52 PM]: Hi ANdreW!
Andrew Proctor[6:49:02 PM]: Hey Dr. Benson
Garrison Ries has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[6:49:24 PM]: Hi Garrison!
Trey Massar[6:49:28 PM]: What really made NY more important though than say Boston and Philly? I know Philly is further up river and Boston further north but, They were still both thriving industrial centers capable of transporting goods. Is the fact that geogrpahically NY could ship things from the ports up river make it the more important port city?
Garrison Ries[6:49:31 PM]: Hey Dr. Benson!
Jordan Sorrells has joined the chat.
Virginia Cain[6:51:50 PM]: and i know this is a HUGE question, but are there just a couple of main points about Reconstruction? prior to this class, i had never really had this part of history before, so i'm trying to generally frame the period
Lloyd Benson[6:52:27 PM]: Great three souths question. Without looking at my notes, I think this is what I meant: The first south was the upper south of Baltimore, D.C., Richmond, Louisville, New Orleans, that was northish in its industry and commerce. The second south was the staple crop (tobacco, rice, cotton, sugar) economy that was coastal or river-based and highly integrated into the international market economy. The third south was the backcountry, mountains, piney woods.
Julia Gatten[6:52:30 PM]: I also have something in my notes about Boston's harbor not being able to have two-way traffic -- I don't know why, but I suppose this was a negative factor for Boston
Virginia Cain[6:53:06 PM]: thank you! i had a #3, without having 1 or 2 and i was a little confused :]
Lloyd Benson[6:53:25 PM]: Since we're on cities, Boston did not have as much of a backcountry market for English consumer goods as did the (Erie-Canal and RR based) market reach of NYC.
Lloyd Benson[6:54:07 PM]: Reconstruction, first, has to be viewed in terms of the repressions and pacifications that typically end civil wars.
Lloyd Benson[6:55:02 PM]: Second, reconstruction has to be viewed as a process in which former slaves were given legal protections, civil rights, and voting rights for the first time, and ex-Confederate Southerners lost these and then got them back.
Lloyd Benson[6:55:26 PM]: Third, reconstruction has to be treated as a long-term process of nation formation and national integration.
Julia Gatten[6:55:28 PM]: (so NYC offered a convergence of shipping, RR, canal, generally good location that other cities did not have?)
Lloyd Benson[6:56:40 PM]: Fourth, it has to be understood as a time of opportunity for people like Tom Scott who had no interest in the rights question, but saw the south as a place to achieve other ends. This, as we know, produced a racial and anti-tax backlash "got up" by his business enemies.
Lloyd Benson[6:57:11 PM]: Fifth, reconstruction is about the separation of Blacks and Whites, physically, religiously, mentally.
Lloyd Benson[6:59:08 PM]: NYC had convergence, and I would also stress that the convergence had a (mostly) mutually reinforcing SEQUENCE of events, in which "access to information that could maximize profit and minimize risk" was the key variable. Concentration of information was by far and away the most important advantage, one that trumped all of NYC's many disabilities.
Julia Gatten[7:00:41 PM]: But that concentration of information was due in part to the shipping abilities, etc. - so they helped each other grow?
Lloyd Benson[7:00:55 PM]: One more reconstruction note: It's all about the phases, so paying attention to the chronology (Ayers helps here) will be worthwhile in mastering a very complex set of negotiations, policy shifts, and backlashes. Keep in mind, too, that Northern White Republicans had a very limited vision of reconstruction at first, abandoning it only under duress and reaction to events like the riots of Summer 1866.
Lloyd Benson[7:02:21 PM]: Yes, shipping, newspapers, railroads, finance, the canal, the Atlantic cable, a cluster of creative types trying to work creative angles, all reinforced each other. And in a Darwinian "not for the faint of heart" sort of way.
Julia Gatten[7:02:52 PM]: concerning the RR, just after notes on standardization and dangers of the RR, I have REACTIONS written and under that information on the RR strikes of 1877 and 1886, but what exactly are these reaction to? what specifically made the workers unhappy - low wages/bad conditions in general, or was there some event that sparked these strikes?
Lloyd Benson[7:03:45 PM]: One other completely unrelated aside. When answering the take home essay it is not out of bounds, and may be helpful, to use the SHDB to get the context of 1832, 1856, 1865, and 1876.
Ashley Hazelwood[7:04:46 PM]: When we are answering the essay question, will we be looking at context and themes or more at individual events or both?
Lloyd Benson[7:06:05 PM]: The reactions were responses to both economic limitations (wage cuts and dividend doubling during the panic of 1873-1879) and to loss of control and decision-making to increasingly centralized, hierarchical, and thus seemingly anti-democratic and anti "grassroots worker republicanism" values. That the big companies seemed to have lots of friends in state and national government reinforced this sense of a rigged and corrupt system.
Lloyd Benson[7:09:18 PM]: Both context and details will be useful in answering the take-home. (See my message of the other day for more extensive comments, some of which I'll mention here, too.) In short, after reading through all episodes for all four common months, you want to stand back and identify what you think the most important things we can conclude from these episodes, taken as a whole, might be. That list of "most important patterns" should draw on all of our conversations about these broad trends that we have talked about this term, including change over time and the role of place, historian's theories, general 19th century shifts we identified from the textbook excerpts, and our ongoing conversations about how history is put together.
Lloyd Benson[7:11:21 PM]: Then identify all of the episodes that seem to best exemplify the trends you have identified. A helpful way to structure your thinking on this is to imagine that you are writing the "America, 1820-1890" section for a World History from the Dawn of Time to the Present textbook, but with as much texture, color, and humanity as you can work in as well.
Julia Gatten[7:12:33 PM]: I think that in some e-mail or post or something recently, you said that we did not have to know Greenville in Global Context, "Small Town Values", "America's Heartland" and Sam Clemen's Hannibal - but I can't find where you said that now, so I may have imagined it - did you say that. And if not, could you explain all of these?
Lloyd Benson[7:13:39 PM]: I am not expecting you to incorporate every episode, however. Rather, it is the judgment and imagination you use in selecting and arranging a subset of episodes, that will be the most interesting. You will want to presume that I have read all of the episodes (I have, or will have) and that you are trying to make an original collage of these components. You should not just spit back details.
Julia Gatten[7:13:47 PM]: (okay, I found it on the discussion board, but just checking - there was no reading or class discussion on any of these three topics, right?)
Lloyd Benson[7:14:10 PM]: Yes, those episodes from week eleven were excluded. It was in my "end game" email.
Julia Gatten[7:14:38 PM]: Thanks, just wanted to make sure you actually said that at some point
Lauren Brearley has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:15:20 PM]: There will be no questions regarding these. (Too, bad, too, since they were going to be wicked cool stories with lots of connections to other things we have studied.)
Lloyd Benson[7:15:27 PM]: Hi Lauren!
Lauren Brearley[7:15:33 PM]: Hi! Sorry I'm so late!
Jordan Sorrells has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[7:16:39 PM]: I'm not sure, Lauren, but I think you may be able to scroll back and see the earlier conversation. Everything will be put to the DB, anyway. Feel free to ask anything. If there are repeat issues I'll just send you scrolling.

Q: Exam Question:
In my notes about Yellow Fever I have:
Public Policy Reponses
Private org. Howard Assoc. 1837
push for quarantine, create hospitals, blah blah blah

were these public policy responses or were these things that the Howard Assoc. did as public policy responses??????

ANS:
Good question. The general heading is PUBLIC POLICY RESPONSES.
The subsection beneath this is the (private) Howard Assn.'s efforts to respond to the epidemics, both by setting up private solutions (i.e. hospitals) and to agitate for public officials to respond through quarantine, etc. Until after the epidemic of 1853, no formal organized public efforts emerged at the community or state level. The creation of the Louisiana state board of health (disputedly but arguably the first such state board in the country) represented the first anticipatory (I hate the word "proactive") government entity that sought to plan in advance and to promote research about yellow fever. Everything before 1855, at the public level, was informal, temporary, or simply an expedient response to the disaster of the moment.

Exam Question:
In my notes about Yellow Fever I have:
Public Policy Reponses
Private org. Howard Assoc. 1837
push for quarantine, create hospitals, blah blah blah

were these public policy responses or were these things that the Howard Assoc. did as public policy responses??????

Hey all. I am posting my episode numbers so that you can look them up if you so choose.

#4277
#4280
#4281
#4283

mmmmm . . . I think Julia's date is wrong, at least for the syllabus. It's Monday 10/29.

As part of the RED group, here is what I gleaned from Mary P. Ryan, "A Women's Awakening: Evangelical Religion and the Families of Utica, New York, 1800-1840," American Quarterly 30 (Winter 1978): 602-623.

Women take on various roles in the religious realm:
1) passionate convert
2) socially aware power player using religion as a cover
3) minister's financial and moral support
The article includes lots of statistical data on conversions of males and females in Utica, including the potential relationship between them. Women were the majority of converts in every revival, well above the gender-proportion of the wider society. The article also examines the role of family in conversions - between 17 and 54 percent of the converts professed faith with relatives. By joining churches independently, many women were able to express religious autonomy. The first churchmember in a family was twice as likely to be female as male. The "kinship of conversion" supports a critique of antebellum revivals as shining examples of Jacksonian America. But the author does struggle with data due to incomplete church records. Most revival converts were mobile, young, people of lower status, the problem being that only heads of households were included in most directories. At least 30 percent of converts left church shortly after the revival. Oneida county is a very interesting case where women were allowed to preach, including Deborah Pierce. But such "bold female piety" was focused only in rural areas in Baptist and Methodist denominations, at least in the early years. Industrialization also changes women's role in the home, so that the constancy of religion could off some reassurance. Upper-class women assume control of household morality, and the husbands benefit through positive public exposure and opinion. The article stresses the role of parental responsibility in bringing children to salvation. On the frontier, women were the ones to start religious practices in the home. Women's roles in conversions were originally repressed in favor of the head-of-household, but the Female Missionary Society and the Maternal Association brought strong emphasis on the woman's role in public, outside-of-home, official organizations that encouraged women's conversions.
"Women were more than the majority of the converts, more even than the private guardians of America's souls. The combination and consequence of all these roles left the imprint of a women's awakening on American society as well as American religion."

For Monday 10/9 we had four different pieces assigned for reading for the different color groups. We were supposed to have round-robin discussion for them, but time was running short so it turned into 30 second summaries. I was wondering if someone from each group (or multiple people) could post about their article so that we could all further this discussion a bit. On Friday 11/9 we also had different assignments by group that we never discussed. The purple group was assigned to post for that day, so we have their input, but it might be helpful for at least one person from each group to post their discoveries from searching the Chicago Tribune database.

I am from the GREEN group and this is what I have:
Drew Gilpin Faust, "Altars of Sacrifice: Confederate Women and Narratives of War," Journal of American History (March 1990): 1200-1228.
Faust discussed the role of Southern women in the confederacy and argues that their loss of morale ultimately led to the downfall of the Confederate States. Faust challenges the traditionally held idea that the sacrifice of women in the South (by allowing their husbands and sons to become soldiers and fight and by serving in more domestic roles such as sewing uniforms) allowed the confederacy to survive for as long as it did (1202-1203). Faust argues that over time women grew weary of staying at home because they felt useless and no longer desired to hide their emotions (1206, 1210, 1217). Many women believed that being on the physical battlefield alongside the men would be an easier battle to fight, and they also missed their husbands and sons(1204). Despite the efforts of newspapers and magazines to convince women that their role was to avoid writing "gloomy letters" and "to bestow their favors only on men in uniform" (1209, 1211). When the romance of war and beauty of a lost cause had worn off women refused to continue the useless sacrifice of life; they stopped fighting the moral battle from the home and directly caused the physical loss on the battlefield (1221, 1225, 1228).

From looking up "Fetterman" in the Chicago Tribune from 1867-1869:
On December 26, 1866 a group of drunken US soldiers were attacked at Ft. Laramie by a group of Indians. Several were killed and scalped. Seeking retaliation, a small group of US soldiers under the control of Lieutenant Colonel Fetterman went out to attack a group of Indians and were met with two thousand. All of the US troops were killed and the Chicago tribune gave details of "Indian mutilations" and "atrocities" done to the bodies such as scalping. Reports regarding the Indian War and Fetterman's Massacre continue from the first reports in January 16, 1867 to December 31, 1869 when a faithful soldier was shot in the leg. John R. Reshaw, a "half-breed" belonging to a group called the Red Cloud was assumed responsible for the shooting. A Battle of Ft. Fetterman was also reported in August 1867 where a group of Indians attacked a herd of government stock and carried several off with them. Although there were events and updates printed over the two year span, I think the most significant event was the Fetterman Massacre in December 1866 not only because of the loss of life, but also because of the great lack of interest. From the articles it appears to be a similar situation as Greasy Grass/Custer's Last Stand/Little Bighorn, but this time nobody turned it into a huge national event. I might be wrong on this, but that is just what I am getting from the articles. Anyone else have ideas?

Q: For the first test you said to focus on studying the SHDB and details, for the second test you advised us to focus on the Ayers text. Concerning the fill in the blank/short answer questions for the final, you never mentioned the SHDB or really the text book. You talked a lot about focusing on integrating ideas from everything that we have done. You also placed a large emphasis on taking notes while people were presenting on the History Engine. The main essay involves the History Engine - will there be a large focus on this on the short answer?

ANS: About 40 percentish (20 questions-ish) will deal with material covered from the beginning up through the last mid-term. This will be the "know your current 1820-1890 events" segment. Reviewing the SHDB, the chapter chronologies, era overviews, and major topics in Ayers will be helpful here. Questions will not duplicate the events, names, or major concepts from the midterms, but may require you to review the historians and their historiographical interpretations.

The remainder of the short answer section will focus on material since the last test, except for the three "place topics (Greenville, Heartland, Twain's Hannibal) that we did not formally discuss. As a means of conceptual integration for these topics you may want to think about how our
course themes and the major nineteenth century trends identified in the textbook excerpts we studied at the beginning of the term. In terms of specifics for each of these episode or topic-focused lectures and discussions, the usual "who-what-when-where-why -- key-agents, key-policies, major stages" analysis isn't a bad approach to take. For all of the assigned articles and books the additional "what is the thesis, how is the argument organized, what are the key turning points, how does it connect to our other organizing themes and lines of inquiry?" questions are also essential. A few questions will be based on the episode presentations but this will not be a central focus in the short answer section.

Note: If you are working together I would prefer that any shared info (document summaries, event synopsi, etc.) be posted here to the discussion board to avoid any inequities or academic integrity gray areas.

We are trying to figure out the article on stock watering by Charles Frances Adams, Jr. We never really talked about this in class - some information about why it is important would be really helpful.

Julia, Virginia, John, Jillian, Emily, Matthew

Dr. Benson,
We have a group of people together studying and we have a question about studying.
For the first test you said to focus on studying the SHDB and details, for the second test you advised us to focus on the Ayers text. Concerning the fill in the blank/short answer questions for the final, you never mentioned the SHDB or really the text book. You talked a lot about focusing on integrating ideas from everything that we have done. You also placed a large emphasis on taking notes while people were presenting on the History Engine. The main essay involves the History Engine - will there be a large focus on this on the short answer? This is a bit scattered, but we are trying to focus ourselves correctly. You usually just like to say make sure we know everything, but esp. concerning the names, dates, etc. to focus on, do you have any guidance?
Thanks,
Julia, Virginia, John, Emily, Matthew, Jillian

As a History major and a Senior, I obviously have had many history classes and, I'm sure everyone already knows this, but this class has been a very different experience from the rest. I enjoyed looking at history from the episodic perspective - not so much because it was more enjoyable than the narrative version but because it provided insight into a new way to think about history and a new way to look at research and events. Since a major aspect of education is to learn to think in different ways, I would say that this class was very successful. I will say, though, that I wish a little more narrative could have been mixed in because I did miss that! I think this type of class is best for people who already know a good bit about the era that they are studying since this method teaches more about different aspects of looking at history than necessarily trends and other established major events that you should already know. In that way, you could go into a course like this prepared to think about these events that you already know in different ways and to argue for or against their importance then, after looking at them in a new way.
I also think, on that note, that a course taught in this way should incorporate a little more historiography. Dr. Benson did a great job introducing some aspects of 19th century historiography, but I think it would be nice if student evaluation of that historiography was incorporated also.
This course though was a very rich experience for someone like me who has taken so many history classes that I'm done with my major (beside my seminar) and I'm taking extra just because I like it so much. I would like to see it offered as a higher upper level class under some sort of name such as "Research and the Episodic View of the 19th Century" and have HST-41 under a more narrative view be a pre-requisite to it.

Closing thoughts...
What a lot of information. In past history classes I feel as though the teacher went through a textbook and picked a certain number of important events and then lectured on those events. However, many teachers would talk about the same events because textbooks can be very similar. With this course, I felt as though the structure was similar, but the important events were not the textbook answers, but events that tend to fall through the cracks. It was exciting and frusterating and overwhelming at the same time - exciting because there was so much new information and so many more connections that I made to link historical moments together, frusterating because sometimes you were not really sure what the significance of that event that you've never really discussed before was and you had to try to piece it into the large picture before you forgot about it, and overwhelming because there are so many intricate details and questions to ask and things to think about when studying history and you feel as though you will never remember them all (and most of the time you probably don't). Lecture days were always interesting and informative - even if you weren't quite sure how to fit them within the history map you've made already.
It was also helpful to have this discussion board to keep you on track and not to let you fall behind in hw. It also provided a place to post ideas that you either didn't have time to mention in class or came up with after class and would forget before class the next day. There was a lot of reading. I appreciated having so many sources, but it seemed almost impossible to read them all. It was probably good that there were so many - one because history has so many perspectives and it's really important to look into them all, two because you should concentrate on your class outside of class at least once a day, and three because even if you don't get to all of the sources you will try to get to a majority of them and hopefully learn more than you would if just reading the textbook.
As for the SHDB and the History Engine. I really enjoyed both projects, but I wish that we would have had more lecture days. Both projects forced us to look at very specific aspects of history and to do a ton of research on our own and discover history on our own, but I also really enjoyed lecture days and learning what a variety of people have contributed to the world of history - how history is known in the history world right now (as opposed to my interpretation). I enjoyed chasing after my episode ideas and finding the interconnected sources, but I wish I would have had more time to really dig deep into each issue.
Overall I learned mucho, am keeping my notes, and will be studying a great deal for the final.

I realized that I forgot to post about the Summers book so here are my thoughts...
I was also confused for most of the book. There were so many little stories and side stories and people. Part of the problem for me was that this was the time period in history that I least liked. After learning about the Civil War and the Reconstruction, I didn't really like US history until the 20th century. However, this book as well as some discussions in class have gotten me a little more interested in that time period. If you look past the corruption and don't look at the robber barons as criminals, but as very intellegent individuals, then they become more interesting as you look for the good aspects in their character and how they really shaped modern day.
As for the political aspect of the book, I got hopelessly lost. But again I found that this also is very similar to modern day (where I also have trouble following political parties and the people within them) and it really made me determined to vote for the person I want in the next election.

Edited by author 12-07-2007 05:54 PM
Hello All! I hope studying is going well :]

I am doing some major reworking on my July 4, 1876 episode, so since we are supposed to study those, I wanted to give you the general idea of it before I finish writing and submit it.

My episode will now focus solely on the sale article from Greenville's Enterprise and Mountaineer, whereby the paper "will present a $60 Weed Sewing-Machine, warranted by the manufacturers to be in perfect order . . . to each of the five persons sending us the largest number of new cash yearly subscribers.” I wanted to understand why there was so little mention of Southern celebration.

I am working on a general argument that Northerners and blacks had much more of a reason to celebrate the Centennial than Southerners under Reconstruction. While Northerners felt they had won a war and blacks felt as if they had gained their hard earned freedom, many Southerners felt as if they were losing freedoms and losing control. The South really had very little to celebrate at this point.

So my five episodes are . . .
1) Furman University's Philosophian Society Discusses Divisive Issues
    Minutes of the Furman University Philosophian Society, Greenville, SC. March 22, 1861 – April 5, 1861 (Special Collections Library, Furman University).

2) The Philosophian Society in the Civil War and Beyond
    Minutes of the Furman University Philosophian Society, Greenville, SC. June 21, 1861 – April 9, 1866 (Special Collections Library, Furman University).

3) Notice: No American History Taught Here
    Grote, George. History of Greece. Vol. V. New York City, N.Y., Printed by Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1854. (Special Collections Library, Furman University)
Pütz, Wilhelm. Manual of Ancient Geography and History. Thomas Kerchever Arnold, Ed. Trans. German. 3rd Ed. New York City, N.Y., Printed by D. Appleton and Company, 1877. (Special Collections Library, Furman University)
Rollin, Charles. The Ancient History. Vols. 1 and 2. New York City, N.Y., Printed by Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1843. (Special Collections Library, Furman University)


4) July 4, 1876: The Centennial (un)Celebration
    “Our Centennial Offer.” The Enterprise and Mountaineer, Greenville, South Carolina. July 5, 1876 (Microfilm 677 3 2988 00256 6550, James B. Duke Library, Furman University.)

5) Separation of Church and Race
    Minutes and Records 1821-1875. First Baptist Church, Charleston, S.C. (Microfilm 286.06 5724 ch1, Special Collections Library, Furman University.)

I learned so many new things while taking this class. I had never been in a history class that focused so much on the micro level of the past. The SHDB and the History Engine projects really gave me a new viewpoint on how historians examine individual events in history.

This course gave me a greater insight on the 19th century, a century I admittedly knew little about, apart from the Civil War. The ind-depth explorations of the many aspects of that century really helped me gain a better understanding about that century and the events before, during, and after it that have had an impact on us as individuals and as citizens of the United States.

My favorite topic was the Civil War, but each topic we discussed and examined in class was a valuable tool that helped me grow as a student and as a historian.

First, although I have studied some aspects of American History during the 19th Century, this course provided a thorough and insightful overview of events, even when we focused on the broader (or "presidential") perspective. The SHDB was especially helpful for this, given that each person was forced to discover at least four important events for each year. While more happened in some years than in others, even the so-called "off" years provided important information towards a broader historical interpretation.

Like almost everyone else, I feel that this class has helped me appreciate individual events, at the same time that it has helped me to discern how they fit into the broader overview. Like David, one of my favorite subjects we covered was the Civil War. My favorite episode, as I mentioned in class, was the Battle of Nashville. This class, while trying most of the time, helped me develop a more thorough approach toward reading and interpreting history than I had before.

Well...This was certainly a new experience for me. I am - or I'm going to be - a history major, but this was my first upper level history class, and I'll say it was an enjoyable experience. I was actually able to look forward to class each day, and knew that something fun and exciting was going to be presented. I certainly learned more than I ever thought possible about being an historian. It is more than reading books - it is getting your hands on actual documents and pouring over them; something i found very exciting. It was so much fun to actually get excited over going to the library to do research for a project (not constantly, but there were moments). The History Engine Project was a great one, which required me to learn some new skills and figure out how to write History, not just study it, and that is a definite positive I will take away. Overall, i'm very glad this was my first history class. I think it has set the ground work for some great classes to come.

I guess one of the most important things I've learned in this class is that it is not just single events that are important but single moments in time and how these moments can change everything. And I thing that has been the theme of the class to focus on important moments and understand them and put them in the broader contex history. This is all reflected in the SHDB project, the books we read, and the History Engine Project all which asked us to focus on specific dates and years and to see how events in those years related. This allows us to see things as people of that time would see them, not as a series of events leading up to some climactic conclusion as is done in most history text books, but as a jumble of events that all weigh on people's minds and which have no certian outcome. I think it is this approach that has taught me the most about studying history, and so it is the most important thing have taken from this class.

Closing thoughts? Well...

I certainly appreciated the diversity of tools and methods we encountered that aided in "learning" about 19th century America and just history in general. The SHDB served as a great avenue for doing a general survey of the period and just learning the dates and the facts,which are always important. However the episode portion of the class was the one I found most stimulating and invigorating. The opportunity to actual "get my hands wet" with the material and do a little of my own historical analysis was an experience I had yet to have. I also think that this portion of the exam helped us to gain a deeper understanding not only of what happened and when, but also why and to what extant and to what end and other more intricate and profound details. It also gave us the opportunity to weigh the merit and tangibility of several different schools of thought concerning this period in American. And finally it offered the opportunity to take personal areas of interest and to do primary research on that topic. For me this was of course baseball, and my favorite episode was the one I wrote on Spalding's and Baseball's World Tour. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed that segment of the class.

After having taken Dr. Benson's Civil Era class and know the 19th century American class, the Civil War, what "caused" it, and its repercussions are still my favorite part of American history. The most interesting thing I encountered in this class was the ability to trace the growing trends from as early as 1820 that led up to the bloodiest war in American history. This was indeed an exciting experience for me.

I have probably learned as much about how to study history and how to write about history from this class as I have about the nineteenth century. I had always enjoyed primary documents in the past, but I did not as much understanding of how to integrate them into the broader picture of what was going on in the greater scope of the United States. Looking at history from an episodic view within the context of nineteenth century America has shown me how smaller events, like the Erie Canal or the yellow fever epidemics, could really impact either individual areas or the entire country. And sometimes local or personal events that were immensely important and life-changing for specific individuals might not have fit in with what everyone else (or were they) were thinking and talking about on a national level.
Near the beginning of the course Dr. Benson talked about what it meant to look at history from the "presidential view" (I believe that was what he called it) where only the biggest, most national events or most well-known people were considered. In a lot of ways the nineteenth century allowed a greater number of people to enter into this decision making process as innovation opened up new job opportunities, women ventured into the public sphere as moral guides, and slaves were given there freedom and rights (at least by the law).
The focus of many historians seems to be shifting more towards looking at how the details and inconsistencies line up with (or contradict) the broader current. We have been doing this ourselves through our own research and episode writing. With alternate ways of studying history available, we must choose which we believe is most helpful for understanding the past, or whether the two can be somehow integrated. Or is the study of history from a "presidential view" simply choosing to look at episodes concerning the individuals who led the government? It seems wrong to give more importance to one group of people over another, but at the same time Lincoln's decision to call troops changed the lives of thousands of people, and that cannot be ignored. In a way his decisions are being studied whenever any soldier's story is considered.
Additionally, the way that different people perceived events and the general attitude of the population has also grown greatly in importance to me while taking this course. Many times these perceptions as to what was important or what even happened are different from our own thoughts about a situation. This have really been highlighted for me through the episode I wrote on the dedication of a poetry book to the heroic women of the South - women that historians now claim lost the war because they lost a willingness to sacrifice. I have learned (and am still learning) what it means to look through the filter of the people of the nineteenth century while still considering the analysis of current historians.

My Closing Thoughts are . . . WoW. This class has had really high points and low ones, sometimes tied up all in one :]

Prior to now, I knew next to nothing about the 19th century, and the little bit I did know was either blatantly wrong or so biased as to approach falsehood. I found the class difficult at times because I needed a little more structure and a few more basics before delving so deeply into specifics, but all of this provided an opportunity to learn an immense amount!

Also, I was able to destroy some of my misconceptions and misinformation, most of which had been taught to me. Most notably was that of Greeneville, TN. I can't remember whether I have already shared the story on the Board, so if I have, skip on ahead to the next paragraph. While I lived in Greeneville, my teachers taught me that the tiny town was named after the Revolutionary war General Nathaniel Greene, who, as it turns out, never ever ever entered Tennessee. My teachers claimed that he died in Greeneville trying to hide from the British. On a more related topic, I was also taught that Andrew Johnson was born and raised in Greeneville. We visited his tailor shop where his wife taught him how to read - he was illiterate until then. In truth, Andrew Johnson was NOT born in Greeneville, and who knows how much of anything I was taught was actual truth. And what about those other kids - did they ever find out the truth? Information is incredibly powerful and misinformation as easily as truth can be passed on from generation to generation.

I enjoyed almost all of the outside readings, especially Stephen Ash's 1865, with the only true exception being 1884. Perhaps the most unique aspect of this course was also the most personally beneficial. I love history, so I have always liked research. However, the SHDB and the History Engine projects, even while they were a source of some stress, showed me how much I LOVE research! I was so excited when I could make time to go to Special Collections, and I got to use microfilm for the first time ever with Julia's help. That was extraordinarily neat!

When my research on the Philosophian Society intersected with some of Julia's research, we were able to "chase a rabbit" [as my religion teacher would say] and come to a better understanding of primary documents and historical research in general.

I discovered that I really enjoy the episodic approach to history! I loved getting in specific with several pieces and then relating it to the wider trends. The specific pieces give so much more interesting information than broad textbook-style strokes. I had some difficulties with the research, but the end result was really rewarding.

Learning about different approaches to historical study was very beneficial for me, as a future historian :] I used to think this period in history was relatively boring [excepting the Civil War] with Westward Expansion and railroads, but I grossly underestimated nearly everything.

I'm not one for those "what I've learned pieces", but I will say that two aspects of US history that I previously have dismissed as overrated have made quite an impact on my analysis of this class.

The Civil War has been beat into my head every year for as long as I can remember with the same themes prevailing...slavery, states rights, government powers...but there have been some unifying factors that have struck me during this course that tie everything together
        My episodes for the History were never intended to be about the Civil War or to be in any way related to the event. But it became increasingly evident with every episode the overarching importance of the Civil War in American History. No matter the subject matter that I came up with...even a ladies magazine (Godey's Lady's Book encountered what was essentially it's death knell due to the Civil War)for example, did my episodes deal with the Civil War. The lasting importance of the Civil War also came to light in the form of the Trowbridge/Reid episode which demonstarted so well the long term effects of the Civil War (farmers plowing up skulls in Fredericksburg for example).
         The other overrated event in US history that I've had a change of opinion on is the construction/evolution/usage of the railroad industry throughout the 19th Century in the US. Almost every industry was reliant on the railroad to expand and dominate in order to increase profit, etc. The regulation of governement through the railroad also amazed me, industry controlling the government by seemingly being controlled was a very shocking to learn; more the fact that it actually worked!
         I am still not convinced of the importance of Tammany Hall/Boss Tweed as that important an event however.

My Closing thoughts...
In class, almost a month ago, we talked about the political transformation that occurred as women began to be a key to success through their persuasive techniques. Specifically, one aspect we looked at was women as political supporters, and their involvement as auxiliaries to political processes. One of the episodes, which I briefly mentioned in class today, supplemented my reading of Edwards’ book, Angels in the Machinery. I thought, however, that the section of the book which I wrote my episode on, really embodied this definition of women’s involvement in the 19th century.
 The Tariff issue was a prevailing issue in the 1888 election year. The Democrats realized that in order to gain victory (which they would), they needed widespread moral and economic backing. Women, though not voting, provided the political backing through not only their persuasive techniques and their controlling ways to control the vote of their husbands, but through the idea of women as moral agents and the Republicans as “rich industrialists.” Consumerism was steadily rising, and this rapidly rising idea of materialism was a female’s responsibility to do the shopping for her family. One editor wrote about the new woman’s role as being that of the “family treasurer and disbursing officer.”
Meanwhile, though recognizing women as important in the election year, Democrats still did not accept the idea of family as maternally located. But their familial influence did intrigue the Democrats, which they used to their benefit. Women’s ability to gain their political identity through their consumerism and the economics of the country, allowed for their organizations and place in political society to gradually emerge. Through their persuasive actions within their households, women were able to participate in this tariff reform and economic issue through the ballots of their husbands. The Speaker of the House, Tomas B. Reed, said “I am inclined to think that the most important factor in the result of the election is the women of the country.”- A breakthrough, indeed, for women in the late 19th century.
Rebecca Edwards, Angels in the Machinery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2997), pp.67-74.

"Slavery Expansion and Restriction in the United States"
        Greely, Horace. A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extention or Restriction in the United States from the Declaration of Independence to the Present Day. New York: Dix, Edwards & Co., 1856.

"A Plea for Peace Within the Union"
         Grimke, Thomas. A letter to the Honorable John C. Calhoun, Vice-President of the United States, Robert Y. Hayne, Senator of the United States, George M'Duffie, of the House of Representatives of the United States, and James Hamilton, Jr. Governor of the State of South Carolina. Charleston: James S. Burges, 1832.

"Alarming Disclosures From the South Carolina Senate"
          Frean Thomas. Alarming disclosures! : Secret proceedings in the Senate of South Carolina : The victim of persecution at the stake, cries out aloud and expose the guilty!! : Murder will out. s.l. : s.n., 1857.

"Exiled From Florida"
           Giddings, Joshua Reed. The Exiles of Florida. Columbus, OH: Follett, Foster and Company, 1858.

"The Development of Roads in Upper Greenville County"
           Hufty, Samuel. Geographical, Statistical, and Historic Map of South Carolina. 1822.Hufty, Samuel. Geographical, Statistical, and Historic Map of South Carolina. 1822.

Salmon, George. Greenville District, South Carolina. 1820.

Lewis, Samuel. The State of South Carolina. 1795.

Batson, Mann. Early Travel and Accommodations Along the Roads of the Upper Part of Greenville County, South Carolina and Surrounding Areas. Taylors, SC: Faith Printing Co., 1995.

1.)My God trumps your Great Spirit
So Baptist mission to Cherokee 1877

2.)No Wampum for this land
1832 Cherokee/ Georgia Land Lottery

3.) Pagan Peacemaker
1805/1830 speeches of Red Jacket

4.) Killing a god
1880's killing of Buffallo herds and native responses

.) Graduation Essay of Lula Whilden
1.) "Life's Mission"
Lula Whilden Graduation Essay
1870

2.) Keeley Institute in Atlanta
"The Keeley Institute Now a Permanent Institution for Atlanta
Atl. Const.
May 3, 1891

3.) African American Suffrage
The Negro's Ballot The Fifteenth Amendment was a Failure Republicans Receive no Benefit John Sherman Says He Sometimes Wishes It Had Not Been Adopted - His Attack Upon the South
Atl. Const. Mar 14, 1890

4.) I may instead of one of the above do an episode on Belle Kearney which would relate to the WCTU

"Another Day on a Booming Rice Plantation"
A Plantation Boyhood: From the Unpublished Reminiscences of D.E. Huger Smith
Alice R. Huger Smith. A Carolina Rice Plantation (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1936)

"A Long Desperate Winter for Donner's Company"
Henry Howe. The Great West (Cincinatti, 1853)

"An Encounter with Indians along the Oregon Trail"
Francis Parkman, Jr. The California and Oregon Trail: being sketches of prairie and Rocky Mountain life. 1849.

A Weekend of Baseball in Chicago
-"sporting news" chicago tribune- April 21, 1876

A Gift From France
-"France full of enthusiasm; Rejoicing over the unveiling of the Bartholdi statue" The New York Times- Oct 31 1886

A Seemingly Normal Day
-"The Executive Exodus"(the day that james garfield is shot) The Washington Post- July 2 1881

*he forth is coming from 1876 but i am still undecided of which one i like better

"I pledge allegiance to the enemy..."
Ware Papers, Oath of Allegiance to the US

"Distinguished Savages"
Indian Biography

"Brothers in Arms"
The history of a brigade of South Carolinians

"Tragedy on the Mississippi"
(This one deals with the explosion of the U.S.S Sultana in 1865, but I haven't been able to find a satisfactory source yet.)

Shape note published
The Christian Minstrel - J.B. Aiken
Southern Harmony - Walker

Slave distribution at the start of the civil war
Harper's weekly Nov. 23 1861

Battle of the Wilderness casualties
A confederate surgeon's letters to his wife

News of Petersburg victory reaches New York
New York Times

Savannah, GA: Armed and Ready

Arms for the South," Richmond Daily Dispatch; Nov. 23, 1860, Richmond Daily Dispatch Database, http://dlxs.richmond.edu/cgi/t/text/text-i...0020.0018.124%3A4.1

Valuable Republican Mother's and their Biscuits (my pass/fail episode)

“Valuable Recipe,” The Daily Dispatch: July 26,1861, retrieved from (Richmond: University of Richmond Library, 2004), http:// dlxs.richmond.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ddr;iel=4;view=text;idno=ddr0228.0020.022;rgn=div2;cc=ddr;node=ddr0228.0020.022%3A11.

Reconstruction: A Black Man with Authority

"No Customers," Appleton's Journal: a magazine of general literature, July 1876. Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. B, 89, Making of America website, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pagev...433.2-01.001;seq=97

Boston's Surplus Women
- "TOO GOOD TO LOSE," Belle Eyre, Boston Daily Globe; Aug. 18. 1889; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Boston Globe (1872-1924), pg. 20.

The” Jim Crow” Car Trial
Primary Resources:
- THE "JIM CROW" CAR.; Rowe Asking for Contributions to Enable Him to Sue the Railroad.
The Atlanta Constitution (1881-2001). Atlanta, Ga.: Sep 23, 1889. p. 1 (1 page)
- PARALLEL CASES; TWO COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS. A Negro Asks Damages for Being Ejected From a First Class Car and a White Man Sues for Damages on Account of Being Forced to Leave a "Jim Crow" Car, Etc. The Atlanta Constitution (1881-2001). Atlanta, Ga.: Jun 1, 1887. p. 1 (1 page)
- JUMPING JIM CROW.; Answer of the Georgia Railroad to Heard, WHO COMPLAINS OF DISCRIMINATION. The Road Answers That There is No Car Known as the "Jim Crow" on Their line--Equal Accommodation. The Atlanta Constitution (1881-2001). Atlanta, Ga.: Jul 30, 1887. p. 1 (1 page)


Greenville County Slave is Caught and Hung
Primary resources:
-Anne K. McCuen, ed. Abstracts of Extant Greenville, South Carolina, Newspapers concerning Black People Free and Slave, 1826-1865 Vol. II.

America’s Centennial Birthday Celebration in Atlanta (July, 1876 Episode)
Primary Resources:
- CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION.; The Ball Opened--Flags, Banners, and Patriotic Speeches.
The Constitution (1875-1876). Atlanta, Ga.: Jul 2, 1876. p. 2 (1 page)
- THE GLORIOUS FOURTH.; Its Celebration in Atlanta To-Night.
The Constitution (1875-1876). Atlanta, Ga.: Jul 4, 1876. p. 3 (1 page)
- LIBERTY'S NATAL DAY.; ENTHUSIASTIV CELEBRATION OF THE CENTENNIAL FOURTH OF JULY IN ATLANTA AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. Recalling the Glories of One Hundred Years of American History. Crossing the Threshbold of Another Century. THE HALL
The Constitution (1875. Jul 6, 1876. p. 1 (1 page)

Edited by author 11-28-2007 07:23 AM
Compounding Issues of Social Liberalism at Hopewell Plantation
    -Miller, Randall M, "Dear Master" Letters of a Slave Family (Ithaca,
     N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978).
Realignment in Racial and Cultural Inclusiveness During the Civil War
    -Charles William Trueheart, Rebel Brothers The Civil War Letters of
    the Truehearts (College Station, Tex: Texas A & M University Press,
    1995).
Life and Criterion of Welfare at the Female Factory: The Women's Perspective
    -Philip Sheldon Foner,, The Factory Girls A Collection of Writings on
     Life and Struggles in the New England Factories of the 1840's
     (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977).
Unity and Realignment of Southern Politics Preceding the Civil War
    -Dwight Lowell Dumond, Southern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester,
     Mass: P. Smith, 1964).

I'm bad with titles, so these will most likely change:

"Call the Cavalry"
-Army of the Potomac, describing the statistics of the Union Cavalry.

"Deception, Deception"
-A Confederate Surgeon's Letters To His Wife, details of "Stonewall" Jackson's army movements.

"Man Via Nature"
-For Forest And Stream article titled Hunting Deer and Finding Snakes

Number four is still in the works.

Reorganizations of Hospital Hierarchy as a Result of the War
J.J. Chisholm, "Eleventh Annual Report of the Presbyterian Eye, Ear, and Throat Charity Hospital," Baltimore: Guggenheimer, Weil; 1889:9.

Mary Todd Lincoln's Mental Instability
Jason Emerson, "Mary Todd Lincoln's Lost Letters," Civil War Times, Oct. 2007.

Cmmdr. Joseph Perry's Capture and Later Release From Yankee Custody
Four Primary Sources-prison camp records, hospital records, record of oath of allegiance taken to United States, and record of death

Whiskey in War Camps
Photograph--Before Petersburg: A.A. Warren, Issuing Rations of Whiskey and Quinine, 1865.

1) Record Setting Railroad:
-“Items,” Friends’ Intelligencer (1853-1910), June 10, 1876, p. 256; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, http://www.proquest.com, (accessed November 13, 2007).
-“Article 10 – No Title,” Scientific American (1845-1908), June 17, 1876, p. 393; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, http://www.proquest.com, (accessed November 13, 2007).

2) Sanitary Reform in 19th Century Cities
-Up to 6 primary documents on Public Health and Sanitation.

3) Custer's Last Stand at Bull Run
-2 documents on the "Indian War" and 2 more on "Current Events.

4) Ft. Donelson Captured
-"The Occupation of the Capital of Tennessee" New York Evangelist. Mar 13, 1862

My Four…

- Secretary of State Part of Assassination Plot
“Terrible Tragedy in Washington. Murder of the President. Attempted Murder of Mr. Seward.” New York Times, April 17, 1865. p.2 ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

- Army and Navy Rivalry Begins
“The Navy Whips The Army.” New York Times, November 30, 1890, pg 1, ProQuest Historical Newspapers.


- Cyclone Rips Through Charleston
McKinley, Carl Esq., The August Cyclone: A Descriptive Narrative of the Memorable Storm of 1885. Some Mention of the Destruction of Property in and Around Charleston – The Character of the Disturbance Explained, and its Progress Traced from its Origin in the West Indies to its Disappearance in the North Atlantic Ocean. Charleston: The News and Courier Book Presses, 1886. Special Archives, Furman University Library.

- How to Educate A Woman
Hints on Female Education, with an Outline of an Institution for the Education of Females, Termed The So. Ca. Female Institute; Under the Direction of Dr. Elias Marks. This Institute, Situated at Barhamville, Two Miles from Columbia, Will Go Into Operation Oct. 1st 1828. Columbia, SC: Telescope Office, 1828. Special Archives, Furman University Library.

~ "And the meteor rains down"
July 8th, 1876 – Meteor
Daniel Kirkwood, "On Eight Meteoric Fireballs Seen in the United States From July, 1876, to February, 1877," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 16 (Jan. – May, 1877): 590 – 596,
 http://www.jstor.org/view/0003049x/ap03006...190/0?currentResult= 0003049x%2bap030069%2b03a00190%2b0%2c2F&searchUrl=http%3A %2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si %3D76%26gw%3Djtx%26jtxsi%3D76%26jcpsi%3D1%26artsi%3D1%26Q uery%3Djuly%2B1876%26wc%3Don (accessed November 12, 2007).

~ "Civil War Poem to state song"
William Gilmore Simms, LL. D. ed., War Poetry of the South (New York: Richardson & Company, 1867), 113 – 116. PS551 .S4 1866 (Special Collections, Furman University).

~ "Brady's Thousand Words"
Francis Trevelyan Miller, ed., The Photographic History of the Civil War (New York: The Review of Reviews Co., 1911), E 468.7.M64 V1 (Special Collections, Furman University).

~ "A Day in the Life of Sam Houston"
Ms. Clay of Alabama, A Belle of the 50's (Doubleday Page and Company, 1904), F 213.C62 (Special Collections, Furman University).

Assassination of President Lincoln and connection to the Dry Tortugas
          -The Rebellion Record

*Incomplete

Southern views following the Civil War
          -War Poetry of the South, edited by William Gilmore Simms
          -Confederate view on the treatment of prisoners
*Incomplete

The emergence of "pleasure reading" in the 19th Century
          -Carolina Sports by Land and Water
          -Godely's Lady's Book, 1842-1882
          -Mark Twain (2)
          -The Southern Harmony and Musical Companion

Life at Furman during the 19th Century
          -FU Historical Records RG 45 004
          -FU Historical Records RG 45
          -FU Historical Records 45 0005A
          -Baptist beginnings in Education: A history of Furman University

1.) Graduation Essay of Lula Whilden
1.) "Life's Mission"
Lula Whilden Graduation Essay
1870

2.) Keeley Institute in Atlanta
"The Keeley Institute Now a Permanent Institution for Atlanta
Atl. Const.
May 3, 1891

3.) African American Suffrage
The Negro's Ballot The Fifteenth Amendment was a Failure Republicans Receive no Benefit John Sherman Says He Sometimes Wishes It Had Not Been Adopted - His Attack Upon the South
Atl. Const. Mar 14, 1890

1.) Graduation Essay of Lula Whilden
"Life's Mission"
Lula Whilden Graduation Essay
1870

1."Alexander Rives Asks James Madison for Advice About Nullification and Secession"
“Alexander Rives to James Madison, December 28, 1832,” James Madison Papers, Library of Congress Online-American Memory. Accessed October 17, 2007.

2. "The 'Black Warrior' Affair exposes U.S. Tensions with Spain"
“Havana Correspondence,” Charleston Daily Courier, March 13, 1854 p.1 (Microfilm 071 C47, James B. Duke Library, Furman University)

3. "America's Need for a Second Transcontiental Railway"
“The Pacific Railway and a Southern Route,” Charleston Daily Courier, May 18, 1869 p.2 (Microfilm 071 C47, James B. Duke Library, Furman University)

4. "An Early Condemnation of 'Legal' Disenfranchisement"
"KILLING" THE NEGRO VOTE. (1880, February 7). New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 4. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) database. (Document ID: 98884770). http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=26&di...4069&clientId=43093

1. Furman Promises Appropriate Education for Women
James C. Furman Address. He gave this speech before students at Johnson Female Seminary in Anderson, SC. August, 1850. This speech celebrates the opportunity of education for women as a stepping stone for domestic life. Women have a place in the home, not public life.

Baptist Historical Collection in Furman University Historical Archives

2. Charles Larpenteur is Promoted
July 2, 1834 Charles Larpenteur is promoted to clerk with the American Fur Trade in Missouri and leaves for Fort Union. John Aster retires and American Fur Company changes hands.

“Forty Years A Fur Trader.” The Personal Journal of a Fur Trapper 1833-1872. R. R. Donnelly & Sons Co. The Lakeside Press. Chicago 1933.

3. Strike in Hocking Valley Coal Mine
October 25, 1884. Photos of striking miners in the Town of Buchtel. Pinkerton’s Detectives escort “blackleg” workmen to replace striking miners.

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, (New York, NY) October 25, 1884; pg. 152-153; Issue 1,518 col. A; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, http://www.proquest.umi.com. (accessed Sept.26, 2007)

4. Kate Stone Writes to Sarah Wadley with Homemade Ink
April 28, 1865 Kate wrote to her friend with homemade ink in order to discuss the accuracy of news about Lincoln’s death. “All honor to J. Wilkes Booth, who has rid the world of a tyrant.”

“The Journal of Kate Stone 1861-1868. Edited by John Q. Anderson. Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge. 1955.

5. Ashtabula Bridge Disaster as told by J.E. Burchell, a Survivor
On December 29, 1876, the Pacific Express fell into the three foot creek below the Ashtabula Bridge. Cracked iron trusses were the cause of the accident. 92 people died out of a passenger and crew list of 156.

“Pars Fui; The Narrative of a Passenger,” Chicago Daily Tribune, December 31, 1876, p. 2.; ProQuest Historical Newspapers, http://www.proquest.umi.com. (accessed November 25, 2007).

Edited by author 11-27-2007 01:34 PM
1. Title: Construction of Railroads in South Carolina
Primary Source: Annual report of the president and directors of the Blue Ridge Railroad Company in South Carolina (Columbia: Charles P. Pelham, 1860) HE 2771.56 A56 1860 (Special Collections, Furman University)

2. Presidet Jackson's Speech on the Nullification Ordanances
Primary Source: President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden...amations/jack01.htm)

3. Reconstruction in South Carolina: A New Constitution
Primary Source: The constitution of South Carolina, adopted April 16, 1868, and the acts and joint resolutions of the General Assembly, passed at the Special Session of 1868, together with the military orders therein re-enacted (Columbia: J.W. Denny, 1868) JK4225 1868 (Special Collections, Furman University)

4. Reaction to the Compromise of 1850
Primary Source: Speech of Winchester Graham, on the compromise measures, delivered at Millhouse's Mills, Barnwell district, S.C. Sept. 5th, 1851
E415.7 H74 1851 (Special Collections, Furman University)

Here are my 4 episodes:

1. Title: Jonathan P. Davis' Journey to Milledgeville
Primary Source: Samuel Augustus Mitchell, Mitchell's Travel Guide Through the United States (Philadelphia: Hinman & Dutton) 1838. E158 .M675 (Special Collections, Furman University).

2. Title: President Jackson Pardons Basil Manly
Primary Source: Pardon of Basil Manly by President Johnson. Various Personal Papers and Data Concerning B. Manly, Sr., Box 4. (Special Collections, Furman University).

3. Title: A Dedication to the Manhood of Southern Women
Primary Source: Willaim Gilmore Simms, LL. D., War Poetry of the South (New York: Richardson & Company) 1867. PS551 .S4 1866 (Special Collections, Furman University).

4. Title: Furman University Closes for Civil War
Primary Source: Faculty Report July 1861. Old Campus Historical Documents Faculty Reports, Box 1. (Special Collections, Furman University).

I thought that Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion was a very interesting, and as others have said, intricate read. At times, I too had to backtrack a little so that I could pick up what I had missed. Generally though, I think the book was very rewarding. It seems Summer details well the several different impulses in the election, rather than the simplistic explanation of a few major actors, issues and scandals. Also, I think Summer argues very successfully the importance of the election within the context of American history—namely, as a point when democracy became less in the hands of a few elite and more in the hands of the people at-large. Also, I would comment that Summer’s descriptive narrative style was very entertaining and really made the election come to life.

Corresponding to the search we did on Wednesday I found an individualistic approach to the different weekly posting in 1856 than in 1832. There were more topics about events in the UK and there were more events on state constitutions. I think this is just because there were a lot of questions regarding state rights in 1832 then in 1856. I got the feeling that in 1856 more people were interested in individual gain. There were articles about engagements, deaths, letters to women and rights, and the change in markets. I think that this opened a different way for people to address their needs in society. Small communities and locality were more interesting to people in 1856 than to the larger crowd in 1832.
I believed this idea changed even more during the late 70s to early 80s especially regarding the 1884 elections. Summers main idea in his book is the transfer of the power of political parties. Parties ran the votes of people in the era leading up to the Civil War and then after the Compromise of 1877 and the end of the Reconstruction there was more of a “don’t get sucked in” policy that seemed to control the pattern of voting. The power of voters became a dominate theme in political parties because they decided to have more control in the political process. Maybe it was more important to them in 1884 then in 1832 or 1856 to be aware of the stance of political leaders instead of sticking with a particular party? Or maybe they found it was worth paying attention to after the threat of secession and the Civil War?

I too found Summer's book to be extraordinarily intricate, but at the same time engaging and interesting. It seemed that Summers spent a lot of the book going into great detail to make his point how the elections of 1884 impacted Americans of all walks of life, but as it has been said before, he goes into good detail about Irish Americans and their role in the political process. The episodic structure of Summer's book was interesting and insightful, and helped me understand how to better formulate my own episodes. Overall, I believe that this book, while intricate and hard to follow in some places, is a good read.

To add to the random posts, I found a very interesting parallel between the the New York Draft Riots in 1863 and the Integration of Boston's public schools in 1974. I have been researching the treatment of Boston's school integration by the media, and thought I would share a bit. The New York Draft riots resulted in the burning of a colored orphanage which was used to symbolize that resisting the war led to barbarity. The Irish Catholics were blamed for the event. In 1974 busing was mandated for Boston that included children going from an Irish Catholic area to a black area and the other way around. Nearly every newspaper article mentions that white protesters consisted mainly of Irish Catholics with fiery tempers who did not hesitate to use violence. The south in particular used the situation to make a point that the north was just as racist as the south and that the north tried to use the Irish as a scapegoat.

First, I have to say that I found the Titles for each chapter to be quite amusing, but also informative as to why 1884 is more complex and intricate than either 1831 or 1865 (referring to book titles, not the years) - there are just a lot more sections in Sommers' book, and so naturally there are also more that he is trying to say.

I felt that Sommers did a good job of depicting the different groups of people to which politicians had to cater their campaigns. Additionally, there were also more issues that had to be addressed. The bank had been been a key issue during the Jacksonian era. Later, slavery rose to the forefront of political activity and the Republican Party was created to fill a need. After the Civil War and Reconstruction had ended, there was no one glaring issue by which everyone chose their political party. Temperance, women's rights, and immigration policy were among the key issues, but politicians had to work at creating a multi-issue ideology in order to gain the majority of votes needed to win.

Jillian's comments on Irish Americans shows that even within one group of people, there were still greater intricacies that forced politicians to choose who was worth pursuing and who would be marginalized even more. Sommers mentions that "Blaine Irish American clubs may have revealed how awkwardly Republicans fit Irish Americans into the ranks" (216). I think this could be generalized into a greater comment on American society at a time when standardization and patriotism were king - even people were being categorized into groups in order to fit within the molds of society. People who fit into members of multiple groups were in an interesting situation. On the one hand was pressure to identify with a group in order to become part of something greater (ex: pg. 221 the Women's Christian Temperance Union with 150,000 united members could make a greater statement than one person), but on the other hand, there was power in knowing that different groups were competing to gain your membership (ex: pg. 191-192 explains that Republicans were stuck on the question of Prohibition because movement either way would cause the losing of votes, so other issues were explored). Add to this the very real existence of coercion on the local level in the south (see Virginia's comment) and political machines in the north (see Jillian's comment), and I guess that's why Sommer's book covers so many topics in such detail.

Like Wirginia, I found Summers's arguments detailed to a fault as NUMEROUS actors and agents were introduced. These introductions, once made, never seemed to be tied into the broad picture, and I couldn't help but feel that many of the names dropped were thinly veiled attempts by the author to prove he had done his research. Also, the arguments were unclear toward the beginning of the book as the author's theses were not clear nor were they explained.

Despite these faults, Summers made some very naunced arguments in later pages that highlights some of the general political trends often disregarded. Of interest to me was the chapter concerning Irish Americans and their political pull. There are many layers to this phenomenon, including issues of citizenship, the role of this demographic in the electorate, and the willingness of politicians to appeal to these somewhat marginalized peoples.

Additionally, Summers's discussion of the political machine as a brokering mechanism was fascinating. Recounting the roles of bosses and other behind the scenes parties exposes a subset of political players typically ignored in light of the more vocal actors. The extent of power these organizations wielded over the top tier in the nation's chain of command illustrates the corruption to which David Saxton alluded. I too cannnot help but feel that the election of 1884 is not as unique in retrospect as it was at the time; the corruption and media sensationalism characteristic of political campaigns seems to trace its roots to elections like the one in 1884.

David Ehrlich, I don't think your theory is at all incomprehensible! But I still think it's problematic . . . it assumes that the employees are willing to work for a sense of moral worth. I know lots of people who would do absolutely nothing without the promise of some sort of material gain. I think most people are the most motivated when they are rewarded and can see the fruits of their labor. Obviously, I can think of examples to the contrary, and even some people who would only work under threat of punishment. Question: Are all, most, or even a significant some of the workers motivated by or suffer from moralistic illusions? Answer: I'm unconvinced, except in the case of Dwight K. Schrute. And even he asked for a raise and tried to usurp his boss at two separate points . . .

And I think you might be hard-pressed to find a person in a position of that kind of power who would willingly relinquish some level of control. I don't really see Hank Rearden being convinced that if he would just pat his workers on the back for a job well done, he could produce his metal without paying them. . . . in fact, if I remember correctly, isn't that what he pushes against when his brother, the philanthropist, asks first for a handout and then a job? Rearden thinks every person has to earn what they get just like himself, Dagny, and John Galt.

First off . . . I hope this is not just me, but I was pretty confused the whole time I was reading this book. It might be because I am super exhausted, but I still feel as if Summers argument was extraordinarily intricate and complex perhaps to a fault? I could not keep the people straight with their parties and their time periods. I think, however, that a lot of my problems with understanding may be due to the fact that this is my first exposure really to this material - this period has *always* been glossed over in my previous history classes, so I am coming at all of the party and personal interactions without any experience.

I appreciated the year approach of Masur and Ash because of the level of specificity and detail [those are different words] they achieved while still remaining easily understood. Summers appears to have been less discriminatory within his narrative thread than either Masur or Ash. The selectivity of the latter creates a tightly wound story versus the relative epic-ness of 1884: Summers follows a broad thread of political atmosphere, including actors, trends, and audiences, through a longer expanse of time. His argument is necessarily more complex. He does retain a great deal of specificity, however, making the narrative somewhat difficult to follow.

That being said, I found Summers book to be very informative and interesting. Referring to the second question of causal balance and relative agency, I was intrigued to learn the importance of local politics. The local political scene [not just the politicians themselves] made an immense difference in national politics. The Solid South, it seems, was cemented in local arenas where democrats used literally any means necessary to coerce those they deemed eligible into voting according to their party line. They used equally strong powers of persuasion to prevent all others, including blacks, from even approaching the polls. Thus, local leaders and individual voting blocks became immensely powerful in determining state and thereby national leadership.

Towards the end of our discussion about the Knights of Labor document in today in class, the question was raised, why would this organization and the ideals it espoused appeal to a factory owner or any other industrialist? Certainly this document seems very progressive in its aims and philosophies while an industrialist would simply be interested in the output of his labor force. I meagerly attempted to suggest that this organization would appeal to an industrialist because it would foster a greater sense of accomplishment among the work force. By promoting moral worth over wealth, the workers would be relieved of the drudgery of their work to a certain extent and work for their own personal benefit and sense of achievement. One of my colleagues (Andrew, I believe it was you) astutely countered this suggestion by (I hope I’m not misquoting you) saying that an industrialist would not be attracted to this newly inspired workforce because in reality all he is interested is in the output and not in the laborers sense of achievement. The experiment, and failure, of Communism has all to well proven that people do not work well unless justly compensated, not with pride, but with cash.
I quickly accepted this reply and thought nothing more of it until a few minutes ago. Then it occurred to me. What if the industrialist could indeed benefit from such a philosophy as the Knights of Labor espoused? If he were to take the approach the moral worth is just an illusion, a metaphysical conjuring, and he were to make a show of promoting this idea among his workers he could indeed turn it to benefit himself financially. Both Adam Smith and later Ayn Rand wrote a lot about the idea that if man works solely towards his own selfish end, then the marketplace will work itself out for the bettering of society. Getting man to work for his own selfish end is no hard task, and for the industrialist this would naturally play out in the abuse of his factory workers in order to get greater output. However is he were to sacrifice his own selfish ends for a short time and were to cater to the selfish ends of the workers’ desire for moral worth, he would indeed have a workforce that would achieve above and beyond an abused one. While the workers would have the selfish end of moral worth, an ethereal if not even illusionistic goal, the industrialist would then have a labor force, not motivated by money, but be the satisfaction of a job well done. They would be totally committed to output even if they were not duly compensated. They may even be more productive than a workforce motivated by pay. Perhaps it may be in the selfish interest of the industrialist to cater to the moralistic illusions of the laborers in order to reach his own ends. Perhaps the Knights of Labor would appeal to some factory owners. I know this is a long winded, tortuous, and incomprehensible theory, but I thought it might be sort of interesting to work it out. Oh well.

The absurdity of the 1884 election amazed me at how dishonest the election was...The well known corruption of Blaine never the less landed him his parties nomination; the resulting nomination of Cleveland by the Democrats created an issue or corrupt vs. immoral with a voting demographic note unlike that of the 2004 election. The support of Mugwumps in favor of Cleveland would have seemed to be critical, though I never came away with the sense that were all that effective.

In remembering the 2004 election, I can think of several parallels that can be made to the candidates...the relation of Bush to corruption, Kerrey portraying himself as the moral choice, or Bush using morale majority support..

I believe that page 187, a political cartoon from RRR-1884, summed up the politics of the era perfectly.

This kinda follows the pattern of random postings but i had the opportunity to visit Buffalo NY over the weekend. from the plane ride in was able to see lake erie and the various waterways that make their way through New York by locks and canals. But what struck me more than anything was the hundreds of acres devoted to the reailway station in Buffalo. I had an idea of where this came from and did some research. Buffalo became a major hub for commerce in the 19th century due to the large amount of stuff coming through the erie canal from places like Chicago. When the canls started being overtake n by railroads in the mid to late 19th century Buffalo was one of the first to react. With the advantage of having most of the commerce from the great lakes coming through the city at some point Buffalo became a major railway center that rival that of the largest cities of the time. In this sense one could argue that buffalo was a more important for national commerce than some of the larger new england cities because it connected the east and west in a time when shiping goods across the country was very difficult.

A couple random things to supplement my previous post- I was driving back to school last night and I was thinking about how the pledge of allegiance was created to help market and advertise national flags for classrooms, and then I thought- is this not dissimiliar to the surplus of flags sold after september 11th? I actually was quite proud of the amount of patriotism, but that patriotism has dropped off over the past years... hopefully the money made from all of the american flag stickers and car decals, etc. was given to charity- but who really knows? More national coercion? Also, I was studying for the LSAT before I went to bed last night and one of the critical reading articles I read was about nonverbal images and a democratic society. I almost got out of bed to post but then decided it could wait for this morning...This is one line I particulary liked "The arts are a living expression, an empowered and empowering voice of contemporary society, urging and molding society as well as reflecting it." Additionally, "A society that would be democratic and free requires a public capable of deciphering and critizing nonverbal messages." And isn't this exactly what we are doing? Trying to decipher these national symbols and just the mere fact that we get to form our own opinions about them does say something about democracy and freedom- whether or not it's national coercion or not- atleast we do get some say! It is up to us to mold and shape our own opinions of these symbols...I just thought it was quite ironic that I read that article right after I posted so I wanted to share...

I was looking through the articles in the database for class today, and I found some surprising things. I think the main issues were economic, especially concerning tariffs and other taxes. A large portion of the articles were focused overseas to Britain, but Jamaica and even Liberia were also covered.
The Niles' Weekly Register of Boston covered surprisingly specific state issues, including the legislatures of Alabama, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The Register also included an article on a speech by JR Poinsett in Charleston. I was surprised to see the strong southern political focus so early in the period.
There were also several articles on literature, poetry, music, and even engraving. These included analysis of French, German, and religious works. Some of the articles were educational, while at least one other was a submitted poem by a reader. The newspaper forum appears to have served as a teacher, recorder, and judge, while still allowing very amateur input.

In thinking back about our discussion yesterday in class, I find it important to note that I believe many people have no idea what it is they are pledging their allegiance to when they say the pledge of allegiance. I feel like, from a very early age, we as Americans are taught that saying the pledge is just something we are supposed to do. We say it every morning before class, but no one actually gives a child any other reason to say it than, "because you are supposed to." I wish that I had been given at least a little information on what it was I saying, rather than just following the leader. I feel like it would have made me better in the long run if I had just a little background knowledge about what I said every day. It seems to me that America is very quick to commemorate important events in the life of our country with a song or monument - so much so sometimes that the message of the monument gets lost in the structure itself. For example, war memorials are built all over the country, and people visit these beautiful statues each year, and pass them by with a very limited understanding of the sacrifice behind the structure. I guess my main point is that I feel like we as a country could do a better job of educating our citizens on the meaning behind our endless monuments, so that the meaning is what makes them beautiful.

After our discussion in class today about the pledge of allegiance, I wanted to clarify about my post. I was one of the embarrassing ones who wrote that I spoke those words my whole life, but I did notice there was a difference, which I should have pointed out. Also in class today, we talked about the idea of state and national coercion, but is it coercion or is it truly the United States’ desire to transcend divisions as efforts? Interestingly enough, I did a little wikipedia search (I thought it would be okay for this post), and I found that the pledge now reads, “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." So, while we no longer pledge allegiance to “my” flag, and while we now pledge allegiance to “under God,” is this still national coercion? I would say that because most classrooms recite these phrases every morning, regardless; it still is a type of coercion.
 Interestingly enough on Wikipedia (so take this for what it is…), the first original pledge was written by a Christian socialist in 1892 (the exact one we read), as an advertisement for the owners of Youth Companion, who were marketing flags to school classrooms. This article also mentions that the words “equality and fraternity” were debated to replace “liberty and justice” but were decided against because they were too controversial for women and for blacks at this delicate time. I think Julia mentioned this in class today- that the words “liberty and justice” can mean so many different things, and that they are less controversial as words such as “equality and fraternity.” So while our nation cannot promise us “equality” for instance, they can promise us some type of liberty or justice, whether or not their definitions are the same as ours. I usually don’t find Wikipedia this fascinating but according to that article on the Pledge, in 1923 “my Flag” was changed to the “Flag of the United States” in order that immigrants might know to which flag they were pledging. In my mind, the step away from ambiguity towards the definition of which flag you are pledging to is a step towards more national coercion in an effort for more national (perhaps brainwashed…) unity. However, in 2006, it was ruled that parental written consent and mandatory standing during the flag are no longer necessary, perhaps a big step away from this governmental symbol.
 I wanted to also briefly say that I think it’s interesting in the picture we saw today of “Britannia sympathizing with Columbia,” that Britannia is facing only towards Columbia, while she reaches out to Lincoln, but her back remains towards the black woman. This, along with the Mississippi State Constitution in 1890, seems such a contrast to the pledge of allegiance and the national unity they are hoping to create. Instead, these two contrasting images provide insight that perhaps the pledge of allegiance is only a front to appease certain groups and to maintain a front of unity; when really, there still is no equality; a fact diligently avoided when words such as “equality and fraternity” are omitted and replaced with less abrasive words. Anyhow- those are my thoughts, they might be way off base, but that’s what I have going through my head!

FYI -- There is a sample of the citizenship test that Emily mentions at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

Provisions of the 14th Amendment seemed very reasonable to me and in reaction to the Civil War. However, I did find the fact that Indians weren't counted in the numbers to determine representatives because they were not taxed interesting. I know that at this time the question of whether Indians were a separate nation or not was pertinent. Which is I guess why they were not taxed. I also found the statement about public debt not being questioned interesting – especially since nowadays people talk about public debt all the time. I was surprised how short the 15th Amendment was. The statement about how persons with previous condition of servitude can not be denied the right to vote on account of that. I know what they mean, but the definition of "servitude" to me can be taken in a few different ways. However, people can still be denied based on a different reason (such as too young or wrong gender).
The main mistake that historians seem to make about the General Amnesty Act of 1872 is that it gave ex-Confederates the right to vote again. In realty Southerners could vote before 1872, but saying that they could not makes the whole situation more dramatic.
The ways that the South tried to get around "Northern" politics seems like so much effort to me (and at the same time easy). By saying that you have to pay a poll tax or take a test (based on literacy – and then give hard texts to the people you don't want to vote) can successfully eliminate those you don't want to vote. It reminds me of when my friend was applying to be a citizen of the US and she was telling me about the test she had to pass. I'm sure that at least 50% of US citizens would score poorly (if not fail) that test. What does that say about US citizens that they don't know their own history? But back to the issues here. I feel as though there were a lot of unjust politics going on at the time (in the North and the South) that were dramatized without any real knowledge about what was really going on. People were so emotional involved in the Civil War that any issue relating to the Civil War afterwards would carry that same emotional charge (similar to some current issues in today's society).

In today's reading, there are several obvious and immediate similarities in the movements generally organized around the laboring class and its interests. Specifically, the Greenback Party, Knights of Labor, Readjusters, and Populist Party all are very distrustful of the bank and want freer circulation of money, especially through greenbacks. Secondly, they are all distrustful of the corporate influence, especially as seen by such institutions as the railroads which syphon money and lands and out of the hands of the working class. Third, there is a general desire for greater equalities in rights, and especially reform in labor laws. Socialism, as treated by Josiah Strong, seems similar in its interests but much more radical, though much of this is unseperably tied to the lack of objectivity by Josiah Strong--who seems to both recognize the same forces against the working class, but argue much more of a reformist movement as might be similar to populism, perhaps.

America's development of a capitalist economy in the late 19th century brought profound changes to the nation, not only in industry and the new hierachical system within the work force, but also in the ideals held by Americans about what made a virtuous Republic. Gaps between classes widened, at the same time that it seemed people gained more equality. Corporations dominated the economic and political scene. Many people responded to this and sought ways to reform the nation. The Populist Party advocated more government involvement, the adoption of a nationwide union, the standardization of the work day, and government ownership of the railroads, among many other things attempting to reform what they felt was a corrupt American system. The Populists were condemning those at the top, such as William Mahone, a man who achieved the "American Dream" by working his way from tavernkeeper's son to political boss and railroad owner. The Populists felt the oppression of the working class and the problems within the new American system must be solved before the issue of virtue could be addressed. Others felt sin was the root for all of the problems in America. Rev. Josiah Strong expressed his beliefs and said the sin and corruption of American values was the cause for the nation's problems. American underwent many changes in the late 19th century and many of its citizens responded.

Edited by author 11-12-2007 10:52 PM
As I have been reading the assignments and discussion board postings lately, the themes of change and adaptation throughout history have been striking. As our nation emerged from the midst of a bloody Civil War and tried to put the pieces back together again, there was extensive conflict even in how to treat one another. This uneasiness not only applied to the more obvious voting situation between whites and blacks, but also to the composition of our legislatures, as Rawley addresses. I believe I heard Dr. Benson say at one point that the Civil War was the first instance in which the losing side was welcomed back into the midst of the victors to make another attempt at Union. Thus, it is not surprising that, in its wake, such unrivaled change and unrest occurred during this period. As America's population continued to grow and the number of immigrants continued to increase, cities and industrialization added another interesting dynamic to society. Also caught up in this limbo, as revealed in the Greenback-specie debate, was the nation's economy as businessmen, bankers, and the working class, among others, all adjusted to a new, more dynamic, and prospering economy.

However, many of the same themes have endured throughout history as well. As David and Jillian suggested, these were not new topics of conversation. Gender issues had persisted from the 13th century until the 19th century and, as Dr. Benson suggested in class today, might even persist today (with his reference to Hillary Clinton). Just as Jason points out, the Greenback party's spirit of working for the rights of the common man were carried on in Ross Perot's presidential runs. The rights of blacks were heatedly contested until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and many would argue that, with current events such as the Jena 6 still taking place, racial disputes still continue today.

Thus, although events in history may cause change and require adaptation, the human reaction to those changes remains fairly constant.

Edited by author 11-12-2007 08:34 PM
The readings concerning the Greenback and Knights of Labor parties contained a good deal of discussion about some of the most important debates of the latter part of the 19th century: the issues surrounding monetary policy. The Greenback-specie debate, and eventually, the gold-silver debate, was often painted as a "common man vs. moneyed interests" issue. The encyclopedia entry about the Greenback party talked about how the Greenback party used the issue as a symbol: "there has been a constant disposition among many men of all parties in the agricultural states to recur to the inflation of the currency as a remedy for evils of all sorts..." By the same token, Greenback (and later, silver) supporters painted specie backed currency as responsible for that host of evils. The entry also describes how Greenback supporters viewed specie-backed currency as a conspiracy between bankers and the government to destroy the common farmer.

The parallels between the debates surrounding the Bank of the United States and Greenbacks are clear. Opposition to the Bank of the United States was founded largely on a sort of generic fear of the Bank (much like the generic praise for currency inflation by greenbacks)-- opposition labelled it a tool of moneyed interests, particularly bankers. It was blamed for all kinds of economic hardship and opponents believed it harmed the common man, the farmer. This brings to mind the encyclopedia entry regarding the Greenback Party: the Greenback party believed that specie backed currency was responsible for "general financial distress." It seems obvious that the greenback-specie debate was not the first time in American history that an economic issue has been twisted into a symbol for class conflict between farmers and bankers. Based on some recent history, I tend to think that it was not the last, either.

I believe the discussion surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent debate about free trade in general exhibits much of what was seen during America's experience with the Bank of the US and greenback currency. Opposition to free trade and NAFTA has always been rooted in a sort of generic fear pervasive among American manufacturing workers that NAFTA would mean "shipping their jobs to Mexico." As the story goes, this would raise unemployment, deflate the value of the dollar abroad, and destroy the economy. These sorts of generic, all-encompassing fears match up well with the arguments of the Greenback Party. Matching up equally well are the types of people likely to oppose NAFTA and those likely to support the greenback dollar: back in the 19th century it was "the common man" (the farmer), today it is "middle america" (manufacturing plant workers). NAFTA opposition accuses its supporters of being shills for the "greedy" corporations, while Greenback supporters accused their enemies of being "greedy" bankers. Opposition to NAFTA was even a large part of Independent/Reform candidate Ross Perot's presidential runs-- the Greenback Labor Party was a third party based almost entirely on support for the Greenback.

In other words, whether the Bank of the United States, the Greenback Dollar, or NAFTA is the topic, "the common man against moneyed interests" is a storyline that many political activists have used in American history to gain support in debates over economic policies.

As I was sitting in the Great Clips after work today, enjoying a little light reading on the Fourth Crusade, it struck me that several significant trends can be seen in this period of the early 13th century that are germane to are class discussion today on gender identity and its role in society and politics. This parallel should not be altogether surprising as the 19th century was one where the values and passions espoused by the movement of Romanticism, a movement that took much influence from the Medieval Period, were widespread. The first parallel and similarity is seen in how both periods put a great deal of importance on placing women on a pedestal. While the knights of the Middle Ages had the standards of chivalry to live up to, the men of America, particularly the South, similarly put women in a place where they were to be respected, honored and protected. As we discussed today, the South was greatly influenced by their women and a desire to protect them and family values may have influenced secession to a certain extent. After placing women on a pedestal, men of both eras were influenced by their women to go to war or to lean a certain way politically. In my book on the Fourth Crusade, it says that one of the greatest motivating factors for crusaders to “take up the cross” was to earn glory and praise (and maybe something else) from the womenfolk. This was also a motivating factor for the men that took up arms for the South in the Civil War. Finally as we talked about today in class, men turned to women to legitimize their cause or stance. In class we cited the example of the women showing up to the political rally and thus lending their approval to the proceedings. Similarly in the Middle Ages, women would not only legitimize a man’s battle by lending her moral support to her man, but she would also offer a knight her colors to wear into battle as a symbol of her approval. Ok to make some sense of this rambling. I thought it was very interesting how my reading today on an event that took place seven hundred years ago closely paralleled our discussion today on gender identity and women’s role in society. Just as women came to have a growing influence in the house and in politics in the late 19th century America, even without access to the ballot, so did women of the 13th century play a profound role in the shaping of society, politics, and even wars. Just a thought.

Limitations on the right to vote had long been a political topic by the
time of Reconstruction; even Jefferson and Hamilton debated the merits of
property requirements in determining the eligibility of voters. In light
of the Civil War, the debate about voter qualifications took a decidedly
racial turn as issues regarding the status of freedmen became prominent in
the political sphere. Although questions about disenfranchisement were not
new, they reflected at the time of Reconstruction the perpetuation of racial tensions. Granted, these tensions did not take a racial BECAUSE of the Civil War but rather reflected the consistent marginalization of this group which had occurred for decades beforehand.

I agree with Julia in that the methods employed to deny the vote to blacks seem rather sophisticated in their efficiency. What was striking to me is the fact that the intentions of disenfranchising blacks were not at all veiled and were even unapologetically celebrated in some instances. Politicians did not employ legal loopholes to deny the vote; rather, they used the law in its unabashedly racist form to achieve this end.

The inconsistency between who is given the vote and who is restricted from voting coupled with who actually gets to vote and who is disenfranchised is really interesting. I think Chris makes a really interesting point while talking about the two key ways that white southerners stopped African Americans from voting: violence and legal loopholes. Violence may stop a group of people from voting in one election, but it takes a lot of work to gather up a group of people and storm the voting locations. If a state could figure out ways to disenfranchise African Americans through laws, like Mississippi did in their 1890 Constitution, then less work would have to be done later. Mississippi's 1890 Constitution uses restrictions on residency in 241 and literacy tests in 244 that are constructed specifically to disenfranchise African Americans. The literacy tests had to be monitored by somebody, and the section chosen from the Constitution was not a standard section, so those running the literacy tests basically got to decide who could vote and who could not vote.

The readings were very interesting. I found the article about the Amnesty Act of 1872 especially interesting. The argument that the the Sec. 3 and the the Act are often misinterpreted to create a flawed historical narrative is very intriguing. Rawley aruges against the commonly held narrative of the South rising up in the early 1870s to sweep out the Radicial Reconstructionists. He shows that the Act and the amendment show that it was more a gradual process of change, occuring in a piecemeal fashion, rather that the Southern tide of reform that most textbooks portray. Voting has always been a fundamental right in all democracies, so it is no suprise it was a sources of conflict in trying to rebuild the nation after the Civil War. The spirit of the Fourteenth Amendent and the text of the Fifteenth Amendment both address this central structure of democracy. It was intresting to see how the South, in particular Mississippi and South Carolina, reacted and tried to circumvent these new statues. South Carolina relied on the bullying of the KKK and a centeralized, corrupt, and influential Democraitc party to win elections by intimidation, coercion, and outright violence, as seen in the local "rifel clubs" that ran the party. These were more informal ways that ensure that the statues about voting rights were not met in South Carolina. As time passed, South states would take more formalized measures to disenfranchise certain groups, particuallary African-Americans. This more formailized disenfranchisement is seen in the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. Sec. 244 of this article makes literacy requirements of the citizens, ensuring that most former slaves would not be given the vote. These two responsens were typical of Southern states who tired to continue to subjugate African-Americans in statues and practice throughout the rest of the late 19th to mid-20th Century. These reading showed how the national government tried to ensure that all citizens were granted their most basic democratic freedom and the negative response these statues recieved in the South.

Our class readings for Monday about the way states used literacy tests and poll taxes and other such methods to subvert the 14th and 15th Amendments and deny Blacks the right to vote is quite intriguing to me because it follows closely with the topic of one of my episodes. My primary source is an article from the "New York Times" on Feb. 7, 1880 in which the author is writing in response to an article from the "Charleston News" which stated that it was the white man's duty to suppress the black vote so that “intelligent and responsible citizens” could rule. But the method to do this, it argued, was not with violence, as had been done before, but through legal means such as making it a requirement that a person write out their full name in order to register to vote. The author of the "New York Times" article had no qualms in seeking to validate that a person was competent in order to vote, but he argued that such laws would not be applied fairly in South Carolina and would only be used to hinder black voting and undercut democracy. He condemns such an action as detrimental to democracy and asks his readers to do the same. What is really interesting about this article is that it is written in 1880, whereas black disenfranchisement through these methods was not fully developed until 1890 as displayed in the Mississippi Constitution. Thus, it should be noted that actions beyond violence to prevent black voting were being contemplated and condemned long before they came into full practice.

Class discussion was quite interesting today. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing what everyone perceived from the pictures, and I think most of what was said was very thought provoking. I was thinking about the beginnings of the department store in terms of today, and the culture it has created in the United States as well. It seems logical to me that the huge, big city department store comes in and takes over the small town dry goods store. But as I think more about it, it seems that this big city store may serve to unite the small community in a way it never intended. The dry-goods store is a unique aspect of small town life, as it serves friends, and not just customers. I expect the owners were known by most of the store's customers, and families had been shopping there for generations. When i think of it in these terms, I get the feel that "small town folk" would do whatever it took to save not only the store from the big city, mail order business, but also to save the tradition and personality of their friends in the dry-goods business. Just a thought that came to my head as I was leaving class today after great discussion.

I was in no way surprised that the textbook contained a much briefer and kinder version of Wounded Knee. The accounts that were told by the Lakota from Wounded Knee were linked by a common thread which bound all of them together to form one unified theme; that tension and panic created the initial shooting that broke out and killed the victims. After reading the various sources and the biased CT articles Wounded Knee seems to be a case in which politics led to the violence. It seems pretty hard to believe that troops conducting a presence patrol would require artillery support to accomplish a mission as simple as theirs. Logically someone in the CoC was informed to eliminate the Lakota and cover it up as a battle.

I was not surprised to find the different accounts that described the disarming of the Sioux that caused the Battle of Wounded Knee.
The Chicago Tribune reported in the article Jan. 1, 1891 that General Miles replaced General Brooke; this leads me to believe that General Miles was not pleased with General Brooke’s efforts to handle the Sioux relocation. I wonder if General Miles was opposed to readjusting the land policy for the Sioux and wanted someone else to carry out the relocation order. Or maybe he was upset that Brooke’s handled the problem so badly.
The CT also stated in another article that twenty four or more soldiers died and sixteen Indians. The following article try to have a more definite report on the wounded soldiers that had died over the next twenty to forty eight hours and those who were expected to die. None of the first six articles rehash the deaths of the Sioux. Reading the Lakota accounts from the Western Archive I found their records conflict with the newspapers evidence. Only naturally…right. According to those present, the battle was a massacre. Men were separated from the women right before they were asked to disarm. The tension exploded when one random Sioux fired and killed one of the US soldiers. This caused panic; men were slaughtered and women, carrying infants or pregnant were also gunned down.
If I had time I would like to see if I could find the officers description of the massacre. I believe the Lakota accounts more than the Chicago Tribune, just because the newspaper was receiving reports from the government and reporters that might not have gotten the entire picture.

One of the most interesting questions about national symbols is considering who was given the authority to create these symbols and who gave that authority? This is particularly true of the statues. Thomas U. Walter designed the capitol building and the statue of freedom, but how might it have been designed differently if another architect had been chosen? And would there be a difference if the statue had instead been designed by a prominent political figure.
Concerning the statue of freedom, the timing is also important to consider - it was designed and erected between 1855 and 1859 in the years leading up to the Civil War. What statement does this make concerning the freedoms of different people groups at this time - southerners, northerners, slaves, freedmen, immigrants, Native Americans? I find it interesting that Jefferson Davis changed the design because he did not want the freedom cap given to freed slaves on the statue, but to change it to a Roman helmet? And the symbols to allude to Native Americans are included just after they had been ousted from their homelands. The statue most closely resembles a white woman. What do all of these symbols within the statue say about how Americans of the time (and Americans now since the statue still exists) defined freedom? And why was this an important time to create such a symbol? When studying the Civil War, the emphasis is always on how sectional tensions lowered during the 1850s before the election of Lincoln and secession. Did the statue symbolizing freedom serve to reinforce the idea of unity or even try to make a statement (particularly considering the original design with the freedom cap) against southerners for continuing the institution of slavery?
These are mainly a lot of questions, but that is what came to mind when I began considering this statue in particular. Anyone care to try to answer some?

With regards to what Ashley said about symbols being an important way to control (uneducated) voters, I think that the word control is a bit strong. I think that symbols do influence voters (and not just the vote, but also general sentiments of the people), and at times control might be the goal - take the changing of the salute to the hand over the heard in the pledge of allegiance to separate ourselves from the fascists in World War Two - but I think that education rather than manipulation should be the emphasis. How do you find a way to educate and produce a healthy amount of loyalty to the country without taking the step over the time towards brainwashing?

As Ashley was saying, I wonder if it’s fair to assign meanings to symbols, but regardless of whether its fair or not, obviously, Americans embraced symbols then for national unity, just as they embrace them now. As I was reading through the pledge of allegiance, a pledge I know by heart, it struck me how difficult it must be to hear such words of hope for “liberty and freedom” and for the “republic” when people were dying with yellow fever and other diseases. Isn’t it the country’s right to protect your freedoms and liberties including your right to be healthy and safe? The statue of freedom was supposed to represent the triumph of “freedom in war and peace.” But again, does this not include the right to be protected by foreign invaders, i.e. mosquitoes and diseases? For me, this is a conflict that I still struggle with today, and so do many other Americans. But during the yellow fever epidemics, it seems government felt that by leaving health issues alone and by struggling to save trade and commerce internationally, the government picked what liberties people should have.
 For some reason- my article Debow’s “Yellow Fever” is not loading, so all I have to go by are my notes and I wanted specific examples, but I’ll recap what I have. In New Orleans, the presence of annual disease was from 1822-1849. It takes the newspapers of New Orleans forever just to admit there was disease; they waited until the disease and death “were starring them in the face.” Because of New Orleans love for money and self-interest, they publicly ignore the epidemics to preserve their international trade and commerce. In June, the Board of Health publishes that eminent physicians “positively deny” that there is any danger and that it certainly doesn’t exist. In July, the people were still told that their dirty streets were the healthiest, which turns out, the streets did not carry yellow fever, but as far as the standard of living and other diseases, this was still a problem. It took 204 deaths and 200 deaths per week for New Orleans to finally announce that “Yellow Jack” had returned to New Orleans. These are just a few examples (from my notes, so I hope they were right!!), that the government does have the ability to determine what our liberties should be and that these symbols representing freedom and liberties mean different things for different people, including the people in charge.

Discussion of symbols in democracy is interesting because they are often used to educate or manipulate (depending on how cynical you are) people in that they created to lead people to feel certain ways about things. In a Democracy, this can be a good way to control voters, especially voters who are uneducated. Through symbols, the people can be made to feel loyalty to their country without a complicated explanation of how it works. They can understand freedom and equality through these symbols even without education. Thus, if the symbols of their country are freedom and equality then they feel they can trust their country and believe that those are the values their country will protect. Also, if these values are encroached upon, it allows the people to notice because they are more familiar with them.
I particularly found it interesting to look at these symbols because I am very familiar with them, in particular the statue of freedom. When I was an intern in D.C. and had to give tours of the Capitol, the plaster mold of the statue in the basement of the Russell building was where the tour began. It was amazing because you could see up close what the real statue looks like and it was beautiful. People were constantly taking pictures and were amazed by it.
I also found the article on Memorial Day to be interesting. I think that the lack of recognition of Memorial Day stems from the growing anti-war culture. Since Vietnam, our country has continually become more anti-war because we question the motives and reasons for wars. I think it is difficult then for people to recognize that soldiers died for our country if they do not think that the war was beneficial to our country. If they don't think then that the war did not helped our country, then it appears that the soldiers died for no reason and that's depressing. People don't like to think about vast waste of life - so they tend to ignore Memorial Day or turn it into something else.
Thus, turning symbols into something else leads into a good discussion of whether people should be free to do that. I think that comparing this to literature provides a good understanding for it. Through themes, and symbols authors usually attempt to convey certain points to the reader. Still, everyone comes into a book with their own preconceptions about life and may interpret the author's meaning differently. Though there is one point that the author is trying to convey, if a person interprets something a little differently, it doesn't mean that the person has not made an astute observation about the meaning of the book. Of course, to truly understand the book people have to try to go beyond their own preconceptions and understand what the author is saying and then if desired may apply it within their own view of life. I feel it is the same way with symbols in a democracy. People should understand the intent behind the symbols, but symbols are just that - symbols - and they may apply them to their own life as they desire.

     The patriotism espoused by the Pledge of Allegiance and veterans' monuments is uniquely American in that it commemorates those who have fallen despite their conflicting causes. The numerous monuments discussed in the readings reflect this theme. The Capitol's Statue of Freedom, dedicated before the Civil War, was meant to celebrate the unity of the nation in peace AND in war; similarly, Memorial Day became a symbol of the heroism of all those who have lost their lives for America in military comflicts. It is interesting to note that this unity was not without its dissidents, as shown by the several southern states which observe a separate day to commemorate those who died for the Confederate cause. It was the need to remember the dead which eventually served to unite both Confederate and Union sympathizers.
     The movement to create monuments as a way to preserve the memories of those who had fallen seems to have culminated from the events of the Civil War. For instance, after the American Revolution, War of 1812, and other conflicts like them, there does not appear to be a similar move to memorialize. It was the need to reconcile and deem dignified the deaths of both Confederate and Union troops that led to the creation of monuments as a means with which to unite the fractured American public. The Pledge of Allegiance reflects the perceived need to indoctrinate young citizens with ideas of unity, liberty, and fraternity in order to preserve and strengthen the American political culture.

with the readings assigned for yesterday i was very impressed about how the British empire was able to replace such a large percentage of its cotton imports market dring the Civil War. It seems that during the outbreak and extending a few years after the Civil War, India replaced the United States as the leading importer into Britain. The drop in imports from america is explanded trough the civil war. What is not explained is how the English colony in India was able to fullfill the needs of the British textile industry. It should be noted that the climate in India is very similar to that of te deep south around the cotton belt which may be why india was a prime place to experiment in growing cotton. The chart shows that relative success in India had already been acieved and since there is no shortagge of land in India or the British Empire why not use it as a cash crop to replace the warring state's cotton. This might also lower tariffs on the trade because India is part of te British empire at the time.

Edited by author 11-07-2007 01:01 AM
The company history of Dun and Bradstreet is an interesting example to analyze as a potential History Engine episode. Aside from the obvious difference that it is more of a survey than a discussion of a single event, its organization is also different in organization in that it seems itself business-like, as the account seems almost like a bullet-point guide to D&B's history. This style makes it seemingly more digestible, but it also constrains the story seemingly to descriptions as they fit in with major developments--thus making it rather less comprehensive or nuanced. The objectivity of this history seems very suspect, as the less-noble task of grading peoples characters and value becomes instead "one of the first organizations formed for the sole purpose of providing business information to customers." While this may be true, it spins the history in such a way that one would think that the story of the D&B was one defined by a perpetual state of improvement and unerring excellence. Then too, the D&B in the Millennium section even goes so far as to make a pitch for their "whole new generation of products and services that give customers exciting opportunities." Finally, the historical significance discussed in this document seems to be divided largely into developments which are significant organizationally--such as the merger of Dunn and Bradstreet, or the incorporation of new technologies, and entities native to the D&B that later experienced greater national renown, such as the connections to Lincoln and Grant.

Edited by author 11-06-2007 11:53 PM
I will not rehash the statistics of cotton, wheat, and wholesale commodity prices because several people have already covered them thoroughly. However, I was particularly interested in David's post and our discussion in class today. This may lead nowhere, but I wonder what the repercussions of yellow fever epidemics on price levels might have been. According to Wikipedia, yellow fever epidemics occurred in 1841, 1847, 1850, 1852, and 1855. At the same time, cotton prices dipped in 1841, 1844, 1847, 1850, and 1853. I can see how an epidemic that primarily occurred in the South (namely southern ports) could have an effect on a primarily southern commodity. Similarly, wholesale commodity prices were low roughly from 1841 to 1850. I'm not sure how they would be related, but I wonder whether the epidemics caused any underlying decline in wholesale prices. Once again, this may lead nowhere, but I found it interesting that ships, which often carried valuable goods, were forced to be quarantined for weeks at a time. Did these quarantines when epidemics occurred have such an impact on the economy as to drop cotton and commodity prices?

Addressing the issue of cotton competition, it is fascinating to actually see some of the effects (in numbers) of the union blockade on southern cotton during the Civil War. Although numbers from India are more marked than from Egypt, one can see the correlation between declining imports from America and increasing imports from elsewhere. However, once the war ended, the overwhelming dominance of American cotton imports to Britain is striking.

Virginia's comments on GDP increases, namely the effects of the Gadsden Purchase during the early 1850's, the Civil War during the early 1860's, and the increased importance placed on science, railroad standardization, and product sales during the 1880's, seemed right on.

One thing I thought about with our conversation about Yellow Fever today and the question of impact (whether the Yellow Fever had a similar impact as the Civil War)... I would say that the Yellow Fever would wipe out whole families, whereas the Civil War would leave behind more widows and women at home. Therefore even though the Yellow Fever and disease killed more people, the death of soldiers in the Civil War left behind people who would tell their stories and fell the impact of their death. If a whole family dies, who is left to tell the story?

As for the cotton, wheat, and Wholesale prices...
Cotton – highs were 23 cents in the middle of 1825 and 21 cents in 1835 (in real prices)
Lows were almost 5 cents in the middle of 1854 and 6 cents in 1843 and 1849 (in nominal prices as reported)
I noticed that the prices reached the peaks and the lows in the middle of the year as opposed to the beginning or the end of the year. I assume this has something to do with the seasons and warm weather for transportation. I also noticed the prices were relatively stable between 1827 - 1833.

Wheat – highs were 285 cents in the middle of 1867 and 200 in the middle of 1863
Lows were 40 cents in 1843 and 1852
My question is what happened in 1868? A drought? A blockade?

Wholesale – highs in the 200’s between 1816 and 1819
Lows around 65 in 1842

The prices seem to track each other pretty well. The dates for the graphs do not match up perfectly, but for the information given in 1842 and 1843 the prices were low and in the 1820’s the prices were high. Wheat and cotton might be under similar conditions (weather)?

As for comparing the USA, India, and Egypt cotton exports to England...
USA high in 1884, low in 1862
India high in 1866, low in 1850’s
Egypt high in 1865, low in 1861
India and Egypt have similar exports, but when they are at a high the USA is not at a low. However the USA is at a low right before they peak, so they most likely peak in reaction to this ultimate low. And as the USA sells more, Egypt and India exports fall dramatically. This chart makes sense with the discussion we had in class about England turning to India and Egypt for cotton when the USA put blockades on cotton exports.

Following up on our in-class discussion this morning, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that yellow fever may have constituted the ultimate paradox of the nineteenth century. As a disease best spread in seaside urban areas, yellow fever was pretty much the direct enemy of everything that America was attempting to become. In class today we talked about several important examples of this notion, a few of which stick out in my head. First of all, how wild is it to consider that the daringly brave and destructive General John Hood, who barely survived the war with any of his limbs still intact, should live on for many more years until he is taken with this disease carried by a tiny bug? Possibly the greatest 19th century symbol of American perseverance and strength, who survived through untold hardship and adversity, is simply laid to rest by an unseen agent. Similarly, it is interesting to consider that the focus of the growth of American commerce and industry is also involved in the spread of this deadly bug. With the expansion of America trade and commerce throughout the world and within the states, the disease is similarly spread to a wider degree. And finally, when the country should be uniting under a common desire for prosperity and greatness, the bug itself is an agent of division, causing cities to blame each other and to use the fever as a gauge for how good the city is. This is just a bit of rambling, but I think it is interesting to consider that the yellow fever was in direct opposition to what America was becoming or trying to become.

From the first graph, short staple cotton prices were high in 1825, 1835, and 1852. The table of cotton competition reveals that prices were high in New York from 1863 to 1865. Liverpool prices were high from 1862 to 1866, with a smaller flare in 1872. Interestingly, cotton prices were always more expensive in New York than in Liverpool, most often twice as high. Low years for US exports were only during the Civil War - before the war and from 1876 onward, US exports held a majority of the market. After the war, India's exports rivaled, but never exceeded, US exports. Brazilian exports were strongest from 1864 to 1874. Egyptian exports held more constant, except during the Civil War during which exports increased. The US remained a global influence even while focused inward. India enjoyed great influence until 1876. I wonder why the sudden decline? I tried to look into it, but I couldn't find any specific reason for that year - the British crown had already consolidated its power after the 1857 rebellion, and only continued to do so throughout the period . . .

Wheat prices in Chicago were highest around 1867-1868, but there was an earlier jump from 1853 to 1856. Wholesale commodity prices were highest from 1816 to 1820. In 1835 there was a price jump which declined dramatically from 1839 through 1843. Prices climbed again until 1857, when they began to fall off again, leveling out around 1860, when the graph ends.

Real GDP per capita climbs continually and strongly throughout the 1800's. Little jumps occurred from 1851-1853, during the Civil War, and from 1879 onward. From 1851-1853, the SHDB reveals that Westward expansion and the Gadsden Purchase could have contributed to GDP increases. War often supports industrial output, contributing to the GDP jump. The SHDB also shows causes for the last jump, including increased focus on invention and science, railroad standardization, and product sales.

In Richard Brown's modernization theory, we talked in class today about how there is a limited amount of evidence that neither Natchez nor New Albany are considered modernized because of evidence of gender equity as opposed to a more patriarchal- masculine society. I think, however, that there is some evidence in New Albany's case that they are moving to a more modernized society by 1860, at least in the gender sense of modern. The number of female employees makes up 7 percent of the total number of employees in New Albany's industries. They are employed in book-binding, boots and shoes, dress-making, clothing, and hats and caps, and while these do seem fairly typical industries for women to be employed in, historically, these jobs have resided in the men's sphere as well, or solely domestically. Speaking of women’s roles in society, the Ryan article on the “Women’s Awakening,” provides evidence that women’s roles were continually changing.
Quite differently though, our class wasn’t comparing gender equity and the modernization theory to Utica, though I do think that it holds up quite well. Perhaps my favorite part of the article is when Ryan describes the revival movement and the movement towards women’s societies as a result of the moving of men and domestic responsibilities out of the house, and as a direct result, women’s societies formed structures similar to the modernizing structures of businesses. These women were assuming the “moral and religious responsibilities of their mercantile households,” enhancing the “status of their busy mates,” but in doing so, they were “exercising the first breathe of freedom from the duties and restrictions of a patriarchal home economy.” Not only were they exercising this freedom as men moved their businesses out of the home, but they formed and conducted their societies in the “form of businessmen.” This seems to me to be screaming that if the idea of gender equity and the movement away from a patriarchal and male dominating household is a key indicator of modernization, that Utica and New Albany provide sufficient evidence of modernizing factors.

I found the Natchez statistics rather interesting and did some more research in reference to their population. Doing a simple search online netted the city's tourism site and it states the city population at 6,600; almost the exact same number for whites as the class handout. Nowhere is the slave population mentioned nor any indication of slave labor being used. The city's decline is evident through it's modern day stats for population, etc.

I couldn't ever get the Natchez website to come up, so I googled it and opened up the cache . . . hopefully that is the correct website . . .

New Albany seems to be continuing a tradition of industry: their website focused on New Albany's proximity to the "market place and business center" of Louisville, KY. Additionally, the website promoted historic homes for sale in need of preservation. Presumably the boat building and shipping industries have become much less lucrative, so New Albany is searching for a replacement. Also, these two industries are not very clean and often associated with lower income workers, so perhaps the charming town of New Albany is not, or at least was not, always so charming. I am reminded of the vice present along the Erie Canal, another major shipping lane, and I don't think it's too far fetched to assume some of the same experiences were shared by New Albany's citizens, even if to a lesser degree.

Both Albany and Natchez appeal to the sense of nostalgia we talked about in class today. They both speak with reminiscent language about the simpler times and places apparently still preserved in these two communities. Natchez utilizes wider attractions to draw in tourists, but neglects to mention that along with its history of Southern hospitality, there is a history of cotton which would inevitably suggest slavery. The ghosts of the mansions might well be oppressed slaves, not just kindly old women who died in their beds or freaky children who died falling down stairs.

In looking at the biographies of Vanderbilt, Gould, and Hill, as well as the chapter on the railroad system, I would say that the authors generally adopted the "robber barron" approach. These were especially present in the biographies of Vanderbilt and Gold, noting Vanderbilt's "lifelong contempt for women" and that "Gould remained ruthless, unscrupulous, and friendless to the end." The chapter on the railroad also adopts similar judgements in its review. However, Adams' chapter also says that the funds fraudulently gained were then reinvested into the railroad, and that it was in part because of the fraudulent accounting that the unprofitable mass expansion of the railroads was able to occur, something which people were in truth ready to do at whatever cost. Additionally, Vanderbilt's biography also notes his significant business prowess.

5 out of the 6 railroad accident postings on the history engine took place in Virginia. One happened in Georgia. I found it interesting that almost all of the accidents were caused by trains crashing into each other. According to the SHDB the standardization of time zones occurred in 1883. Two accidents happened a year before this time zone standard, but the rest were three to seven or more years after. It would be awesome if there were more accidents reported in the EH. This would help compare the geographical location to the dates in order to see if the standardization happened in a day or was it a gradual thing. Didn’t someone in class mention all the railroads converted to the time zone system in a day? I do not expect the rate of accidents to drop completely, but I find it odd that most of the accidents consisted of two trains or more colliding and the dates of the few examples on the HE are much later than the time zone change. I don’t know much about the railroad system during this time or ever for that matter. I have to say I could completely ignore anything with an engine, but now I’m intrigued. I think I’m going to change one of my episodes to something about the railroad.

So I keep having problems with the other site, but my observations of the New Albany site's description of its history was that it really focussed on development. It states that New Albany began its history with the clearing of the land and was chosen as a sight good for transportation and development - it doesn't mention any previous inhabitants of the land. It mentions people, but it doesn't mention life for regular people in New Albany's history.

I agree with Jason Novak's interpretation of the two readings especially his part about the willingness of the Britannica to paint Gould in a poor light. It's explaination for how he amassed his wealth made it seem that he only did so by fraudulent and underhanded tactics. But I also found it interesting on how the Britannica chose to end both the biogaraphies of Gould and Vanderbuilt. Their closing statements about Gould were that "he remained ruthless, unscrupulous, and friendless to the end," leaving the final thoughts in the readers mind about Gould negative ones. But this followed the theme of the article. However, the Britannica made a point to mention to whom Vanderbilt left his wealth, having not so with Gould, and in doing so portrayed a cold heartedness to women which had not been mentioned in the main story of his life. This idea was just kind of thrown in there and made me wonder why the author included it.

Examining the threads of continuity as applied to the techno-agricultural sector of the South, it is ironic to find that with the advent of more advanced machinery, transpo., and markets the impact on Southern Society only grows. With standard gauge being added to the Southern Rail system in 1886, the amazing growth in sectors dependent on the railroad soar and create blooms of growth in cities like Durham and Birmingham.

Natchez- I came off with a vague conception of a city that is supposed to bear a stereotype of power and an example of a large commerce area. Instead I have left wondering what exactly did the city do during the Civil War; with the decline of King Cotton and the British opening new markets elsewhere it would have enlightening to have more knowledge of the citys history.

New Albany- A diverse town that existed as a crossroads of industry and other firsts that were driven by riverboats and trade. It's strategic location during the Civil War helped to set the city up for further growth.

In comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica's biographies of prominent railroad men with Charles Adams' discussion of stock watering, I found a mix of the "Captains of Industry" versus "Robber Barons" perspectives. Adams was largely concerned with the unscrupulous practices of railroad financing, attacking Vanderbilt directly. Interestingly enough, Adams seemed aware of the "Captains of Industry" perspective, wherein Americans saw the capitalists as successful and daring businessmen. He qualifies some of his criticisms by acknowledging the great risks the transcontinental railroad builders took (he likens it to a lottery).

Where Adams criticized, the Britannica biography of Vanderbilt praised. His biography is told in terms of a rags-to-riches storyline. It outlines his impoverished parents, his own hard work on the river, and emphasizes how his empire was built by his own purchases and dealings. The biography concludes by talking about his philanthropy.

Britannica was more willing to attack Gould than it was Vanderbilt, even going so far as to call him a "Robber Baron." It accuses him of using some of the unscrupulous tactics that Adams took issue with and nearly the entire biography describes Gould manipulating the system to build his fortune. This is far more in line with the Robber Baron interpretation- capitalists who used fraud and government pull to build their fortunes, rather than their own intellect and daring.

In comparing the descriptions of the two towns Natchez, MS and New Albany, IN some striking differences can be seen. While both towns obviously pride themselves on being quaint and historic small towns, the different emphasis of the two websites within this framework offers an interesting commentary on how “Northern” towns view themselves compared to “Southern” towns. The description of Natchez found on the town’s website focuses a great deal on the influence that cotton had on the town. More than a few times, the website tells of the great wealth and prosperity brought about by the regions plentiful natural resources. In the section about antebellum Natchez, the website claims that it had more millionaires than any city in the country besides “New York and possibly Boston and Philadelphia.” The history also spends a great deal of time describing this elite culture, talking about their houses and lifestyles and such. Little is said about Natchez’s involvement in the Civil War, probably because there was not much to discuss, and a lamentation of the loss of the plantations and their effect on life in the south is included as well. All in all Natchez presents a very historically agricultural view of itself, complete with descriptions of an elite southern culture that would make any true southerner proud. In stark comparison New Albany attributes its prosperity to commerce resulting from its strategic location along a river for shipping and boat building. Also stressing its historical significance, New Albany appears to focus more on its industrial involvement in commerce compared the agricultural prosperity of King Cotton found in Natchez. I agree with Julia’s assessment that this speaks to the notion of how these towns still desire to be associated with their respective historical: the North industry and the South cotton.

New Albany...
Focused on their strategic position along the Ohio River in order to do shipping, boat building, steam boat production, and later glass work. The river was key for transportation. The history explained the firsts for the state (that happened to occur in New Albany) including public high school, railroad, courthouse, and state fair. During the Civil War the city was significant as a hospital, supply center, and for the Underground Railroad. Key people from the city were listed.

Natchez, Mississippi...
Way more in depth. The history went back to the prehistoric Indians. The Mississippi River was also identified as important - however it was important for cotton and steamboats transporting the cotton. Children went North for education. The Civil War was important because it impacted cotton and plantation life. The history then proceded to explain the fundamental changes that occured to politics due to the Civil War and how African Americans were affected and transformed.

Both cities cared that they were "few in number but large in fortune" (especially Natchez)

New Albany did not dicuss the impact of cotton and African Americans due to the Civil War because it did not have those issues.

Natchez, Mississippi focuses much of their history around cotton and the steamboat/Mississippi River. There is mention of a tornado that killed 300 people, but almost no mention of the Civil War. All that is said of the war in the timeline is: "1861: After decades of amassing fortunes in cotton cultivation, Natchez aristocrats reluctantly give in to the state's majority and join in the fight against their northern brothers." While there is a great desire to connect Natchez with cotton, the area does not want to be connected to the war. There is also very little mention of churches or religion. Natchez wants to be thought of as a small, friendly, isolated town in the South where everyone knows each other, and it is only with the rise of the New South that they really talk about being a part of a greater area. In the nineteenth century most residents probably lived on small farms or larger plantations that could have had slaves working in the cotton fields.

New Albany, Indiana is also near a river which makes riverboats and glass manufacturing key points in their history. New Albany connected with other towns/cities like Salem and Pittsburgh through water travel and by railroad. New Albany depicts itself as a "strategic center" during the nineteenth century, particularly during the Civil War. There is very little talk of agriculture or church/religious history - the main points all concern innovations and connections to other areas. Someone who lived in New Albany during the nineteenth century may have had the opportunity to travel to other areas if they were rich enough to afford it, and worked in a factory if they could not.

Overall, the histories of these two towns perpetuates the idea that the South consisted of isolated farming communities and revolved around cotton while the North was interconnected and involved with manufacturing.

***UNDERRATED***
Post-Civil War Indian Wars
Reconciliation of the [postwar] South: leniency at Appomattox, amnesties, rapid readmission
Division of the Southern Protestant churches
Election of 1864: Lincoln's defeat of McClellan
Railroad Strike of 1877
Ostend Manifesto
Creation of the Women's Christian Temperance Union
Extension of boundaries of Columbia, S.C. to include Black neighborhoods
Fracturing of the Democratic vote in nominating multiple candidates in 1860
Mexican War
William Sherman's Special Field Order 15 ordering land distribution to Freedmen
Strife between immigrants to the U.S. and those who considered themselves "native" Americans.
Dawes Severalty Act of 1887
Invention of the cigarette machine and the development of the tobacco trust
Impact of different ethnic groups and immigrants including the German, Irish, Chinese, Eastern and Southern Europeans as they entered the country and attempted to assimilate
Caning of Sumner
Fall of Vicksburg
John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry
First override of a presidential veto in 1845
Nationwide standardization of R.R. gauges and time zones


***OVERRATED***
Budgeting of Funds during the Civil War
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation
Lincoln's victory in the 1860 election
Battle of Gettysburg
Gettysburg Address
Caning of Sumner
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Corruption of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall
The Civil War
John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry
Cotton Boycott of 1861+
The three slaves who escaped to Fortress Monroe
Custer's Last Stand
Klan Trials of 1870-1872

Edited by author 10-23-2007 12:51 PM
*Q:* 1. This is a bit of a random question, but I was wondering about the different uses of Democrat v. Democratic with regards to the party and people involved. I believe that you have noted in class that the party was the Democratic party, but I think the people at still referred to as Democrats (adjective v. noun?). This seems to be how the Ayers book uses the terms, but I am not completely sure.

*A* Someone like Jackson or Van Buren or S.A. Douglas was a "Democrat," and their party was the Democratic party (the term "Democrat Party" is of recent (i.e. 1990s) coinage by that party's conservative and Republican opponents) The term "democratic" with a small "d" referred to people who supported representative or egalitarian institutions of various sorts. This would include members of the Whig and Republican parties who, for example, thought that the South needed to be more democratic but less Democratic. :-)

*Q:* 2. In the election of 1860 chart on Ayers 299 - what is a "Fusion" Ticket - I don't think it was mentioned anywhere else.

*A:* Fusion tickets were various (usually last-minute) alliances of anti-Lincoln forces. In some places that was Douglas and Breckinridge Democrats, in others Douglas Democrats and Bell Whigs, etc.

*Q:* 3. Republicans believed that each state could decide if they would have slavery (Ayers 300). Then in our notes I have that the Democratic party was split b/c the South wnated Federal ban on Federal action in the territories - states must decide after they become a state (and hopefully there would be enough slaverholders there already to swing the vote); the N. Democrats led by Douglas believed in popular sovereignty where the people could decide even if they were not yet a state. It appears that the Republicans and Southern Democrats agreed on the issue, but then I just get confused.

*A:* A wonderful late 1850s subtlety. The difference was that Republicans thought that there should be an absolute and original Federal ban on slavery in any territory where the institution had previously been outlawed (ie the Wilmot Proviso.) Douglas and his supporters thought that territories could decide, and that this could include the decision of a territory to reintroduce slavery should its legislature or people want it reintroduced.


*Q:* 4. Concerning RRs and the competition between Tom Scott (PA RR Co) and the Atlantic Coastline promoter: If the Atlantic Coastline redefined how Reconstruction was viewed in the South by playing the Tax card and Race card, how exactly was Reconstruction defined before? AND this is related to the onset of violence because nobody could gain complete control - who exactly was fighting for control at the time? We talked about the KKK rising up on one side - was there violence coming from other factions? Hopefully this second part makes sense...

*A:* Previous to this the key issues of reconstruction involved civil rights and political control more than taxes or other economic support for Blacks. The reconstruction governments installed under the 14th amendment and the Reconstruction acts of 1867 were put in office by newly (state) enfranchised Blacks and White Republicans. Ordinary ex-Confederates could vote if they swore a loyalty oath. They voted Democratic for the most part. Their leaders, however, were mostly kept from running for office because of the 14th Amendment's explicit disfranchisement of ex-Confederate officers. This gave the Republicans a significant advantage as states held a second wave of constitutional conventions and elected new state governments in 1867-1869. Both Republicans and Democrats were factionalized, however; the genius of the "tax" card and the "don't hire blacks on the carpetbagger railroad" card was that they allowed dissent without raising fears of an ex-Confederate resurgence. This proved to be an effective wedge issue in attracting White Republicans into the Democratic fold. This worked especially well in communities that did not benefit either from RRs or from state-funded public schools.

Iconoclastic list of Civil War Turning Points:

http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/sho...arturningpoints.htm

*Q:* I'm reviewing my notes for the test and I'm somewhat lacking in my description of the national lesislation from April 1862. I wrote down that it was largely a result of the U.S. military defeats immediately preceding the legislation, but I didn't write down why that would be the case. Also, I don't have anything down about the individual areas of legislation except for the Homesteads. Could you add some insight here? Thanks!

*A:*

Good question! The changes in governmental power or nationalization were driven by U.S. military successes in Spring 1862 (Henry, Donelson, Shiloh, New Orleans, Peninsular advance on Richmond) and then their reversal in July and August. Confederates passed a draft, suspended habeas corpus, and greatly increased national efforts at industrial development. The U.S. passed a compensated emancipation plan, a national bank, a (federally-subsidized) transcontinental railroad, a homestead law, a paper money law, and additional federal bond measures, followed by their own draft and the emancipation proclamation.

For full details see Ayers, et. al., pp. 419-420; 427-437; 462.

This is about a week later, but I was thinking about the previous posts that Emily, Virginia, and I had concerning whether or not the Civil War led to the rise of the concept of the idea of the South. I meant to post this about a week ago, but it just never happened, so I thought we could just pick up this discussion again.

I was trying to think about the idea of the South in terms of the Ash book (1865) and how the four individuals in the book would have viewed the South and to what extent they would have associated themselves with the idea of the South before and after the war. I also began thinking about the discussion we had in class around the same time concerning the costs of the war and what else the money could have been spent on during this time, and why people were diverted from these issues.
During our discussion we talked about one of the reasons being that the leaders of the country were the ones who were allowed to make decisions and they decided where the funds would go and what issues would be focused on rather than ignored. The leaders chose to focus on slavery and state rights because those issues were the most relevant to the leaders. In the same way that the leaders chose to focus on these issues, the leaders in the South began to create the concept of a South that was different from the North. In order to gain support for secession and later the war, the North was portryed as villains and tyrants which created two clear sides of North and South in a way that had not existed before this time.
The average citizen of the South identified with the region to some extent, but through reading 1865 it is clear that in many ways personal issues of family and very local concerns trumped loyalty to the Confederacy/South. Cornelia McDonald talks about the "crisis of spirit" that overwhelmed the South in later 1864, and how this feeling was most prevalent among the "poor and yeoman farmers" (41). The burden of the war was falling on those who had the least allegiance to the area because they were not the ones who created the two factions. This theory would coincide with Michael Holt's ideas in The Political Crisis of the 1850s that the North was manufactured as an enemy because there was nothing to fight over locally. Along with the manufacturing of the North as a common enemy, the South was created as the common bond in order to fight the enemy by the "if we have the same enemy then we must be friends idea". John Robertson's experiences in the Spring (esp. pg. 87 and 92) support the idea that to many citizens the war (and the reason for greater solidarity as the South as a whole) was easily pushed to the side while more important personal issues (like the courting of a wife) pervaded most of life. On the contrary, the authority figures in the South had a much greater stake in keeping the Confederacy from defeat, so the need for the idea of a South to fight for was more important to them. And they had the power, so their story is the one that gets told more often and serves as the filter that everyone else's story is seen through.

list of events;
Carolina Sports; land and water. Roots of sporting and gaming

Health resorts of the South. alternative medication and health resorts

Greenville daily News 1881. roots of the modern fire department

the south side or Andersonville. treatment of prisoners

greenville news 1881, account from 50 years earlier. the buying of greenville

Southern Ideas of Honor and How They Were Integrated into Wartime Mentality

Attempts at Reviving the Slave Trade on the Eve of the Civil War

Recipes of Confederate Widows-I was thinking of this in terms of the salt and grain shortages not to mention the thriftiness demanded by their situation

Analysis of the Oath of Allegiance to the United States

Amputations and Anesthesia (or lack thereof) in the Civil War

Whiskey in War Camps

Women and Their Early "Rosie the Riveter" Kind of Roles

• 1865: Something concerning a Rebel prison - Life and Death is Rebel Prisons…
• 1872 KKK Trials
• SC Secession decree, particurally in relation to its racial motivation
• Civil War Medicine - A Confederate surgeon's letters to his wife Spencer Glasgow Welch, 1954
• First Publication of Civil War photographs (possible, haven’t found a direct source)
• Purchase of slaves – Ware Family papers
• Confederate infantry life – McBride correspondence

List of Events:
1.) Something to do with Greenville Woman's College and the implications of women's education
     -Greenville Female College Commencement
     -Graduation Essay of Lula Whilden "Life's Mission" 1870
 2.) James C. Furman An Address before the Students of the Johnson Female Seminary
3.) Beecher/Tilton Affair
     -Atlanta Constitution
4.) The Burning of the Northern Ohio Insane Asylum
Atlanta Constitution, The Burning of the Northern Ohio Insane Asylum
Oct. 2, 1872
5.) Something on women reformers
         -women fire inspectors NY Times
        -Lafayette Scandal NY Times (implications for suffrage and prohibition)

1. "A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Resrtiction in the United States."
   Title: The division of the United States over slavery.

2."The Constitution of South Carolina, adopted April 16, 1968, and the joint resolutions of the General Assembly, passed at the Special Session of 1868, together with the military orders 1868."
   Title: Adopting a new constitution.

3. "Proceedings in the Ku Klux trials at Colombia, South Carolina, 1872."
   Title: Southern response to Reconstruction following the Civil War.

4. "Early travel and accomodations along the roads of the upper part of Greenville County, Mann Batson c1995."
   Title: The importance of Travelers Rest in Greenville County.

5. "Rememberences of the Civil War: the notebook of John F. Lanneau, Captain, Brooks Troop, Hampton Legion, SC, June 1861-June 1862, compiled by the late Donald H. Sage, 1960."
    Title: Reflections of a Confederate Captain.

Some preliminary episode ideas:

Document: AJC article: "The 'Jim Crow' Car"
Title: A set of law suits brought against GA railroad companies for Jim Crow car

Document: AJC article: "Gretting Grady"
Title: Grady hailed for his speech on and leadership in establishing the New South

Document: "The Mormon Protest"
Title: Mormon protests against anti-polygamy laws

Document: AJC articel: "The Glorious Fourth: It's Celebration in Atlanta Tonight"
Title: Big centennial celebration in Atlanta

Document: NYT article: "Brave Men At Bat"
Title: The most remarkable game of baseball evr played

Document: "End of the Baseball Wars"
Titles: The players association is founded and the organization of baseball takes on a more modern form

Document: "Negro Riot in Sumter"
Title: A race riot where African Americans in SC stormed and burned a jail and other buildings in Sumter, Troops were called in

Furman University and the Civil War
          -Pringle, Samuel McBride letters
          -FU Historical Records 005A

Assassination of President Lincoln and connection to the Dry Tortugas
          -The Rebellion Record

Southern views following the Civil War
          -War Poetry of the South, edited by William Gilmore Simms
          -Confederate view on the treatment of prisoners

The emergence of "pleasure reading" in the 19th Century
          -Carolina Sports by Land and Water
          -Godely's Lady's Book, 1842-1882
          -Mark Twain (2)
          -The Southern Harmony and Musical Companion

Life at Furman during the 19th Century
          -FU Historical Records RG 45 004
          -FU Historical Records RG 45
          -FU Historical Records 45 0005A
          -Baptist beginnings in Education: A history of Furman University

Edited by author 10-16-2007 07:37 AM
Preliminary Episodes List

"James P. Boyce’s Proposal to Mandate Acceptance of all Baptist Doctrines for Furman Professors"
  -From: Three changes in theological institutions. An inaugural address delivered before the Board of Trustees of the Furman University, the night before the annual commencement, July 31, 1856, by James P. Boyce

James C. Furman’s Commentary on the History of the Charleston Baptist Association
 -From: An Historical Discourse : Delivered Before The Charleston Baptist Association At Its Hundredth Anniversary, Held In Charleston In November, 1851

Furman University’s Affirms its Role in a Post-Civil War South
 -From: Old Campus Reports, 1866: Furman University to the Baptists of South Carolina

1871 Ku Klux Klan Trials in Columbia, SC
 -From: Proceedings in the Ku Klux trials at Columbia, S.C., in the United States Circuit Court, November term, 1871. Printed from government copy

Steve Brodie’s Jump off the Brooklyn Bridge
 -From: A LEAP FROM THE BRIDGE
New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 24, 1886; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)
pg. 1

Preliminary Document/Episode List:

1)Memphis Race Riot

“Reports of Outrages, Riots and Murders, Jan 15, 1866 – Aug. 12, 1868.” Records of the Assistant Commissioner for the State of Tennessee
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, 1865-1869

2) Congressional Committee Visits Kansas to Investigate Voter Fraud

“The Kansas Investigation.” Special Correspondence of the New York Daily Times. May 1 1856, page 1.

3) Ku Klux Klan Trials in Columbia

Proceedings in the Ku Klux trials at Columbia, S.C., in the United States Circuit Court, November term, 1871. Printed from government copy Pub info Columbia, S. C., Republican printing company, state printers, 1872

4) Fetterman Massacre

“Indian Massacre- Further Facts About the Troubles on the Plains.” Special Correspondence of the New York Times. January 2 1867.

5) Anti-Slavery address aimed at Southerners not owning slaves

“Address to the non-slaveholders of the South: on the social and political evils of slavery.” American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. New York: 1843.

I ended up finding two sources that sent me after a few different episodes that I'll research in-depth with secondary sources, though hopefully I'll be able to find primary sources as well.

Source: Army of the Potomac
     Episode: "Neat and Clean"
        - Highlighting the series of "sanitary measures" enforced under Surgeon Jonathan Letterman while he was acting medical director of the Union army.
     Episode: "Call the Cavalry!"
        - Not only examining the use of cavalry in the Civil War, but also how horses were used in a time that was quickly turning over to the use of steam power over animal.
Source: A Confederate Surgeon's Letters to his Wife
     Episode: "Deception, Deception"
        - An overview of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's battle tactics, with an emphasis on trickery not only against his enemies, but also his allies and even his own men.
     Episode: "Delicate Operations"
        - Detailing the surgical procedures employed by Civil War surgeons, including pain management techniques, vaccines, and the overall grasp of the human body and its systems.
     Episode: "Post-Mortem"
        - An episode looking at the treatment of autopsies and dissection in the 19th century.

Edited by author 10-16-2007 12:20 AM
Preliminary List of Topics:

1) Document - Ordnance Manual of the C.S.A
    Title - "Tools of Destruction"
    An exploration of the various firearms, heavy ordnance, and other
    weapons of war with illustrations.
2) Document - Alarming Disclosures
    Title - "What happens in Congress, stays in Congress."
    Secret happenings in the South Carolina Congress reveal an outraged
    Surveyor-General fighting for his reputation and honor.
3) Document - Photographic History of the Civil War
    Title - "Visions of the Past"
    A look at what the war was like from an intimate perspective.
4) Document - Information Respecting the Indian Tribes
    Title - "The Curious Savage"
    An exhaustive investigation of Indian culture, history, and tradition.
5) Document - Life and Death in Rebel Prisons
    Title - "Apparently, the Devil did go down to Georgia"
    Chilling tales of the horrors of being a prisoner in Andersonville,
    including a man being eaten alive by maggots.


Always on the lookout for more good stuff. : )

Here's my preliminary list of topics.

1) Topic: The Great Charleston Fire of 1838
Document: “Two discourses on the occasion of the great fire in Charleston”

2) Topic: The Ku Klux Klan Trials in Columbia, SC in 1871
Document: “Proceedings in the Ku Klux trials at Columbia, S.C.”
      
3) Topic: The Advancement of Firearms Proceeding the Civil War
Document: “Gunnery in 1858: being a treatise on rifles, cannon, and sporting arms; explaining the principles of the science of gunnery, and describing the newest improvements in fire-arms”
     
4) Topic: Home Medicines and Remedies in the 19th Century
Document: “The Housekeepers Encyclopedia of Useful Information for the Houskeeper”
     
5) Topic: Women and Their Role in the Southern Baptist Church
Document: “An address before the students of the Johnson Female Seminary at Anderson, S.C.” and “The Bible on Women’s Public Speaking.”

My (Very) Preliminary List of Documents...

 1. Document: Life and Death in Rebel Prison
     Title: View behind the scenes of a rebel prison camp in the civil war.

2. Document: Mountain Creek Baptist Church Records (Greenville, SC).
     Title: A Look at Religion in the Slave Holding Regions in the South

3. Document: North American Indians: Being letters on their manners, customs, and conditions (Catlin)
 Title: Inside Look at the lives of American Indians, especially the pursuit of the Buffalo

4. Document: I Go A’Fishing
 Title: The Importance of Sport in Society, especially hunting and fishing
 
5. Document: Ware Family Papers Costs of Education 1850-1856
 Title: A View of the importance of Education in the South, even though expensive

6. Document: Ware Family Papers Confederate Government Loan
 Title: How Southern Families support the Confederate Government Financially

1) "Book of Scraps?"
Scrapbook ~ find an individual scrapbook and the story and then branch out to scrapbook in general and their new function in the 19th century

TR 465.5393453 2006 The Scrapbook in American Life. eds Susan Tucker, Katherine Ott, Patricia P. Buckler. Temple University Press. Philadelphia. 2006.


2) "Technical difficulties"
Steam boat explosion
- p 453 Feb. 24, 1830 - Explosion of steam boat Helen M'Gregor (Memphis, TN)
- p 457 May 15, 1824 - Explosion of steam boat Etna (NY Harbor)
- p 464 June 4, 1829 - Blowing up of steam frigate Fulton (Navy Yard, Brooklyn)

G 525.D87 1834b The Mariner's Chronicle containing narractives of the most remarkable disasters at sea, such as shipwrecks, storms, fires, and famines. Also, naval engagements. A. Chandler. Philadelphia. G.N Loomis. 1834.


3) "A Day in the Life"
In interesting story involving
- p 12 Mme Le Vert
- p 14 Colonel Jere Clemens
- p 30 Mrs Slidell
- p 46 and 89 Mrs. George E. Pugh (Therese Chalfant) "Most beautiful woman in Washington"
- p 98 Sam Houston... wears sombero and "speaks" Indian (How does this impact what people think of Indians, fashion, etc)

F 213.C62 A Belle of the 50's. Mrs Clay of Alabama. Doubleday Page and Company. 1904.


4) "Dancing war"
Dancing and balls
- p 126 Mrs. Senator Gwin ball (1857-1858)

F 213.C62 A Belle of the 50's. Mrs Clay of Alabama. Doubleday Page and Company. 1904.


5) "There's no business like show business"
Broadway
- p 102 "Pocahontas" (1857-1858) including Mrs. Gilbert and Broughham (When was Broadway established and any stories about early creation or people who attended)

F 213.C62 A Belle of the 50's. Mrs Clay of Alabama. Doubleday Page and Company. 1904.


5) "Theatre morals"
Reaction in Charleston to new theatre

PN 2049.565 1838 The Theatre, a school of religion, manners and morals! Two Discourses delivered on the opening of the new theatre in Charleston. 2nd ed. Rev. Thomas Smyth. Charleston. Jenkins and Mussey. 1838.


6) "The Burning of a Treasure"
- Discuss the burning of a theatre (and the dangers of early theatre without gas lights)
- Burning of Richmond Theatre
- Burning of Chestnut Street Theatre


PN 2251.w6 1856 Personal Recollections of the stage, embracing notices of Actors, Authors, and Auditors, during a period of forty years. William Burke Wood. Philadelphia. Henry Clay Baird. 1855.

7) "And 1, 2, 3"
- Rules on dancing

BJ 1852.w4 1891 Manners Culture and Dress of the Best American Society including social, commercial and legal forms. Richard A Wells AM. Springfield, Mass. King, Richardson and Company. 1890.

8) "Worth a Thousand Words"
- Brady and Gardner (How did people react to one of the first wars with photography?)

E 468.7.M64 V1 The Photographic History of the Civil War. ed Francis Trevelyan Miller. New York. The Review of Reviews Co. 1911

1. An episode on Prison camps during the Civil War:

-"Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens: His Diary Kept When a Prisoner at Fort Warren, Boston Harbour, 1865"
-"Confederate View of the Treatment of Prisoners" Rev. J. William Jones, D. D., secretary Southern Historical Society 1876.

2. An episode on growth of the study and practice of medicine:

-"Medicine: Annual Dinner of the Society for the Relief of the Widows and Orphans of Medical Men" (NYT).
-"New York Academy of Medicine" (NYDT; 1851-1857, Nov 4, 1852).
-"Article 12 -- No Title (NY Daily Times; 1851-1857, Nov 2, 1852).

3. An episode on the growing emphasis on hygiene, sanitation, and public health, especially in cities:

-article on the Sanatory Congress at Brussels "Sanatory Congress at Brussels" (NY Daily Times: 1851-1857, Oct 4, 1852).
-Health resorts of the South: most desirable health and pleasure resorts of the Southern states [section on Greenville] George H. Chapin, 1893.
-"Article 3 -- No title"(NYT: 1851-1857, Jul 13, 1852).


4. An episode on the wrestling match between McLaughlin and Martin on June 30, 1876. The men had met once before (in May) and would meet once again (in October) that year:

-“Extraordinary Wrestling” (NYT; July 1, 1876).

5. An episode on Vanderbilt's donation to begin Vanderbilt University and the responses to it:

-“Gratitude to Vanderbilt: the people of Nashville express their thanks for the munificent endowment of their college” (NYT from the Nashville American, June 24, 1876).

6. Hopefully, an episode on the origins of football, beginning with the very first football game held in 1869 between Rutgers and Princeton.

1.) Georgia Cherokee Lottery december of 1832
 source: Columbian Star, Christian Index?
 Title: No Wampum for this land

2.) 19th Century Textbooks
 souce: " "
 Title: Your expensive 10c text

3.) Greenville First Baptist Church Records
 source: " "
 Title: Religions inside scoop

4.) Baptist Indian Missions
 source: " "
 Title: My God trumps your Great Spirit

5.) Confederate treatment of Prisoners
 Source: Confederate view of the treatment of prisoners. Rev. J. William Jones, D. D., secretary Southern Historical Society 1876
 Title: You aint Whstlen Dixie behind the Stars and Bars

1. Title: Furman University Closes for Civil War
Primary Source: Faculty Report July 1861. Old Campus Historical Documents Faculty Reports, Box 1. (Special Collections, Furman University).

 2. Title: Reopening of Furman University in 1866
Primary Source: To the Baptists of South Carolina. Greenville, S.C., Printed by G. E. Elford’s Job Printing Office, 1866. Old Campus Historical Documents Faculty Reports, Box 1. (Special Collections, Furman University).

3. Title: Reverend Chiles Puts Health Over Politics
Primary Source: Letter from Reverend James M. Chiles to James C. Furman December 5, 1832. James C. Furman Professional Correspondence, Note sheet for inventories. (Special Collections, Furman University).

4. Title: Jackson Pardons Basil Manly
Primary Source: Pardon of Basil Manly by President Johnson. Various Personal Papers and Data Concerning B. Manly, Sr., Box 4. (Special Collections, Furman University).

5. Title: A Dedication to the Manhood of Southern Women
Primary Source: Willaim Gilmore Simms, LL. D., War Poetry of the South (New York: Richardson & Company) 1867. PS551 .S4 1866 (Special Collections, Furman University).

 6. Title: Poetry as an Outlet for Hard Feelings after Civil War
Primary Source: Willaim Gilmore Simms, LL. D., War Poetry of the South (New York: Richardson & Company) 1867, p 46-48. PS551 .S4 1866 (Special Collections, Furman University).

 7. Title: Travel the United States in 1838
Primary Source: Samuel Augustus Mitchell, Mitchell's Travel Guide Through the United States (Philadelphia: Hinman & Dutton) 1838. E158 .M675 (Special Collections, Furman University).

 8. Title: Grimke Brother Addresses Calhoun
Primary Source: Thomas S. Grimke. A Letter to the Honorable John C. Calhoun. E381 .G7 1832 (Special Collections, Furman University).

1) Early July 1876, Atlanta Constitution, train records
     Title: 20 Miles an Hour on a New Train: Dangerous to Your Health

2) Standing Springs Baptist Church July 20, 1833; May 19, 1834; October 1862
     Potential Title(s): The Local Church as a Moral Compass, Perceptions of
     the Civil War Within the Local Church

3) 19th Century Textbooks
     Potential Title: Evolution of Education

4) Philosophian Society Records, 1830's - 1860's
     Title: Socrates and Brutus as Bigger Influences than the Civil War

5) Adelphian Society Records
     Potential Title: Effects of Public Speakers' Opinions on College
     Students

List of Events:
1.) Something to do with Greenville Woman's College and the implications of women's education
     -Greenville Female College Commencement
     -Graduation Essay of Lula Whilden "Life's Mission" 1870
     -James C. Furman An Address before the Students of the Johnson Female Seminary
2.) Beecher/Tilton Affair
     -Atlanta Constitution
3.) The Burning of the Northern Ohio Insane Asylum
Atlanta Constitution, The Burning of the Northern Ohio Insane Asylum
Oct. 2, 1872

For some reason my internet is being slow and my page with my other sources won't load so I'll post them when it does.

1. Event: Local reaction to the Political Crisis of 1832-33
Document: “A Letter to John Calhoun” By Thomas Grimke 1832

2. Event: Rise of Baptism in South Carolina
Document: “A discourse Delivered before the Baptist Church in Crenshaw, SC,” Richard Furman, August 23, 1840

3. Event: The Growth of Public Lands in the United States
Document: Speech of Mr. Smith of South Carolina concerning the resolution of Mr. Foote of Conn. Delivered in the Senate. February 25, 1830

4. Event: Expansion of Railroads in South Carolina
Document: Report of President of South Carolina Railroad Company. 1846

5. The Death of President Harrison
Document: “A discourse Delivered at Furman Theological Institute May 14, 1841, the day set aside to mourn the death of President Harrison” J.L. Reynolds

6. Event: Reaction to the Compromise of 1850
Document: “Speech of Winchester Graham on the compromise measure” Barnwell District, SC, September 5, 1851

7. Event: The Reconstruction of South Carolina
Document: Constitution of South Carolina adopted April 16, 1868 and the acts and joint resolutions of the general assembly” 1868

8. Event: The aftermath of the Cholera Epidemic
Document: “National Sins: A Call to Repentance” August 3, 1849

9. Event: Reaction to Reconstruction’s policy on Equality
Document: Proceeding in the Ku Klux Trials at Columbia, SC” November 1871

10. Event: Congress calls for Investigation into Southern Atrocities
Document: “The Conduct of War” Chicago Tribune, May 5, 1862

11. Event: Southern Reaction of Reconstruction and Emancipation
Document: Revised and Amended Prescript of the KKK 1868

12. Event: Sumner Speaks out about Kansas-Nebraska
Document: “Speech of Charles Sumner against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise” Feb. 21, 1854

Preliminary list of episodes:
1. Ladies' Home Journal, June 1898. Title :"Priorities of the American woman at the turn of the century."
2. Carolina Sports by land and water: including incidents of devil-fishing, etc. William Elliott 1850. p. 166 Title: "The Emergence of the Hunter Conservationist."
3. A Belle of the Fifties: Memoirs of Mrs. Clay of Alabama, Chapter X, "Exodus of Southern Society from the federal city." 1859-1860. Title: "The coming war's effect on Washington's social scene."
4. The Horticulturist, and Journal of rural art and rural taste, 1851. Title: "Planting the seed for Central Park."
5. The Horticulturist, and Journal of rural art and rural taste, 1847-1848. Title: "Winemaking in the early West."
6. LIfe and Death in Rebel Prisons. Title: "A Day in the LIfe of a POW in Florence, SC."

Here are my episodes
1. "Johnson Promises Higher Education for Women"
William Bullein Johnson Address. He gave this speech before students at Johnson Female University in Anderson, SC. August, 1850. This speech celebrates the opportunity of higher education for women.
Baptist Historical Collection in Furman University Historical Archives
2. "Charles Larpenteur is Promoted"
July 2, 1834 Charles Larpenteur is promoted to clerk with the American Fur Trade in Missouri and leaves for Fort William.

“Forty Years A Fur Trader.” The Personal Journal of a Fur Trapper 1833-1872. R. R. Donnelly & Sons Co. The Lakeside Press. Chicago 1933.

3. "Strike in Hocking Valley Coal Mine"
October 25, 1884. Photos of striking miners in the Town of Buchtel. Pinkerton’s Detectives escort “blackleg” workmen to replace striking miners.

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, (New York, NY) October 25, 1884; pg. 152-153; Issue 1,518 col. A

4. "Kate Stone Writes to Sarah Wadley with Homemade Ink"
April 28, 1865 Kate wrote to her friend with homemade ink in order to discuss the accuracy of news about Lincoln’s death. “All honor to J. Wilkes Booth, who has rid the world of a tyrant.”

“The Journal of Kate Stone 1861-1868. Edited by John Q. Anderson. Louisiana State University Press. Baton Rouge. 1955.

5. "Donald Campbell Informs E.M. Pease of Ku Klux Klan Terror"
Donald Campbell on Tuesday August 25, 1868 writes Judge EM Pease about the local rebel veterans. They are threatening order and peace.

Donald Campbell to Pease, August 25, 1868, Records of Elisha Marshall Pease, Texas Office of the Governor, Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/war/pease-campbell-1.html

1. "TOO GOOD TO LOSE," Belle Eyre, Boston Daily Globe; Aug. 18. 1889; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Boston Globe (1872-1924), pg. 20.

Episode Title: Women's Adventures Westward

Secondary Sources: Lillian Schlissel, Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey, ed. Gerda Lerner (New York: Schocken Books, 1982).

David M. Wrobel, Promised Lands: Promotion, Memory, and the Creation of the American West (Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002).

Ina Fay Woestemeyer, The Westward Movement: A Book of Readings on our Changing Frontiers, ed. J. Montgomery Gambrill (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1939).

Sandra L. Myres, Ho for California!: Women's Diaries from the Huntington Library (California: Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, 1980).

2. "Arms for the South," Richmond Daily Dispatch; Nov. 23, 1860, Richmond Daily Dispatch Database, http://dlxs.richmond.edu/cgi/t/text/text-i...dr0020.0018.124%3A4

Episode Title: A Call for Confederate Arms

Secondary Sources:

James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, Second Ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.,1992).

Library of Congress: Civil War Desk Reference, eds. Margaret E. Wagner, Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman (New York: A Grand Central Press Book, Simon and Schuster, 2002).

3. "MISSIONS HAVE FLOOR," Boston Daily Globe (1872-1922, Apri 13, 1890; ProQuest Historical Newspapers Boston Globe (1872-1924), pg. 7.

Episode Title: Women's Societies' Missions: Civilizing the Uncivilized

Roger Daniels and Otis L. Graham, Debating American Immigration, 1882-Present (Lanham: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001).

John R. Commons; Races and Immigrants in America (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1967).

4. “Valuable Recipe,” The Daily Dispatch: July 26,1861, retrieved from (Richmond: University of Richmond Library, 2004), http:// dlxs.richmond.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ddr;iel=4;view=text;idno=ddr0228.0020.022;rgn=div2;cc=ddr;node=ddr0228.0020.022%3A11.1
Episode Title: Women’s Domestic Duties during Civil War

5. “Another Hero Fallen,” The Daily Dispatch: July 26, 1861, retrieved from (Richmond: University of Richmond Library, 2004), http://dlxs.richmond.edu/cgi/t/text/text-i...28.0020.022%3A4.1.7.
Episode Title: Another Hero Lost at the Battle of Bull Run

Secondary Source:

David Detzer, Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861 (Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 2004).


6. “An Ex-Confederate Right At Last,” New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 1, 1876; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) pg. 5; http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&did...6298&clientId=43093

Episode Title: Impact of Civil War Far-Reaching: An Ex-Confederates Pledge of Loyalty

Secondary Source: James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, Second Ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.,1992).

I agree with Julia that there is definitely a sense of North and South, although I argue that it is changed from the Civil War.

My parents just moved to Florence, KY. This city is just 20 minutes south of Cincinnati, but their water tower proudly proclaims "Florence Y'ALL." Yet most who live there speak with very pointed Northern accents, at least to my Southern-tuned ears. For example, my parents' realtor kept saying she was going to do things to help "you's guys." Meanwhile, we were never more than 15 minutes away from that water tower . . . The realtor swore that she was a Southern lady, but I never did see it.

I kept noticing the differences between her and my grandmother, who is the epitome of a Southern woman. When I read 1865, I was reminded of my previous contrasts between these two ladies. There are immense differences among Southerners, but they are all united by the identity of "Southern-ness." The trick, I think, is figuring out and attempting to define exactly what it is that makes each person identify themselves as such.
For my grandmother, I think it is a shared experience with people geographically in the Southern United States. Her experiences, education, and dare I say indoctrination caused her to identify with fellow Southerners in contrast to the strange people up North who talk so fast and never have time for family or a good sit-down, home-cooked, hot supper.
For the realtor, it is simply a differentiation from Northerners. I actually did talk with her about her family, and there was very little of her history that could be likened to the experience of the South pre-, during, or post-Civil War. For some reason I could not really get her to explain, she felt the need to set herself and her city apart from the North. Maybe it is an effort to create an independent view of self from the major Northern cities surrounding Florence.

At the same time, there is a bigger lesson I gleaned from the realtor. During the Civil War, Kentucky was a border state, pulling influences from both sides of the nation. Even now, that meshing of ideas and cultures continues. So, while I agree that there are still, at least culturally and ideologically, a "North" and "South," I think that our definitions are different from those by 19th century standards. Furthermore, there is a melding and blending that blurs the definitive distinctions more and more between the two sides, perhaps ultimately leading to the erasure of North and South.


and ummmmm . . . in my humble opinion, the South *is* fixin' to rise again. just you wait, darlin', and i reckon you might could see something :}

I would conditionally agree with Emily's comment that the Civil War absolutely did not create the South, but might have strengthened some of the bonds that were already there. There was some notion of North and South before the Civil War, but the sectional conflict leading up to the War, the War itself, and the continued resentment during Reconstruction all added greatly to both the notion of the South as a unified area and the disjuncture of the North and South. Concerning 1865, I would definitely say that one thing each focal character have in common is that it's the year 1865 and they all lived through a war that their side lost. That in itself would result in a sense of solidarity even if they had nothing else in common.
I would also argue that there is still a deep sense of what is North and South - at least among some people. I spent most of my childhood in Texas and was never really taught to have a sense of "Southern Pride" (because it was Texas and we're so big and great that we don't need solidarity with anyone else), but after moving to North Carolina and now attending school in Greenville, I have been at times a bit shocked at the amount of discord and underlying prejudices that exist. It many ways it's not as much a hatred for the North as much as a very deep sense of traditions of the South and having a family that's lived in the South for decades. Some friends even have stories of relatives fighting in the Civil War for the Confederacy in order to defend the rights of the states. I don't want this to turn into a debate over the true causes of the war, so I'll just say that I do believe it was just a bit more complicated than that.
There are also random claims that "The South will rise again" and I'm still not quite sure what that means.

Edited by author 10-14-2007 08:08 PM
This might seem rather frivolous, but I was immediately attracted to the invention of the carpet sweeper! In 1876, Melville Bissell patented his creation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and it was manufactured and sold in 1883. I had never considered the origins of vacuum cleaners, but think about the implications. Women could spend less time beating out their rugs and/or sweeping, leaving them with more time to spend on their children, husbands, and other household affairs. I don't know how expensive carpet sweepers were, which would obviously determine the breadth of their effect. Also, the use of servants would also lessen the effects on women's time.

I looked through the lists for other household devices, and in 1886 Josephine Cochrane invented some sort of hand-powered dishwasher. This too would free time for other things, even for servants. The wikipedia article stated that Josephine created the dishwasher so that her own servants would stop chipping her fine china. Having just broken a dish a few days ago, the dishwasher could also be a money-saving device if you no longer have to juggle soap-slick plates. The other fascinating thing about the dishwasher is its inventor: a woman! Unless I have missed something, she is the only woman who made the list in twenty years. I wonder if her invention was readily received or criticized because of her gender?

I read through the JSTOR article on American Inventiveness, and found Adam Smith's interesting approach to the origins of invention. He hypothesized that many inventions are the creation of common workers searching for and easier and better way to do their job. I don't really see that as the case with either one of the aforementioned inventions: a man, whom I doubt was doing housework, invented the sweeper, and a woman of high-standing created the dishwasher for her servants. Also, the author points out the strange case of Connecticut, which had to be excluded from analysis because of the vast number of inventions originating in the state. I wonder what factors contributed to Connecticut's heightened productivity? The presentation of the connection and causation between urbanization and invention was also important, especially in the development of the South. The author suggests that there is almost a snowball effect: with the beginnings of urbanization, people start to create. Once they start inventing, urbanization becomes faster and easier. With increased urbanization, many have more time in which to invent, and the cycle accelerates.

To answer the question of whether the South was created from the Civil War I would personally say - absolutely not.
Though the boundary lines of what is North and South was unclear (as it was during the Civil War itself), there was a definite difference in the lifestyles and even the types of people in the North and in the South. Who colonized where was almost as important as the geography of the 13 colonies. In the North I would argue that there was more diversity in who colonized. The South was a place to provide a border to the Spanish. The South was not as important as the North or Middle colonies at first and those colonies were later to become Royal colonies. The quality of the soil also played a role in dividing the colonies. If you can't farm as well in the North than you have to develop other means of surviving and focus on communication and connections with those who could provide (England perhaps). Whereas in the South you could focus on farming and relying on yourself... and the planations lead to the need for slavery in a way that the North can not understand. From the beginning there was a distinct difference and focus between people that lived in the North and people that lived in the South - different problems (immigration, slavery, education, farming) - that led to a clash between very different people.
Now I think you could argue that the Civil War strengthened these different mindsets and developed into the America we know today (although I'm not sure you would say that there is a definite North and South today though you could say that Northerners and Southerners still exist).

I agree with Sorrells about Ash's ability to incorporate personal stuff with a broad spectrum of materials in order to recreate for the reader his subjects’ lives. The link between the people he chose illustrates thoughts about the war on a communal level. They were different because of class and social opportunities, but they as southerners were connected, because they all felt the crunch of the war. Honor, hope, and survival became their steadfast companions through their personal journeys in the book.
I think the biggest shocker to me was the certification process in the South that would allow John Robertson to teach children at 19 and not had any formal training. I felt the standard for getting hired as a school teacher involved being able to simply read, writes and simple math.

One thing i really enjoyed abou the Ash book was the very personal view the reader gets of all the main characters. We see the struggle of Cornelia McDonald to maintain a sense of privilege (a important value in the south) even in a time of severe financial strife. I thought Ash did a good job of giving a look inside the minds of the different characters in time of great uncertainty in their lives. Another thing I find really intersting was John Robertson's feeling toward blacks in the south. Though neither he nor his family ever owned slaves, Ash said that Robertson loathed the black communtiy. Could this possibly be that Robertson felt, even though he personally knew no blacks, that these black slaves were responsible for the war that disrupted all he had known? That, if it weren't for the blacks, he would never face the Unionist guerillas disrupting life on his family farm. Interesting to think about.

An aspect I found interesting about Ash's book was the specific detail he recounts about people's lives. For example, Ash goes into maticulous detail about Louis Hughes, the slave working in the Alabama salt works. We learn that Hughes was very financially savvy, making a good profit by bartering tobacco. Indeed, Brooks recognized Lou's talent and forged a sort of partnership with him. Ash also goes into detail about the relationship and marriage between Lou and Matilda, noting their differences as well. Matilda was a timid person and a Christian, trusting in God during difficult times. Lou, on the other hand, was about as savvy as a slave can get away with, and carried around a voodoo bag. It is details like these that makes the history of this time very personal and focused, which, in my opinion, makes for an interesting read.

While reading the Richmond newspaper I noticed that the term "Yankee" evolved in it's context and to whom it applied. Early in 1861, the article "Who are we fighting?" hurled the term almost exclusively to the US Government and was written in such a way to suggest that the average northern citizen could have cared less. Though by the time that I was reading articles from 1864 "Yankee" had developed into a very personal term used against all US forces; most likely to create additional hostilities toward them on the battlefield.

The Sumner Brooks incident reveals in many ways the virtues/social norms/logic etc., that consumed each side in the pre-Civil War era. The quickly angered Brooks is an interesting case study of how the Southern Hierarchy viewed any attack on someone or something related to them as a capital offense and deserving of punishment in kind. Such an explanation would lend support to why the South was so quick to take arms as opposed to a diplomatic solution.

In the readings from the textbook I was quite indulged by the correlation between US service and war dates. With colored troops not being used until the end of the war( and increasingly higher proportions of immigrants being drafted) it is fair to surmise that Lincoln approved this for the election of 1864 as both moves freed up more northerners from service and consequently casting a vote for him. Just a theory.

One of the most interesting sources regarding domestic attitudes toward the nation I have found is the Ash book. It is striking how many people came to dislike both the Yankee forces and their rebel counterparts. I never really thought about how feared troops were even among their sympathizers. Pillaging and drafting were two tactics which inspired a great deal of terror. I have specifically in mind the passages in the John Robertson chapters. Even Sam Agnew spent many a night out in the woods (sometimes in the snow) to keep his goods--especially his livestock--safe from both Northern and Southern forces. It seems that everyone became oppressed in a war for liberty.

All of the sources here had very interesting things to say, primarily about the war, the reaction to it, and how people remember it. While the battles themselves were bloody and probably most influential, Lincoln's two speeches gets at the significance of and reaction to the war for many people. He discusses the war both in the context of a result of people wanting to tear the Union apart, on one side, and others willing to fight to keep it alive on the other. Yet in his speeches he also looks at it in the sense of being a duty to man and specifically to God, to finally eradicate slavery. This too is embodies by the inscription on the Chickamauga monument, and (I think) by the women, which seems to recall the "lady liberty" type figure both concerned with freedom, and the Union. He discusses the huge toll of the war, but regards it as a necessity. This toll, for many it seems was often too much in many peoples' minds, and issues would grow dramatically with the Reconstruction.

After looking through the Richmond Dispatch for 1861, the term Yankee seems to be used mostly for describing Northerners, and especially Union fighters. Barbarism is not used in many negative ways as I would have expected. On article did use the term when referring to the way the union army conducted war, because houses of women and children were shelled. In 1863 it is used in a telegram from the Union war department while ordering Southerners to not mistreat negro soliders from the North. It sas this would be a relapse to barbarism. In an article from 1864 the Norther commanders are described by their barbarism. Articles from 1865 use this term to describe the actions of Northern troops as they raid cities in the South. The Chicago Tribune uses rebel in the same way as the Dispatch uses Yankee. Southerners are grouped into the category of rebels, even though not all southerners were rebels to the union. The Tribune has several articles about the "revolting barbarism" of the POW's condition in Southern camps.

Dr. Benson discussed in class today how a sense of nationalism was growing during the time period of the 1850's and it reminded me of a qoute in the Peirce 1853 State of the Union address that caught my eye when I read it a few weeks ago. There he mentioned the United States in the plural saying "the United States are" rather than how we now refer to it now in the singular or "the United States is". The reason I bring this up is because it can help us understand how Americans in the 1850's saw themselves, as seperate, identifying themselves more by region and state than a nation as a whole. This careful language of Peirce also reflects an individualism and autonomy that seems to have been very important to states and people at the time and may infer some of the tensions that existed between different regions.

When reading the articles from the Chicago Tribune I only found one article that founded it's claims of Southern barbarism on slavery. I was expecting to find the association of Southerners and slavery to be one of the main bases for calling the rebels barbarians, but most of the articles that I read focused much more on crimes of war. One article that I read (Aug. 5, 1863) was the description of the freeing of General Stuarts slaves. I found it fascinating that General Stuart was from Maryland, a state that was still a part of the Union, and yet the Tribune associated Maryland with the South and slavery and barbarism. This was the only account of slavery being associated with barbarism and it was actually from a Union state - as concerned as the Union was with trying to keep Maryland from secession, I found this interesting.

Chad mentioned that the North was particularly interested in documenting the barbarism of the South in order to further justify their own cause - I also found this to be true. In a May 5, 1862 article from the Chicago Tribune I read an article discussing the formation on a committee on war to collect evidence of Southern Barbarism. There were no such committees set up in the South (at least in the five articles that I read...), but rather, the Richmond Daily Dispatch seemed more concerned with attacking the integrity of the Union troops. The May 4, 1861 Sunday morning paper called the soldiers of the North the "most offensive species of soldiery conceivable". It seemed that the North was more concerned with attacking the general Southern population as barbarians while the South focused their efforts particularly on the soldiers from the North and their tendencies to plunder and destroy areas that they occupied.

I found a section of chapter 14 rather interesting. being from what we today call the :West" I thought it was intersting that the chapter made note of Missouri as being western. Being from California the Civil War was not an integral part of my history studies until Ap U.S. I just found that the lack of focus on real western events and relations as well as coverage by western paper and sources of the war are few and far between. This definately has an effect on how the war is percieved and taught out there. I for one know that most westerners don't think twice about the war, yet it has had an integral impact on western politics and growth. (if you think of the west as being anything west of Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.

As I infer from most of these posts, I'm not the only one who really enjoyed the South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York accounts of the Sumner caning. As most people have hit on with their accounts of the language used in the various articles, the issue of slavery was incredibly personal. In the Albany, New York article from the Evening Journal, the Republican publication, the editor writes, "But the assault upon Mr. Sumner was not on account of the injured vanity of the Southern Senator. It was the answer to his argument against Slavery--an answer fearfully common, and which threatens to be the ultima ratio of Southern logic throughout the Republic." The South Carolina article argues that Mr. Sumner "'slung his slosh' so madly at large as to produce the denouement we now record." (Capt. Brooks' Castigation of Senator Sumner, Edgefield, South Carolina, Advertiser (Democratic) (28 May 1856). The Laurensville (nice name...) article says "the blow is pregnant with results." I love that line. This incident of violence was more than just a personal afront to Mr. Brooks,and as Matthew also touches on, it was just the passionate repercussions of peoples' entire way of life being threatened. This incident merely serves as a symbol of the violence to come and displays the great lengths people were willing to go to in order to prove their points. All four of these articles illustrate the epiphanies that would soon divide the country into two sections with various conflicts in many states (such as Missouri and Eastern Tennessee), between families and between political parties. These epiphanies are just the start of the events to come.
From what I've read in the Ash book, it seems that epiphanies are fundamental to this great Civil War Conflict (I'm literally on pg. 40 so take this for what it is). In the intro of Louis Hughes, Ash write that "What sparked Louis' quest for freedom was an ephiphany of a kind that every enslaved man and woman eventually experienced. [Louis] was not a grown man and yet, he came to see, slavery denied him full manhood" (Ash, 3). Louis Hughes realizes at a certain point that he can't be the subservient, obedient slave he has always been. He is an intelligent man who uses his skills as a butler, a nurse, an entreprenuer, and a factory worker, yet he never feels as if he is man- the quintessential problem. Even for everyday people epiphanies are crucial; Cornelia McDonald realizes that she must teach strangers in order to simply feed her family; John Collier Robertson realizes he is a "rude and wicked boy" (Ash 8).
Whether the ephiphanies are printed in the Newspapers or recorded in the episodes or demonstrated by the Election of 1860 and Bleeding Kansas. The people of the late 1850s and early 1860s realized their lives would never be the same; a crucial epiphany and a great awakening for the country who will soon become two.

I thought this assignment was very interesting way to discover how both sides of the war viewed each other. The term "Yankee" took on very discriminatory and descriptive meaning in the Southern Press. The term came to represent those who did little work of their own, relying primarily immigrants to do their work, forming a very similar system to the slavery that was denounced in the South. Thus, the acrimonious abolitionism of the North was misplaced becasue their system of menial labor closely resembled the denounced system. The Northern troops were also described as barbarians; in one instance, needlessly slaughtering cattle and other farm animals that belonged to a prominent farmer. Thus, the barbarism represented used to describle the north took on the usual forms of violence, but was especially directed against property. This could be an extension of the popular view that the war was a barbarian invasion against the property rights of southern planters, as concerned their slaves. These connotations of Yankee and barbarism became more hated as the South continued to lose a foothold in the world, representing the expanded acrimony felt by many Southerners. The connotation surrounding "rebel" and barbarism in the Northern Press held some of the same acrimony of the southern press. But the Northern Press was more concerned with documenting the barbarism of the Southern troops in their treatment of slaves, prisoners, and their own troops. This charaterization served to dehumanize the South, allowing popular support to be built against the "monsters" of the South. This connotation and message were established early in the War and continued to be used in a very harsh manner. The Northern press had more accusations in their papers to "prove" southern barbarism, the most interesting of which explains how a Southern tired to bring Yellow Fever to major areas of the North. These were the barbaric acts of the rebels, these actions were reported to reinforce Northern moral superiority and the rightness of their cause. These words were used by both sides to characterize their opponents and reinforce the values and positions of their respective government.

Like Virginia and David, I thought the referral to some southerners (namely South Carolinians) as "barbarians" from "ancient Gaul" quite amusing. As mentioned before, the persepectives offered by the articles from different regions is quite telling. Northern papers played the incident up to be unprovoked and painted Sumner as "toned down, and altogether moderate," while Brooks is reported as "insolent, dictatorial and contemptuous -- with the head of a half-breed and the voice and temper of an overseer." At the same time, southern papers praised Mr. Sumner for all but defending the honor of the South, even calling to "'Hit him again.'"

I found the most interesting aspect of these articles to be the almost immediate call to arms in the respective regions. The Pittsburg Gazette calls for drastic (and quite graphic) measures to be taken: "These cut-throat Southrons will never learn to respect Northern men until some one of their number has a rapier thrust through his ribs, or feels a bullet in his thorax." On the other hand, the Laurensville Herald claims that "the first blow has been struck," and the Edgefield Advertiser practically alludes to the impending Civil War: "we have borne insult long enough, and now let the conflict come if it must."

I also enjoyed Julia's insight into the topic, especially her remarks on the Northern papers' criticism of the South's manliness and how that might have been a result of the gender issues of the day.

One similarity that I found between the Pittsburgh Gazette's "The Attack on Mr. Sumner" and its piece on John Brown's execution was that the Gazette attacked the manhood of the South in both cases. Concerning Mr. Sumner, the Gazette claims that the South has no respect for manhood because they are uncivilized brutes; the John Brown piece defends John Brown as a real man marked by his bravery. In both cases the South is portrayed as an area that does not know how to confront such "real men" who take action and result to violence because they are scared. It's curious that here manhood is associated with reason and self-control rather than violence and brute force.
I find this particularly interesting in view of our discussions concerning the roles of men within the family and their voting patterns. The North generally had more egalitarian families where the South was more likely to see large plantations where the man was the absolute head of the household. How would Southern men who felt the need to assert their manliness within the family react to attacks on their manhood? But at the same time, would these men even being reading a paper from Pittsburgh.

In this time of impending crisis and increased division, the reports on the Brooks-Sumner affair coupled with the report on Brown's raid offer an extraordinary glimpse into the divisiveness (and duality) of the American society, North and South. I think that these articles offer a painfully clear example of how the divisions in the nation had become almost solely regional. This is seen in the southern papers' praise Brooks' beating of Sumner as "an act in good season" and conversely the northern reports refering to southerners as "cut-throat southrons." Throughout the articles, the writers praise their respective men for their actions and condemn the opponent in barbaric terms, almost as if they were citizens of a foreign nation. My favorite description came in the Albany Evening Journal when the writer made reference to the barbarians of Gaul, stating that South Carolina had its own barbarians, aka Brooks. Also likening the violence of Brooks to the violence of the plantation and referring to him as a slave driver was a very poignant and reveling statement. Needless to say, the violence that broke out in the chambers of the senate was but a microcosm of the regional violence that would soon cover the entire nation.

I also found it very interesting to incorporate the report Pittsburgh report on John Brown's execution into the mix. While northern papers hailed Brooks as a barbarian for his violence against Sumner in the Senate, John Brown, who had killed several men in cold blood and who had attempted to led an anarchical and violent revolt, was hailed as a martyr. Thus is the duality of the American society in these days of turmoil.

As I was reading through the editorials some things that I noticed...
- That indeed the SC editorials seemed to be more mild and the Northern reports were over the top (Sumner was "murderously clubbed" and was outnumbered) And the South of course plays on the fact that Brooks was insulted by Sumner while the North states that it was the slavery question that led to the beating and not the insulting.
- What I found most interesting in the Northern editorials was how the issue of slavery and state's rights seemed to be one and the same. I wonder how many people (either in the North or the South) were for state's rights and completely against slavery.

As for the similarities between the defending of Brooks and the defending of John Brown. Both supported the violence. I think that the issue of supporting the violence is very key because it sets the stage for people not to look at other people as actual people, but as an issue (that person represents slavery or that person represents abolition). And when the actual war came, both the North and the South realized that they were killing people as families were split due to these issues which really can not be characterized by specific individuals as the editorials seem to write.

From the SHDB, anyone could come in cold, with no knowledge of US history, and understand how instrumental issues in Kansas were to the break-up of the Union. Fighting between local abolitionists and slavery supporters spread like wildfire, dividing a large portion of the population generally along North-South lines. However, its presentation is even-keeled, standing in stark opposition to the inflamed editorials of the incident in the Senate. Any one coming in cold to the following documents could understandably assume that it is this one incident responsible for the break-up.

In "CAPT. BROOKS' CASTIGATION OF SENATOR SUMNER" I loved the playful narrative style. But the end took me by surprise: the incident seems relatively innocuous until the author's last line, "[w]ell, we have borne insult long enough, and now let the conflict come if it must." I will be brave and venture to guess that violence in Congress is not exactly to what the author is alluding.

"The Brooks Meeting" article "demands" respect for SC representatives to Congress by their Northern counterparts. I thought it very interesting that the very next article from New York entitled "Ruffians in the Senate" begins by describing SC "barbians" like those of Gaul! The language in the next article is much stronger and more emphatic, pushing the importance of the event by sheer diction. With this style, I think even the most mundane vote would appear pivotal to the direction of the US. The article from Pennsylvania is no better: "The news of the cowardly attack on Mr. Sumner by a villainous South Carolinian" conjures up images of some comic book evildoer creeping out of the shadows to smack our brilliant hero upside the head while he is napping. Oh yeah, and the Joker brought along Penguin, Lex Luthor, Doctor Octopus, Magneto, and a myriad of other cronies.

Southern indignation was matched by Northern indignation, further polarizing North-South relations in an irrationally emotional way. The second article from Pennsylvania calls not for more discussions, but answering actions, "blow for blow." Clearly, the pot is about to boil over, and no one who has the power is making an effort to pull it off the stove.

I think the most interesting thing about the various articles concerning the Brooks and Sumner incident was not necessarily how underplayed violence was in the southern perspectives and over-hyped in the northern, but the context in which the viewpoints set the incident. The two southern journals discussed what lead up to Mr. Brooks' losing his temper and lashing Mr. Sumner, giving him a reason to do so and framing him as a perfectly logical person. [In fact, blame was even cast on Mr. Sumner.] The northern articles, however, didn't once mention anything leading up to the beating and focused on the incident itself, claiming that Mr. Brooks lashed out for no reason and so on and so forth. Though we could say the core issue is violence, I think the real problem isn't so much Mr. Brooks' conduct, but rather, the growing disparity between the northern and southern states. Even the year, 1856, should be a strong indicator to us that the relationship between the north and south was wearing very thin, and so an incident such as this, I believe, was more about this difficult relationship rather than the actual issue of violence.

Edited by author 10-08-2007 10:07 AM
SUMMARY OF ARCHIVE SESSION (MON. 10/8)

Only open 8:30-4:30 MF.

Special Collections website:
http://library.furman.edu/depts/speccoll/speccoll.htm


It can be helpful to call or e-mail in advance to let archives know what specific documents you are interested in. These can be pulled in advance, which is more efficient. You can request after you show up but it is somewhat slower.


The Archives has documents in most categories. Note that documents might belong to several categories simultaneously.

http://library.furman.edu/depts/speccoll/19thc.htm

For ex: Ware Family Papers (African American categories)

All the items listed on the web page that are in *ITALICS* are cataloged in Alcuin; those not italicized only have finding guides in special collections.

DLL highlighted in the Arts/Leisure category the "NEW" shape-note singing system. And the _Carolina Sports by Land and Water_ book, among others.

There are all kinds of Furman University related materials, including student disciplinary records.
Ex: 1894: a student disciplined for pulling a pistol.

Because of Furman's Baptist traditions the archives has a very rich collection of Baptist-related materials. The Botsford collection is truly extraordinary.

Records in the collection exist for over five hundred churches. Minutes include all kinds of details, including church trials for drunkenness, adultery, apostasy, etc.

All kinds of maps, secondary works, records on the Furman family, etc.

There are business records from Greenville.

The archives has an early textbooks collection.


For the war category, lots of correspondence, faculty records reporting on conditions.

Archives has extensive records from Greenville Women's College

Archives has an extensive collection of religious newspapers. It is important to note that just because a paper is published by a Christian organization, that does not mean that the paper limits its coverage to religious issues. These papers are regular journals that cover a range of secular and national affairs.

There is a general finding page for primary source documents in the Furman Collection, including many that are not in the archives.

http://library.furman.edu/resources/subjec...neteenthcentury.htm


-------------

There is an extensive list of Archives materials on microfilm. http://library.furman.edu/depts/speccoll/microfilm.htm. These can be checked out and used not just during special collections hours but at any time through interlibrary loan.

The archives has a list of documents by the assigned years 1832 [Green], 1856 [Blue], 1865 [Purple], and 1876 [Red]. http://library.furman.edu/depts/speccoll/history%2041.htm

Today in class we discussed the slave trade and slavery and tried to work through the challenges of analyzing the experiences of others. Preconceptions and a dependence on documents and opinions of others impede our abilities to fully understand experiences of others. In addition though, I think we have to consider what impedes people’s memories and their outward interpretation of memories. It occurred to me after reading the Davidson article and after our class discussion, that former slaves had such incredible burdens associated with their experiences and burdens. Living in fear and dread of a society so intensely divided on the issue, these former slaves had been through hell, literally! The Amisted movie demonstrated that life for slaves and Africans was absolutely horrific. People’s opinions and views, much like Davidson, rationalized and justified their enslavement of human beings. The man we listened to speak today so brokenly explained that they were not “thing[s] but dog[s].” He could admit this, but didn’t want to tell his story “because it makes people feel bad, ya know?” This man, who had been through some of the worst experiences, being treated like a dog, didn’t want to tell his story because of the effect it might have on people, people who treated him like dogs. Did these people really think they had the freedom to tell their story? Only 70 years before, they had been enslaved, this same generation! This generation had felt the fear, the constant threat of being beaten, the constant burden of living solely to serve someone else’s interests. This same generation felt thankful for being free…Why should they push limits they knew society would not accept? America simply wasn’t ready for the truth, and this former slave knew it. Shack Thomas even described his owner “as moderate, if not actually kind” because “he did not permit his slaves to be beaten to any great extent.” Yet his owner still enslaved him, stripped him of his freedoms, kept him as his property, and “beat them” even if not to a great extent. Even after all these experiences and the horrific experiences of many, these people did not feel as if they could speak out about their real experiences. They had to relay the experiences that America was ready to hear, not the memories they truly experienced. For me, that’s so sad. Even though we do know to a great extent the horrors of the slave trade and the lives of slaves, we no longer have the opportunity to interview these former slaves, to get at their real experiences. All we have is the opportunity to listen to the experiences they felt they could convey in the 1930s.

On the topic of slavery as depicted in Amistad, the movie had an effect on me that reached past the history of it. When the drowning of the "cargo" scene was shown, I realized that slavery was more than just an historical event that occurred over 100 years ago, it was an event that had an enormous impact on the people involved. It affected real people with real families, and not just savage creatures the slaves were seen to be. I thought Spielberg did a fantastic job of portraying the slaves as merchandise. One scene that i felt really did a good job of bringing out the humanness of the slaves, was the one in which Matthew McConaghey's character tried to communicate with Cienke, and the African moved into the fog where he could not be seen to emphasize how far he had been taken. The reality that slavery was an issue these people had to deal with hit me hard in this movie, and made the history of the event come alive.

In comparing the SHDB to chapter 12 from Ayers, it seems like the focus of the database entries were much more restricted. Emphasis on the Mexican-American War and the sectional conflict about slavery were well covered, while several key themes in Ayers were left almost completely untouched. These include the development of transportation, the Gold Rush, Mormon migration, utopian communities, woman's rights, literature and pop culture. I think this is not so much a reflection on the qualities of entries, but rather the nature of the SHDB. It seems to me as though most of these events would be discussed if the SHDB weren't so exclusive, but when forced to name the top few events from any given year--the events will usually be from the few biggest themes of that period.

In reading the SHDB entries for the years 1846-1854, I saw that a major focus of this era was Westward expansion. For example, during these years many events took place that furthered the geographical or idealogical boundaries of the United States. The installation of the Texas state government, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the Treaty of Fort Laramie all represent the geographical or idealogical boundaries of the U.S.; geographically because the U.S. received much land, and idealogically because the U.S. developed a sense of "manifest destiny," amplified by the Westward ambiton represented by the phrase "Go West Young Man."

As I was reading the SHDB sources and the textbook and comparing the topics covered in both, it seemed to me that they were similiar. The textbook of course did not have the interesting entries we found. The SHDB sources didn't touch enough on immigration. Other than that I was very surprised at how if you were just glancing through both, you would probably retain the same information.
As for the actual material... there seems to be so many different things going on in this period. As the textbook says, this time does not have a catchy name or one name that sorta describes every event. You have war and then you have expansion and then you have immigration and then you have women's rights and then you have some problems with African Americans and then you have the creation of political parties. And none of these seem to fit together in a nice solid package. And I imagine if you were living during this time that's how you would feel... as though you were being pulled in so many directions.
I think the immigration is one of the most important aspects of this time period for the east coast because there is such a jump in immigration and it is because of what else is going on in the world. I never really considered this before, but I wonder how many soldiers fighting in the Civil War had just immigrated.

The viewing of Amistad surprised me on a number of levels due to stereotypes that are frequent of the era.
-The nationality of the slavers interested me; typically I'd presume a slave ship to fly under US colors since the US was the largest importer of slaves during that period. The Amistad slave revolt depicted in the movie also broke with my previous understanding that it took place close to the US as opposed to so long out at sea. I confess my knowledge of slave issues in the 19th century is dreadfully lacking.
-I think that Jillian brought up an excellent point with the animal like depiction of the Africans on board the ship. I doubt Spielberg was trying to portray them as sub-human, but rather to paint them in a realistic setting. In such a setting it is reasonable to assume one would adopt a "fight or flight" mechanism and the Africans bathed themselves in a berserker mindset to save themselves.

On the subject of WPA workers and ex-slave interviews in respect to the credibility of the interviewee, I have no doubt that 95% of the interviewees were truthful. However I think that it would be wrong to judge the history/legacy/practice of slavery on these accounts only for the fact that they are from a very narrow number of years' no doubt only 1855 onward. A time in which owners practiced slavery a little differently than a half century earlier.

I'm actually taking an African History class this semester. We are studying this same time frame at the moment.
White portrayal of Africans was primarily based on reports or oral stories that they had heard from sailors or others who had visited. Most white individuals didn't understand the ideology of slavery in Africa. Typical feelings toward slaves or those of low class were derived from European notions that defined birth as a force that placed you in whatever class or unfortunate situation. A lot like, if you were born in this position then there is no way you can climb to a better position. They could not even fathom that Africa was civilized way before they ever visited in the l5th century. Due to the immense influence of Muslim and other Arabian traders, (originally came across the Red Sea, Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean), Africans in most areas had social and political structures in their communities. Instead of viewing land as revenue producing property they viewed those in their household as property and had to pay taxes or tribute to their local authority based on head count. They viewed land as a corporation.
When Holabird, the District Attorney claimed that Africans sold their own, this is incorrect. The majority of slaves were acquired during wars between distinct ethnic groups. They were not part of the same society. First generation slaves were treated as outsiders and second generation slaves had a better chance to be freed or assimilate into the community gradually. Often slavery was a way for those without lineage to share a family name or gain a link to prosperous opportunities.
Finally, to what I was going to comment on…Jullian, I agree that the beginning of the movie portrayed the slaves as brutish, but as the movie continued they became to be more like men. (Guess it is a view of maybe those present at the trial?)
The role of Matthew McConaughey, Baldwin, was not interested in the freedom of the slaves at first. He just wanted to get in on an exciting case. I do believe that the character of the District Attorney was accurate. That man pissed me off so much!! The British rocked in this movie big time. The fort getting blown to pieces was too cool!

The most interesting socal commentary in the Amistad film was the portrayal of the Africans themselves. Everything from their stance to their gestures to their language appeared highly animalistic. This I'm sure represented a great deal of the opinions about the mental capacities of slaves, although this view is nowhere corroborated in the accounts given by the slaves themselves in the 1930s. It was interesting to me that Spielberg would make the Africans in the movie appear so animal-like. Part of his statement, I'm sure, is that whites had reduced them to this--I have the scene on the ship in which the "cargo" is being fed their rationsin mind. They gobble it up no doubt from the starvation inflicted by the slave traders themselves. I can see where Speilberg's portrayal of the Africans in this way is a commentary on the affects of slavery on those who impose it, a train of thought echoed by some of the other documents in class. But I still struggle with the fact that Africans were portrayed--in the 1990s--as primitive brutes, while whites carried all aspects of enlightenment. This was especially true when on the ship, the Africans were singing. Then the classical music of the whites played. The juxtaposition of these two elements perfectly summarizes the entire depiction of Africans in Amistad--uncivilized, brutish animals, lacking reasoning capabilities the only exceptions of which were Morgan Freeman's character and the transalator, who were simply lucky enough to have been "educated" on the white man's terms.

Concerning Dr.Benson's question of how the politician's in "Amistad" were portrayed I'm going to agree that they did seem a bit like bumbling idiots and that that was probably not an acurrate represintation of them. Also, the portrayal of Van Buren who's sole concern is to get re-elected might be a more of a reflection of the writer's and director's understanding of politics from the present time. But, however, I do not think that this represintation can be completely thrown out for it follows closely with McCormick's thesis in his "America's Second Party System" which we discussed in class. Under this theory it is very possible that Van Buren's actions were completely value free and his sole motives were re-election. Under this theory Van Buren acted just as McCormick would have predicted, siding with the people he thought would give him the most votes.

As Julia mentioned, the language barrier was an enormous obstacle, and a particularly interesting one. The scene with the false translator was funny, to me, as it seemed to demonstrate that at least some felt that the Africans' language was simple, and that it could be easily picked apart or "loosely understood" by somebody who knew nothing about it.

Something about the cinematography that really struck me was in the opening scenes [and later in Cinque's flashbacks] how the flashes of dark and light seemed to create still "slide show" images of the rain falling down and stopping like pinpricks around the slaves as they emerged from the decks and attacked the crew. I felt it made a strong artistic statement, partially because the slides mimicked [to me] the slamming of a person's heart against his or her chest in the throes of strenuous activity laced with fear as well as the surreality of the entire sequence. The mutiny seemed to be spontaneous, the Africans acting as one at the drop of a hat [and by Cinque's stroke of luck] without a real plan beyond "get out of here." It conveyed the panic and confusion very well, I thought, as well as just how quickly these people had to act in order to make this mutiny work.

And as Chad mentioned, the politicians [as well as Baldwin] seemed to be simply markers: "Token Befuddled and Attention-Whore President Re-Elect," "Token Glory Seeking Lawyer," and "Token Brain-Dead Politician from the South." Calhoun's "accent" especially made me suspicious of how they were casting this film, and suggested to me that they were throwing him in simply as filler and a "voice" for the Southerners beyond Van Buren's pussyfooting approach.

Edited by author 10-04-2007 12:42 AM
To respond to some of Virginia's questions and pose a few of my own...

Concerning white families aiding in the raising of slave children, from what I can tell it seems like it was generally acceptable for very young children to play together, but as soon as the slave children could work in the field or house they would be taken away to work. Also, there are many instances of slave women being wet nurses for white children which would further the closeness of relationship between two children.

While it would be normal for slaves to be skilled in some kind of labor, the slaves who lived on large plantations would usually only be skilled at working in the fields. It was a smaller number of slaves that were skilled in other trades like carpentry; however, that still should not be attributed to the kindness of the master, but rather the necessity to have a carpenter.


Regarding the map of runaway slave ads in the Greenville newspapers, what made 1849-1851 higher than the rest?

And what happened from 1854-1861 that there were none? Is this due to a lack of runaway slaves or a lack of means to submit ads to the newspaper or some other factor?


What struck me the most about the movie was the lack of ability to communicate mainly due to the language barrier. I found myself getting frustrated because I couldn't fully understand what was trying to be said at times, but how much more frustrating would it be if you were a slave who could not understand what what being yelled at you or a ship captain with a knife at your throat and no way to know what you were expected to do.

I definitely agree with Matthew and Ashley's doubts as to how open and honest ex-slaves would feel around the white WPA workers in the 1930s. According to information from Dr. Strobel's in her African American Experience class, there were some black interviewers in a few states, but they were very rare. Also, the selection of ex-slaves interviewed was a bit biased because they were often people that the interviewers had access to through a mutual friend or some other connection. Many of the slaves were also house slaves who were generally (though not always) treated much better than those in the fields and actually felt some kind of connection to their masters because they were in close contact with them. Even though Charlotte Foster worked in the fields, she had some direct interaction with her master when he would read to the children from the Bible which may help explain her positive view of him.
The WPA workers were also taking these narratives during the 1930s and the Great Depression when everyone was poor and just trying to find enough food to eat. Foster mentions always having enough food to eat during her days as a slave, so she may have seen it as more beneficial to be a slave who was fed than to be free and hungry. On the other hand, Shack Thomas mentions that there was always a variety of food to eat after freedom, but that they had more than many other free blacks (possibly due to the large amount of skill he learned from Campbell).

I believe that this movie was an interesting representation of an important historical event, but I am highly suspect of certain charaterizations of this movie, especially the characterizations of Van Buren and Baldwin. Van Buren appears to be a nothing more than an errad boy for the cause of slaveowners, all in hope of his reelection. I believe this is an oversimplifed view of his character, used only to make the viewer distrustful of the government, glossing over a complex stragegic and political issue. Bladwin was presented as a bumbling and money seeking attorney, used to highlight his eventual triumph and spiritual connection with his new clients. The symbolism of light and darkness was obvisously meant to contrast the slaves condition, freedom vs. bondage. The most obvious use of this was in the courtroom in the first trial, when the light breaks free as Cinque express his desire for freedom. This symbol is carried throughout the movie. The movie doesn't really do a great job of explaining the circumstances surrounding the event and fails to put the trial into a social, political, or historical context, besides the obvious one of slavery. I believe in order to be a more effective arguement, the movie could have tied to be more realistic in some of its charaterizations and tried explaining some of the other issues surrounding the case. The movie, as it is, is an inspiring morality tale about the evils of slavery, especially in this particular trial, but doesn't really explore the real historial ramifications of the events leading to, during, or proceding this event.

So, I don't have time to write out everything right now, but I wanted to write some things before I forgot them. I was reading over some of the other posts that were talking about the slave narratives and how it was interesting how the one slave said that she liked life better under the care of her master. I have read a lot of slave narratives for different classes and a lot of them say that. I find that an interesting dilemma for historians because I wonder how honest African American former slaves would be with a white interviewer in the 1930s.

So I just realized that I had put Buchanan's election as 1845, but I meant 1856 which was also my year. I got mixed up so I'm really sorry about that.

As to Julia's question, I would hazard a guess. In the movie, one of the lawyers brought up a similar question with Cinque's testimony. To adjust the answer a little, perhaps slave owners felt that such extreme punishments were worth it to serve as examples for others. Perhaps also, if there are no accounts of the actions actually being followed through, the threat was enough. Personally, if I saw someone so cruelly disfigured, I would avoid doing anything that would result in such extreme punishment. However, if we were suffering extreme injustice (slavery) I might be inspired to push even harder for freedom, to scheme even more to escape. Specifically with the Achilles tendon, I have read accounts of such punishment or even preemptive action to render people incapable of running away.

I enjoyed reading the Charles Davidson excerpt because I have always been told slavery was defended through Christianity, but I have never actually heard the defense. I have read books that support children of the two races playing together and black slaves helping with white children, but I was very interested to hear Davidson's claim that white families would help raise their slave children. I wonder if this is true, and if it is, how widespread?

One of the slave interview's talks about Campbell's slave who, once freed, had a myriad of skills with which he could find work. The author placed emphasis on the wonderful-ness of Mr. Campbell, but what good is any slave if he or she does not have some proficiency in the field in which they are to work? This seems a standard result of slavery. Why would the author have emphasized it, as if Mr. Campbell had bestowed an extraordinary and generous gift upon his slave?

I was struck by the movie as well. Every person who supported slavery came off as self-serving, cruel, and heartless. Van Buren was portrayed merely as a puppet for others' interests. I understand the theatrical value of such characterizations, but they are also inaccurate, at least in my humble opinion. I was very amused by Calhoun's appearance at the dinner with the Spanish representative - I enjoyed the brazenness with which he aired the dirty laundry of the US in front of the neighbors.

I have an interest in accents, so I noticed the way in which different actors spoke. Each one, among the US characters, seemed to speak very carefully and precisely, with subtle inflections indicating their origins. All except Calhoun, whose Southern accent could not have been missed, even by Cinque. So . . . question: when did accents begin to develop, and why???

I don't have time to post a full entry yet, but I found this particularly interesting (and disturbing) while searching the History Engine. One Episode entitled "Branding" included a list of different levels of punishment for the number of times slaves attempted to run away. The level of cruelty was greater than what is generally associated with slavery in the United States, and I thought it would be worth posting a passage from it since everyone would be reading different accounts. It actually reminds me a lot of the accounts I have read of modern day slavery in countries like Sudan where slaves are thought of as more disposable because of easy access (raid a neighboring village) and cheap prices. But in the nineteenth century in the United States slaves were very expensive, so most masters did not want to do anything to impair their ability to work.

Anyways, here is the passage:
"A 1696 South Carolina statute called for different levels of punishment for the repeated offense: First, forty lashes; Second, an R branded on the Right cheek; Third came forty more lashes and the loss of an ear; Fourth for a man was castration and for a woman was an R on the left cheek and the loss of the left ear; Fifth was death or "the cord of one of the slave's legs to be cut off above the heel," the severing of the Achilles Tendon."

I don't recall hearing many (if any) accounts of slaves without ears or actually being punished by death just for running away (since a dead slave is basically the same as a runaway - neither can work). Later in the post it also mentioned laws where slaves' hands were cut off for stealing, etc. - but then they could not work with both hands. What do you think of all of this?

Edited by author 10-03-2007 12:20 AM
I found the readings on slavery in the South to be very interesting, particularly the claim of Charlotte Foster that, when "asked if she had rather live now or during slavery times, she replied..if her master was living she would be willing to go back and live with him." Shack Thomas also alludes to fair treatment and the overall good quality of life on his master's plantation. Charles Davidson further elaborates when he argues that slavery in "the Old South" civilized slaves, developed familial bonds between masters and slaves, and exposed slaves to Christianity.

However, amid the positive (and perhaps romanticized) rhetoric on slavery, a more forboding sense of slavery pervades. This feeling is revealed in the review of Sally Hadden's book on Slave Patrols, which questions southern slave-holders' need for the patrols if they did not fear their slaves. Charlotte Foster testifies that she could hear slaves' cries from adjoining plantations while they were being whipped and tells of a sixteen-year-old girl committing suicide because conditions were so harsh. Shack Thomas mentions the practice of "buck and gag" to punish runaway slaves while other slaves were suspended by their thumbs.

I would question whether the testimonies of both Charlotte Foster and Shack Thomas, taken during the Federal Writers' Project during the 1930s, are completely genuine. The Hadden review even reveals that slaves were not likely to "brag to white WPA interviewers during the 1930s." I believe that the race relations in the 1930s directly affected the accurate portrayal of slavery, as evidenced by the brief mentions of such brutal treatment in the interviews. It appears that, since slaves were conditioned to harsh practices of punishment (even on the more pacifistic plantations), they must have been regular occurences.

Finally, I believe that, above all, the readings show both regional and temporal effects on a highly controversial and notorious topic.

*Q* Will I need citations for the exam essay?

*A* No. This is the virtual equivalent of an in-class exam. No citations are necessary.

Edited by author 10-01-2007 03:50 PM
*Q* What about the many errors, omissions, thin descriptions, etc. I am finding in the SHDB?

*A* This is certainly an argument demonstrating what is at stake in the accuracy of submissions. I would say that the information as a whole in the SHDB is pretty impressive, but that you should consider all information there subject to verification in the textbook (also not error-free) and Masur (also not error-free). The most egregious errors (Buchanan elected in 1845 stands out) should be corrected publicly here on the DB. In many cases there were technical reasons these could not be purged.

*Q.*: 1. on the SHDB there are a lot of events (mainly inventions) that are closely associated with multiple dates - ex: the invention of vulcanized rubber tires (1839) and the patent of vulcanized rubber (1844) - which date would be important to know here? or do we need to know both? also, concerning presidents and election year v. inauguration year (though these are failrly easy to figure out).

*A* Both kinds of dates will be useful to you.

*Q* 2. for the IDs we only need to know the specifics from 1820-1845. For the take home essay part is there also going to be a focus on this period or will it be equally important to know everything from 1820-1890?

*A* IDs will generally be limited to 1845 and before. The big essay will also focus on this period. You may (and may want to) use examples from after 1845 for the thoughtpiece but these will only use materials after 1845 that you have already studied for or written about. They require no study of the SHDB nor the textbook post 1845.

There is also nothing in the SHDB about the spoils system under Jackson . . . which might also be important.

The election of 1828 is also not discussed, but is important. This is Jackson's first election.

The Panic of 1837 seems to be extremely important and is a caustic factor for many later events, but it is not in the SHDB. It is discussed in our textbook pages 239-241.

WRONG EVENT WARNING: James Buchanan was NOT elected president in 1845. Instead, this was James K Polk's inauguration year. Buchanan was not elected president until 1856.

Edited by author 09-30-2007 06:37 PM
*Q:* We are having a little trouble understanding the Tariff of 1828. We have looked through Ayers - 221-222 - and the SHDB, but two slightly different events seem to be represented. Why exactly is the tariff initiated, what specifically is its impact, and who precisely is responsible and/or is blamed for its results/problems???

*A:* There were three federal tariffs, the measure of 1828 (the "Tariff of Abominations" or "skyscraper tariff"), a lower but still controversial "Tariff of 1832" and the still-lower "Olive Branch Tariff" of 1833, that (coupled with the force bill of that same year) resolved the crisis more or less permanently.

As the primary source of federal revenue, every constituency in every part of the country agreed upon so-called *REVENUE* tariffs that would be charged to goods regardless of their type or origin. In this form of tariff, items would be assessed a duty based on a set percentage of value (typically around 15-30 percent of a good's wholesale price) regardless of place or category.

What many (but not all) Southern political leaders and most (but not all) Democrats in the North opposed were *PROTECTIVE* tariffs that greatly increased the duties on some goods but not others to prevent these foreign products from competing against American enterprises. In the tariff of 1828, for example, American interests managed to shoot up the duties on Brussels carpets, iron wire, bar iron, and hemp (the latter to protect the hemp farmers of Henry Clay's [southern/plantation] state of Kentucky). In communities that did not have carpet factories, iron manufacturies, or hemp farmers (tariffs were not just on industrial products, BTW) this meant that the cost of any protected goods would be higher than in an unprotected market.

Note, too, that reactions to the tariffs of 1828, 1832, and 1833 varied considerably from state to state, always involving a calculus of competing interests. Mississippians and Georgians might have had their reservations about tariffs but were overjoyed by Jackson's Indian expulsion policies -- they muted their tariff complaints and even attacked South Carolinians so as not to alienate their Jacksonian patrons. In Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia, pro-tariff Southerners saw benefit in protecting sugar, hemp, and iron. Conversely, northern manufacturers who *relied on raw materials or pre-manufactured components* to create their products typically opposed tariffs. In this group were woolen goods manufacturers, businesses that processed raw iron into complex machines, and import-export merchants who hated the inevitable fraud, corruption and dockside theft that accompanied these vastly unequal tariff schedules.

Note, too, that the trend after 1833 was a steady decline in protective tariffs as American businesses increased their productivity and could compete more equally. The tariff of 1857, in particular, was the lowest of the nineteenth century.

You may find Masur's summary of all this to be especially helpful.

Julia, Emily, and I are studying in the library, and we are having a little trouble understanding the Tariff of 1828. We have looked through Ayers - 221-222 - and the SHDB, but two slightly different events seem to be represented. Why exactly is the tariff initiated, what specifically is its impact, and who precisely is responsible and/or is blamed for its results/problems???

PS. If anyone would like to join us, we have commandeered a table in the 24-hour study lounge and are working dilligently :]

Edited by author 09-30-2007 02:24 PM
Good question about centralization. Think of this as a process where decision-making was increasingly concentrated in a single place, its scope became increasingly national and even international, and everyone in the scope of the policy was increasingly treated more or less the same way (or discriminated against categorically rather than personally). Among items in the database and textbook that might be relevant could be things like the Land Acts of 1820, 1830, and 1841 (national policies which brought uniformity to settlement practices); court cases such as Gibbon, Barron, Brown, Cherokee, Worcester, Bank of Augusta, etc., the emergence of national political parties and political conventions, the invention of the telegraph and the establishment consequent to that of a national communications infrastructure, and the emergence of national religious, reform, and philanthropic movements such as the American Bible Society, the American Temperance Union, the Triennial Convention and its Southern Baptist and American Baptist successors, the American Missionary Society, and so on. All of these represent a very significant increase in cooperation, coordination and uniformity across local communities, usually with leadership and financing centered in major (predominantly Northern) cities or in Washington.

It might also be helpful to think of people and groups who opposed this trend.

Question... I'm a little bit confused about what would be an event that deals with centralization. Does anyone have any examples and why?

Thanks

As we were doing lab thing the other day on SHDB, my subject to look up was the Native Americans. The dates between 1820-1880 reveled a massive amount of two things; land reform, (gain or new policies dictating borders) and the wars that erupted because of this. (No Duh! Right?) A huge chuck of this occurs in the late 20s to early 30s. Where these problems simply because of the Jacksonian politics that came into play? After these issues are resolved or repressed a lull in reported Native American issues happen. Why?
Did they just get too busy? On the other hand, were things okay on reservations?
Once again, things don’t really happen until the 1880s. A few things happen in the 50s, but like I said a few. I just scrolled down to the dates that were arranged in five-year increments and saw the events were concentrated primarily in the Jacksonian period. Did they run out of N.A to terrorize? I know that the N.A. had representatives, but why were they not treated as if they were an independent nation? So much time and money went into transplanting them or arguing with them. I just want to know if anyone of you are an incredible, amazing fact machine and can give me a quick answer.

The patterns of Whig dominance changed significantly from year to year, however the general trend seemed to be that cities and industrial centers favored Whigs while rural areas, especially the frontier, favored the Democrats. In 1840, the Whigs dominated the eastern coastline, but in 1842 the coast was almost all Democrat. In this same year, Whig and Democratic majority was scattered among states much more so than in 1840. States were not unified in their political views. The 1844 election saw less Whig dominance around areas of urbanization and industrialization. Newly added states, such as Florida, being rural and undeveloped, were almost completely Democratic, but Whig influence became more prevalent as the state urbanized. In 1850, states showed much more unity in their political opinions; Texas, Illinois, Indiana, and Mississippi were dominated by the Democrats, while Georgia was completely Whig. This unification did not last; the patterns of dominance in 1852 were largely scattered again.

I agree with John, that as I look at the maps of congressional elections, it seems as though support for the Whigs remains in areas of urbanization and along the canals in the northeast - especially the erie and delaware-chesapeake canals. What I found most interesting, however, was the movement of the democratic party throughout the 40s and 50s. It was apparent that the party moved west just as the people of the United States moved west. For example, as Texas grows, the role of the democratic party in the state grows with it, and the same can be said for California. It seems apparent that the Democratic party was linked with a more agrarian society, and a support of expansionism. As the gold rushers and pioneers moved west, they carried the values of the democratic party with them.

Edited by author 09-27-2007 11:06 PM
In response to the map of the Congressional Elections of 1840 I would conclude the Whig party's areas of strength were most prevalent in urban, industrialized areas that had easy access to transportation. For example, a good part of the Atlantic coast, particularly the Northeast, is staunchly Whig (with notable exceptions, like Charleston for example). In fact, it appears that all of Massachusetts voted for the Whigs. Also, it appears that Whigs were in control virtually all along the shores of Lake Erie, and down several rivers. In contrast, the main areas of strength of the Democrats seemed to be the more rural, agricultural areas such as Arkansas and Missouri. This leads me to believe that conditions were favorable to Whigs where they had more access to the masses in the cities, and when they could spread ideas along the major routes of transportation, which were the canals, rivers, and along the Northeast coast.

Continuing our discussion from today about education and the South, I am still somewhat dismayed about the lack of support for Southern Education. I acknowledge the founding of schools like Harvard(1636) and Yale(1701) but the South did in fact possess excellent centers of learning that include William and Mary(1693), UNC(1789), and Jefferson's personal project, UVA(1819). Looking at the trends of school dates it is evident that as the population increased in the south there was more justification for schools being built; additionally the dates also point from the shift of an agrarian culture to that of industrialized. Not to mention the incredible amount of time that it took to travel across the nonexistent transportation in the South. The notion that the New England area valued education at a greater level is something of a distortion; Harvard itself was basically a school of seminary in it's early years whereas the colleges and universities of the South were founded into true centers of learning.
         Building on the notion that Southerners were not inventors or interested in such pursuits. Invention typically takes place when one realizes an improvement can be made upon what they are used to. From this we see the rise of the Cotton Gin and Reaper from the South; both products of Agriculture. Or how bout Coke and Pepsi....

I thought this was interesting yesterday, but I forgot to post about it. Then, the reading for today reminded me...

Both the SHDB and Ayers mention the larger number of settlers from the United States trying to move into Texas during the 1820s and 1830s. Over time, the Mexican government became wary of so many settlers because they did not want slaves brought into the state. The The Mexican Decree of 1830/The Law of April 6, 1830 attempted to halt immigration into Mexico. I thought it was very interesting that in the 1820s and 1830s people from the US were trying to immigrate into Mexico and being barred by the government while today the US government has strict immigration policies and border control to stop Mexicans from immigrating into the US.
I would also like to point out that either way, the area that people were trying to get to was Texas. Maybe Texas is just an extra desirable place to live :)

The SHDB largely mirrors the Ayers textbook about most major themes, such as the importance of the Election of 1832 and Andrew Jackson’s presidency, relations with the Indians and Mexico, several IDs about slavery and abolition (particularly Nat Turner’s Rebellion and the creation of The Liberator) , nullification, and advancements for women. Remarkably, there are only a few IDs not significantly related to themes of Chapter 10—including the Gold Rush, the McCormick Reaper, and Hodgkin’s disease. The comparative strengths and weaknesses of the textbook vs. SHDB are in my opinion, that the textbook was stronger at describing the overall trends and especially the developments that are not event-specific, whereas the SHDB provides more detail about specific cases than the general descriptions in Ayers. Finally, I did see patterns to the geographic distributions of these events—specifically, events seemed to be clustered in certain areas, such as Texas (due to Texas Revolution), South Carolina (major battleground of slavery debate and nullification, Maryland (host to both the Democratic and Anti-Masonic conventions), and obviously Washington, DC.

I thought the SHDB events for the Jacksonian Period matched up pretty well with what was covered in the textbook. There were a few obvious disparities- most notably the absence of the Bank War as an event in the SHDB, but that could potentially be attributed to the Bank War's lack of real obvious significance to the South as a region. I know when I was doing my events it was sometimes difficult to gauge whether an event, though nationally important, had any real significance to the South in particular. Some of the SHDBs limitations were on display by comparing the two accounts (textbook and SHDB). The SHDB is not entirely able to present trends that can't be characterized by any single event- for example, the book has sections on religious revivalism, 19th century "character development", and some of the goings-on in Jackson's administration (spoils system, Peggy Eaton Affair, Kitchen Cabinet). These are all identifiable trends or series of events, but are difficult to pin down with one event that would be significant enough to merit an entry in the SHDB.

So I know that it's not my night to post but after class discussion today I was thinking about the whole question of the Indians as a Nation and I just had to comment on it. I suppose the fact that my grandma is a Cherokee I of course have to defend Native Americans as members of their own nation but I thought it brought about some compelling questions. So this is how I look at it:
1.) I think the Indians are a separate nation because they were a nation before Americans came and they never submitted to American rule. Thus, the wars to make them submit to Indian rule were international wars.
2.) I think the interesting question this brings up is "What is a Nation?" Is it the land where people reside, a similar cultural identity, or rule under one governance. I tend to believe that while all of the above comprise a nation that the crux identity of a nation is its government. The government of nations is what separates them from each other.
3.) If this is the case it brings up some interesting arguments for and against succession. I think that under my definition the South can be identified as a separate nation during the Civil War, but did it have a right to make itself a separate nation?
Anyway, my defense of of the Cherokee nation... which I suppose I should be conflicted on anyway as 1/4 of my ancestors would agree and blame the stupid white people for taking their land and the rest of my ancestors were the stupid white people taking their land.

Ranking the relationship of our events from our years was very interesting. This tool allowed for a comparison of many events which have nothing to do with each other, but other times relates two events I never would have thought to compare. For example, the Mexican War never had much to do with slavery issues in California. However, without the Mexican War, the US would not have land in California to make slave and non-slave. An example of an obivious comparison would be between the issue of slaves and free blacks in Pennsylvannia and Abe Lincoln's campaign towards the presidency and eventually the emacipation of all slaves.

Probably the most strinking aspect of this exercise to me was, as many have already commented, the significance we assign to different events simply because we have the advantage (or burden) of hindsight. I especially liked Julia's comment, "Should there be separate criteria for importance at the time of the event and importance at a later time?" Certainly we HAVE established a separate criteria as we look at history from the "other side," but the question still remains: should we? What is more fundamentally important, society's opinions at the time or the legacy of a given event?

The relationship of event for my years was particularly interesting regarding the 1870s. During this time, there was much debate about suffrage, both for women and blacks. In comparing "black events" with "women's events," it becomes increasingly hard to distinguish the two. Both groups were minorities (in relation to the political arena anyway) and both were using similar measures to gain rights. Thus, realizing that perspective, it becomes difficult to dissociate such things as the Women's Temperance Union and the first recorded history of African Americans; both brought to light issues and concerns of unrepresented components of American society.

and by through I meant throw...sorry!

I, too, thought the event ranker was thought provoking. Most of you probably don't know this, but I am so indecisive, so this exercise practically killed me! I had to force myself to just click and not look back, but then every time I would think I had picked the right one, the next question would through me off just as much, and look just like the ones before it! One of my years 1885 gave me particular insight into the idea of inventions. Now, I am responsible for putting down alot of inventions because that's my year, but I actually was paired up with alot of inventions. And for me, moderately related or minimally related always seemed to imply simply because of the reason that the two events were invented from stimulated thought, whether the products had any corrolation at all. For instance the Washington Monument and the invention of a special type of rubber. Now, normally I would say those have nothing to do with each other. But at the same time, both are inventions. The Washington monument was the highest monument ever built at the time, and the rubber was obviously special as well if it got a spot as a top event :). Speaking of the Washington Monument, I also had it paired with the Inauguration of President Cleveland...Now, this was very interesting to me because President Cleveland was inaugurated because President Arthur died from catching cold at the dedication of the Washington monument...Interesting! I'd say that's very significant, but then again in two minutes I'll probably change my mind about that, too. One of the things I did find hard was my event, The Death of Grant. I couldn't really figure out how this was significant to alot of the events in 1885, simply because I didn't have the background. Anyhow, I thought this experiment was incredibly hard and incredibly interesting, but if nothing else, it made me think about inventions being physical and ideological and the cause and effect of seeminly unrelated events. And if nothing else, I read alot of events that I had neither never heard of or had simply forgotten.

I just finished ranking my events; it was a very interesting way to think about and find historical causation. I would normally never associate Barron V. Baltimore with the Nullification Crisis, or Reconstruction Amendments, but upon further investigation all of these are important events in the history of states rights and the interaction between the Federal and state governments. Having to seriously consider these issues in a side-by-side comparison nature, one can really begin to form causal links between seemingly disparate events. Not that all of the events have barring on each, many of the events have no causual link or a simply chronological connection. The ranker really helped me to think about the major issues surrounding the events and begin to see trends emerge in the issues over the Century.

I just went through the event relationship ranker also I I too wondered where to draw the line with event relationships. For example, the first events that came up were the Proclamation of Manifest Destiny and the Seneca Falls Convention which would not seem to have a direct correlation but I thought they could be considered related because as Manifest Destiny was proclaimed the US gained more territory and there was more area where women could be given the right to vote (in fact, women tended to earn the right to vote in states in the west before others because women in the west were seen to be more independent and equal with men because they had to work to survive in the west). But, I could see where someone would argue that these aren't related because the Proclamation of Manifest Destiny did not have any direct or immediate effect on the Seneca Falls Convention. I also wondered how to define the relationship between events that did not necessarily directly affect each other but that contributed to the mindset and culture of the period and thus caused people to think about each event in certain ways.

I just finished going through the ranking process with each of my years for the first time, and I found it quite thought provoking and a bit fun. It was interesting trying to think about how different events were related, and how they might be significant to each other. What basis does one use when trying to assess this relation? Some events seemed to be unrelated to anything, while others seemed to have an effect on everything. As I went through the process I also found myself thinking through the years of different events more. For example, would two events in 1869 be more related simply because they occurred in the same year than two events in 1852 and 1880 that were more closely related by topic. Additionally, with regards to the importance of an event: would an event be more important if it had a large, but short-lived impact (ex: outbreaks of yellow fever in the New Orleans area - a very important, yet isolated event) or if it was not monumental at the time, but changed the outcome of a greater number of events (an extreme ex: the first intercollegiate football game - not a huge event, but football is an important part of US culture today). Should there be separate criteria for importance at the time of the event and importance at a later time.

Webster-Hayne Debate: From Land Policy Debate to States' Rights v. Union Debate (1/19/1830-1/27/1830)

We felt this post was the best because it thoroughly explained the main actors in the event as well as the details they used to convey the event.

REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

"Preemption Act of 1830": This would do better to explain the implications this event had for the South. Additionally, some explanation as to the date range (1830-1890) would make the date range choice seem less arbitrary.

"David Walker's "Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World" causes uproar in the Sou":

Quick Revision: Finish 'South' in the title.
Additionally: Confine the date range (1829-1890) to be more realistic as to the actual range of the event or explain the reason for the end date in 1890.

The only event included in the textbook timeline that does not have a post about it is the controversy over the Second Bank of the United States.

and Ashley Hazelwood and Lauren Brearley.

1883-1889 BEST EPISODE[S]: Civil Rights Cases Declare Civil Rights Act of 1875 Unconstitutional. Well-written with a balance of detail and generalization, and relation to the time period and future. Also, The Stature of Liberty's Adventure to the Land of the Free was similarly well-composed.

REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
First Cholecystotomy needs to be developed further.
Episodes from 1888 and 1889 needed more detail and significance.
Texan Farmers Unite needs more information on "how come?"
1886 Great Charleston Earthquake also needs to explain wider significance.
Many of the episodes should be reviewed for grammar.

ADDITIONS:
1886: Supreme Court rules that corporations are persons under the 14th Amendment.
1889: Electrocution replaces hanging in New York state. Jane Addams opened the Hull House. ND, SD, Montana, and Washington become states.

1876 - 1882
Good
Exodus of 5,000 blacks from Edgefield, SC
President Hayes negotiates treaty to restrict Chinese Immigration (fix title?)
Crazy Horse and Sioux Surrender
National Raiload Strike of 1877
Spelman College Founded
Tuskegee Institute Founded

REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
And then there was light... why is the testing so significant (as opposed to other info about the light bulb?)
Democrats Gain Control of Both Houses of Congress... impact?
Yellow Fever Epidemic Begins in New Orleans... significance? capitalize South?
Bland-Allison Act Passed.... did it do this?
Women's Suffrage Amendment Introduced... how did this amendment impact the movement?
Supreme Court decides on Strauder v. West Virgina... what was he found guilty of?

ADDITIONS
1878 - The true history of the origin of AIDS can be traced throughout the 20th Century and back to 1878. On April 29 of that year the United States passed a “FEDERAL QUARANTINE ACT”.
1877 - Outbreak of Locusts

1862-1868

Best episode: The best episode of this period is the description of the battle of Antietam on Sept. 17, 1862. The description is well written and concise while effectively conveying the the important facts of the event.

Revisions and Recommendations:
The White Camelia Post needs more specific dates (if possible).
1868 posts could be elaborated upon.

On Ayers time line but missing:
1862 - Virginia v. Monitor fight at Hampton Roads
1862 - Legal Tender Act (relevant?)
1862 - Homestead Act
1863 - Gettysburg Address
1866 - American Equal Rights Associations founded

"Grant Re-Elected President, challenger dead," 1872/11/05 - 1872/11/29. Not only did the title attract attention, it really covered a lot of information in a few sentences. The only problem is that the source is not completely covered. The only thing I know is it is from a website called The Presidency Project. When did you access it? Is there any more information on this site or is that it?

The Ghost Ship I don't think is important info for the South. Who really did it impact?

Important people, times, places, events 1860s-1870s
Charles Loring Brace, child labor advocate

1855 to 1861
Best Episode - Abraham Lincoln Defeats a Divided Democratic Party in the Election of 1860, Washington, D.C.
 - It succinctly and cohesively gives a large amount of information about a very important event in the 19th century, especially the civil war era.


REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- President Lincoln Issues the Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports, Fill in this and the following, Alabama
1861/04/19 - 1890/01/01
  - needs valid end date and location
-First Ride of the Pony Express, Jefferson City, Missouri ,1860/04/03 - 1861/10/00
  - needs expansion

- We feel like there should be some mention of the James Buchanan presidency from 1857-1861

(1841-1847)

Best Episode: Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad Chartered and Completed - filled with information about the RR and why it was important then and in later years, specifically the Civil War in the South.
The episode about the Death of William Henry Harrison was also very nice.

REVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
-Delete one of the Emory University posts
-Wilmont Proviso Proposed - "the bill states that no in territory acquired in the war with Mexico will slavery or involuntary servitude exist" - check word order in this sentence
-The Wilcot Proviso - is this supposed to be WilMont Proviso?
-the telegraph and Washington (funding/first message) is mentioned twice - some clarification between the two events would be helpful
-4 out of 5 events from 1846 mentioned wikipedia as the only source

1825 - Cherokee alphabit entry needs to be seriously lengthened. It needs supporting details and information as to why it is important.
1825 - How much relavance does the Erie Canal have to the South?
1820 - Need information on the opposition candidate.
1822 - Most events need date revision.

1820 - Missouri Compromise entry good.-

1848-1854

The Capture of James Hamlet
1850/09/09-1850/09/20

Informative entry that addressed the 5w's and gave a brief but solid understanding of the topic.

1849-No entry about the cholera outbreaks.

Revisions and Recommendations

Best Episode: Women Speak Out, 1838/02/01-1838/05/15

We thought this was the best entry for its time block because it is complete, it emphasizes the importance of reform and the reaction to it, and gave insight into the repercussions of this event.

Recommendations for other entries- We thought that while many entries seemed to contain enough information, there were a significant number whose dates or locations are really unclear or impossible (There was one event whose end year was 9999.) One event occured in Woburn, Massachusetts, Alabama, which doesn't make sense.

Chronology events:
Financial Panic of 1837
Charles River Bridge case of 1837
Liberty Party formed in 1839

"Grant Re-Elected President, challenger dead",1872/11/05 - 1872/11/29. I thought this was the best entry for my section because of its catchy titel and the relevance of the information not just to that date but to further issues in the South and across the nation in the future.

Revisions & Recommendations:
I would add more information about the source.

in the years after the revolutionary war and the louisiana purchase the united states went from a colony of the british empire to one of the largest countries in the war. No doubt there were other land survey systems in place for other countries/empires at the time that could have served as a model for Thomas Jefferson's model. Nonetheless the united States had so much land that it began to give it away to its citizens. Not only to revolutionary war vets but also in congress with the homestead act. there is no question that the PlSS has had a huge impact in shaping our country the past 200 years.

    As a Maine state resident, I was particularly interested in the borders of Maine and how they changed between 1820 and 1845. Prior to 1820, Maine was still a territory of Massachusetts, though as it gained statehood, it still underwent several changes before becoming the state it is today. It definitely highlights the struggles of America as a new nation and each particular state vying for an identity.
    A marked change occurs between 1840 and 1843, and again between 1843 and 1845 as Maine's boundaries expand up into New Brunswick, Canada, to form what today is called "Aroostock County." [Which is, in all seriousness, potatoes, forests, and more potatoes.] Maine distinguished itself as the only state to declare war on a foreign power in 1839, the issue at hand being the borders of the state.
    I had previously joked with other Maine residents about how Maine was essentially a "window dressing" state, coming into existence only so that Missouri could do so and therefore having no real reason for becoming its own state. However, viewing these maps of this physically large yet demographically small state pushing its borders further into English territory and going so far as to declare war for its own turf proves to me that Maine is a much more accomplished state than many realize.

     Certainly the Public Land Service System was a great feat of organization and forethought for our brand new nation. Controlling vast amounts of land, the United State’s foresight in establishing the PLSS to organize and survey the property is certainly laudable. The success of this venture can be seen in our current organization of townships, counties and states. By attempting to establish some sort of order and control over the "wild" west, the US put itself in the position to effectively control the land and lucratively distribute it in the way most appropriate.
     I agree with Emily that it is interesting to consider that with just a few small exceptions, the established borders of 1825 match those match those of our current day states. Certainly the PLSS played a large role in that process from the start.

The formation of all of the states is intriguing. Concerning the Texas/Mexico/California borders, much depended on chance through the results of war. The shape of the Western states clearly show the effects PLSS in their roughly square shapes, contrasted with the early colonies-turned-states in the East. In reading the optional information, it was interesting to note how mistakes in measuring compounded each other creating greater and greater errors over the original developmental plans. Additionally, the ownership of the land affected its divisions, for example French ownership of Louisiana portioned land differently from the PLSS. I did not know when land for national parks was reserved - I suppose I assumed it to be later. The allotment of land for national parks shows a surprising amount of forethought - the government even then was apparently aware of conservation, while concerned largely with industrial development.

It always surprises me when looking at maps from this time period how the states in the east US look exactly like the states we have now. Once you get to about Mississippi and onward you can see how the land is separated into territories and large chunks of land that seem more logical for the time period. There are not any definite borders to determine what is "American" and what land belongs to other countries. Personally, I like the larger size version of Texas. However, it is amazing how the states actually did come to be what they are today...
Sorry if this post didn't add any concrete insight... it's a Friday.

The section of Masur’s book I found most intriguing yet challenging was that of “slavery and abolition.” Masur’s vivid descriptions of the inhumane treatment of slaves in 1831 were difficult to read. Although I have learned of the injustices done to slaves from a young age, Masur’s descriptions emphasized the reality of the situation and made me question myself and to how I would have reacted to such a show of human indecency. Would I have been raised in the mindset that slavery was morally correct and think nothing of it? Southerners are so often condemned for slavery, yet even those who favored abolition had no clear plan for emancipation. I cannot imagine the frustration felt by those who knew slavery was wrong but didn’t know how to go about ending it. Masur highlights this paradox. A visitor to America, Henry Tudor, upon seeing a slave market, stated, “Such a display as this, in a country declaring itself the freest in the world . . . presents an anomaly of the most startling character.” 1831 was a year full of contradictions and changing opinions, but I think the “anomaly” of slavery was the toughest issue faced by Americans in this period.

With regard to Masur's book, I thought the introductory section about the eclipse was very interesting and a good way to start the book. I would also like to note Masur's emphasis on the indecisiveness most people during that time had about what to do with slavery. It seems that many people on both sides of the issue viewed slavery as an evil (the slaveholders viewing it as a necessary evil) but yet no one took any decisive measures to end it. Of course, abolitionists like Garrison were active, but it just wasn't enough.

     The year 1831 was indeed a very exciting and happening time to live in, but the events that marked the year as a watershed moment weren't their short term, but rather long term side effects on US History.
     In reading Masur's book the issues/attitudes surrounding Slavery struck me as the most volatile and influential catalyst in 1831. The effects caused by Nat Turner's rebellion seemed to push the Southern Aristocracy further away from any sort of emancipation while at the same time Northern religious movements condemned the practice of slavery. Based upon this thread on continuity I recognized that the affects would be better represented thirty years later in the Civil War. 1831 serves primarily as a watershed moment due to it's function as the spark of friction.
      While I in no way think of Anti-Masonic activities as important, or have yet to be convinced of them as influential to American History, I was still quite spellbound by just how fervent activity was against the Masons etc. Whatever political power or potential force the Masons had was effectively destroyed in 1831 based on Masur's statistics that half of them ceased to be members.
      The part about the eclipse was cool too.

Yes, I agree with everyone that Masur’s historical analysis does not collectively fit under its title, but it provides pretty useful information. I think the beginning was a strong start with the mysticism of the eclipse. The follow up about what was happening in the year for the first couple of pages was strong. The general theme was present throughout the slavery and abolition chapter, but as the chapter with religion and politics came up there was no relevance to the plot. It was just a bunch of information. Interesting though it was.
     I really did enjoy the foreign travelers views. I remember the account of Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave Beaumont on pg. 39 for the first time in the book. They continued to pop up in every chapter there after.
     I’ve had the pleasure of reading a bit about William Garrison last year. Masur’s description of him seemed exciting and full of proud abolitionist fury. This was not exactly what I had discovered last year, but it is interesting to see the different opinions of Garrison. I happened to come across a lot of references about Garrison, as well as over a dozen of his speeches. I agree that Garrison was a proud abolitionist, but he began his rant as a firm believer in the colonization of slaves until he met Fredrick Douglass. I read in several accounts that he seemed more caught up in the rebellion of his beliefs instead of adhering in practice. He was one of the most passionate abolitionists and should always receive at least partial credit for the formation of Douglass’s own oral success. He’s such a cool cat.
      The two intense conclusions for the emancipation of slaves were unbelievable. The state could pay out the ass for transportation and upkeep fees for shipping freed slaves back to Africa. Or they could ignore the situation until a later day, when the black or white race would be extinguished from the earth. This sounds to me very much like an apocalypse. Was everything really so soapy drama and so “end of the world” through the average 19th c. viewpoint? Or is that Masur’s elaborate description?
 Sorry if my entry is a bit askew, but I feel like my bedtime should be 9. In my dreams right?

I agree with Jason and Andrew that the eclipse metaphor is used simply as a convinient metaphor used by the author to tie togeather a series of events that, while important, are easily comparable to events in other years. LIke both Andrew and Jason said, several events have great importance to American history, but other events even in the same decade can hold the same or even greater prominence in the progression of history. While Nat Turner's rebellion in particular establishes great precedent in the South in regards to the treatment of slaves, it is not the sole event that defines the treatment of slaves in the south. Overall, the book does present several valid points, but in the end fails to make a fully compelling argument that the year 1831 was a watershed moment in American history.

In Masur's account, the self-declared theme is the year of eclipse, which he uses as a metaphor for imminent cataclysm in much the same way that many people thought of the "Great Eclipse of 1831." Examples of this cataclysm include Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the burgeoning of abolition with the Liberator, and the issue of Indian Removal. Additionally, he appears to sometimes create analogies from other aspects of the eclispse's reception as well, i.e. the similar giddy fervor over the railroad as those who gathered to watch the eclipse. However, ultimately his development of the eclipse theme seems at times incohesive and artificial, and possibly too reliant on the remarkable number of times that historical figures themselves apply the eclipse metaphor. In trying to fit both the constraints of impending upheaval and the year 1831, Masur can not stay true to either. On the issue of Indian Removal, most of the key events happened in the years surrounding 1830 and 1832, as well as the Trail of Tears at the end of the decade. For slavery, some of the main events were the inception of the American Colonization Society in 1816, and the Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. Then, there were the many much more strained arguments that do not seem to me cataclysmic. These would include the religious revival, the issue of the education system, the Anti-Masonic movement, the Bank, and the Petticoat Affair. The true theme seems to me to be more like "conflict and disunion in-and-around 1831." Conflict, however, seems to me to be nothing new however, and the somewhat-greater preponderance of such events in 1831 doesn’t seem to me to be a persuasive argument for even the selection of the year, much less to represent it as the “year of eclipse.”

After reading "1831", I can't help but find that most of the book falls pretty flat, particularly in light of the eclipse theme/metaphor. The author selectively narrates a series of episodes that happened to have occurred in the year 1831, makes no effort to tie them together, and then expects the reader to pick up the pieces. Unfortunately for the author's interpretation of 1831 as a watershed year, most of the major events he discusses are neither unique nor limited to 1831, or were part of broader trends that simply can't be pinned down to a single year. For example, the book goes into great detail about some episodes of the Nullification Crisis. Incidentally, the Crisis would go a great way towards supporting the eclipse theme (foreshadowing of the Civil War); however, the Crisis is not unique or limited to 1831. In fact, it begins with the passage of the Tariff of Abominations 3 years earlier and ends when the Nullification Ordnances are repealed 2 years later. In other words, the author cherry-picked episodes from what was really a four or five year drama to support his selection of 1831 as some sort of turning point. Another example can be found in the chapter about technology. There, the book describes railroad technology and some new engines. It would certainly help the author's case if railroads were first used in 1831, or at least first became widely used in 1831. But again, this is not the case. Later in the chapter, we learn that work is already well on its way on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad by 1831. Other episodes covered in great length suffer similar problems. Nat Turner's rebellion did indeed occur in 1831, but it was by no means the first or last attempted slave rebellion in the South. There is a national discussion about the Bank of the United States in 1831, but the country had already had heated debates on the topic as early as George Washington's administration. The Charles River Bridge case went to the Supreme Court for the first time in 1831, but the grounds for the case were laid in 1828 and the case wasn't decided until 1837. Ultimately, if the events the author selected were not really that unique, or at least unique to 1831, then I hope I can be excused for failing to find the year 1831 worthy of any more attention than any other year one might choose to study.

Today's presentation pages are available at http://history.furman.edu/~benson/hst41/show/41frame1.htm

Concerning roads v. canals and all that fun stuff...
Does anyone know if canal/barge travel or road travel (I guess in some kind of wagon) is faster? I would think maybe canal? Maybe? Also I think it would be interesting to consider storage space, etc. or barges and wagons (and railroads!) and the benefits and limits of each type of transportation. Anyone have any thoughts?

So, I'm not sure how much sense this post will make because I've been really really sick the past few days so I'm very medicated. That said, I really love the points that Jillian brings up about states rights and the canal. Besides that the project provided jobs for people and encouraged industrialization, a major implication of the canal was that it served as a forerunner of federal projects in the states. It is a staunch representation of federalism in which the government acted in superiority to the states. In this, the United States really separates itself from its past as a confederacy and acts much more as a unified nation. I know Dr. Benson brings up what deals may have been made and I wonder if the areas in which the canal went through made concessions to the areas which it didn't.
Anyway, this post may have no relevance and if it doesn't, I'm sorry and I blame the dramamine.

I think it is also interesting to note that the Erie Canal was not the first attempt to link states to each other, although it is arguably the most important. If roads had proved cheaper or more reliable, national development could have been very different. If the National Road of 1818 inspired further and more extensive major roads, smaller communities could have more easily connected to larger commercial centers (assuming it is easier to clear land for a road than dig deep and wide trenches to be filled with water from . . . somewhere.) Overall economic development would have progressed similarly, though in theory economic prosperity would have been less centralized. Combined with the Canal, roads could have sped up economic development and/or increased its magnitude. If the South did not mirror these improvements, the gap between industrial North and agrarian South would have opened much wider much faster. While the North would gradually form a more cohesive single unit, connected through economic, political, and cultural agreements, the Southern states, even down to individual communities or farms would retain their independent identities. To build on Julia’s final point: if road technology was continually improved, Westward expansion could have occurred more rapidly, forcing the issue of slavery much more insistently and even sooner. Conflict between North and South would have erupted perhaps more passionately and certainly earlier, aggravated by all of these factors.

I believe all of us would agree that the Erie Canal greatly changed the existing demographics of American settlement; more immigrants came for the jobs created by the industrialization which was concentrated in the North due to the construction of the canal. These new Americans, and many of the "old" ones were seettling further west and in more concentrated clusters around the major industrial centers cropping up, especially near the Erie Canal. However, based on some of what was discussed in President Pierce's State of the Union Address (1853), it is interesting that many historical accounts, like the one seen on page 201-202 of Ayers, make no mention of the question of constitutionality regarding this construction project. Pierce held that there exists "the obligation strictly to adhere to the Constitution and faithfully to execute the powers it confers" (page 8 of his address). He also declared that it was "of doubtful power and more than doubtful propriety...for the General Government to administer the affairs of a railroad, a canal, or other similar constuction." Of course, Pierce was giving his address many years AFTER the Erie Canal was completed. So, that leaves me wondering was there any debate about the constitutional "propriety" of such an undertaking during the years the Erie Canal was being constructed? Did people think it was a usurpation of states' rights? And how did this federal construction project affect people's perceptions of the young nation? Masur continuously mentions certain (arguably mundane) events, such as Jackson's dissolution of his Cabinet, as severely shaking the American people's sense of security in the government. Was the Canal's construction meant to lend legitimacy to the fledgling repulic?

I know I'm offering more in the way of questions than of answers...

Earlier I wrote about how an eclipse was such a scary phenomenon in the 1800s. Then as I was getting online today, I saw this article...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20838944/, and I have decided that meteors and eclipses can still be scary, because even in this day and age, would we think that harmful gases would injure 600 people from a fireball? I guess I just wanted to make the point that our fears change, but the fears remain about the unknown, whatever that might be. Regardless, each generation has its own sets of fears and worries because there will always be SOMETHING that we just can't fully understand (like why it felt like 60 degrees today when it was supposed to be 80 :)).

The Erie canal brought an increase of people into the cities that were near the canal. The canal changed the towns of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Rome, Utica and Schenectady because of the influx of people and business into the area. Their culture was changed because of the immigrants and other outsiders who brought their own customs and lifestyles with them. It also transported people and goods westward further explore America's frontier. It impacted trade in America by opening Midwest crops to the Northeast, Canada and overseas markets. The cities not directly invovled with the canal did not benefit as greatly from the increases of people and goods like the cities the canal reached. Instead, these cities benefited from the other small canals which spurred off of the Erie Canal. New train tracks were built throughout upstate New York and the Northeast to satisfy the influx of the new population and the shipment of goods in and across the area.

Not only did the construction of the Erie Canal bring faster, cheaper transportation into the western interior of the U.S., but it also brought dramatic changes in the social makeup of the time. Cities along the canal such as Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse grew exponentially as travelers, emigrants, and tradesmen made their way along the canal. The faces of communities began to change as more and more people migrated west. Overseas immigrants were no longer limited to settling in cities on the East Coast, but rather had the feasible option of moving inland. Trade throughout the country was also increased upon completion of the canal as now products and crops produced in the Midwest could be shipped to eastern and overseas markets.

In the meantime, cities not on or near the canal were left behind. Rather than remaining stagnant, however, these cities developed other methods to keep them involved in the westward movement. The canal brought a great deal of wealth to New York City in particular, and in order to keep up with the growth in New York, cities began to build their own shortcuts to the west—railroads were chief among these. Other canals were also built throughout the region in the years to come.

The network created by the Erie Canal essentially connected New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont because branches ran through or near the border of each of these states. Additionally, Ohio could have been reached through Lake Erie. As Chad mentioned, this would have led to the rise of cities along these canals and closer connection in these Northern areas in order to boost development. Trade agreements would have been negotiated concerning use of the canal particularly with concern to goods that would exchange hands. These states would have been able to communicate more closely and migrate between areas more easily which could lead to a since of relation to those in different states creating similar culture and traditions.
It is also important to note that the main canal ran East to West, and the different branches allowed access from areas to the North and South of the canal. The canal cut across the Appalachian Mountains allowing for East-West routes of migration and trade - thus opening up an entirely new path to Ohio which did not require crossing the mountains on land or going a longer route to avoid the mountains. This would have been especially useful to those in Ohio (and territories farther to the West) because it would have given them easier access to supplies or relations who may have stayed in the East which would allow for reduced hardships in frontier life that we read about in the Price and Robinson pieces. This would continue to boost life on the frontier as more people would begin to settle outside of the East Coast. This created new markets for manufactured goods, and with continued growth, new states would begin to be admitted to the United States.
New states desiring admission to the Union would heighten tensions regarding the expansion of slavery and other laws concerning slaves. And that led to a lot of political debate among other things...

The Erie Canal was hailed as one of the major economic and transportation innovations of the early 19th Century. Its completion was celebrated as a major industiral landmarks and thought to be one of the major pillars of the continued industiral and manufacturing basis of the new American Economy. The canal provided a new and safer mode of transportation for goods and people, opening up the nation and and more of its resources for wider economic gain. Socially, this had a large impact on the rise of cities around the waterway. The ships that traveled the canal required places to load and unload goods and to stock and restock supplies. This lead to the growth of harbors and harbor towns along eastern and western New York. This map demonstrates the expansion of the canal and shows the civic growth that accompanied its expansion. Politically many deals must have been requried to continue the project through the many diverse distrcts, countys, towns, and other local divisions. The process of making deals and politically harmonizing different areas of New York would play a large part in the strongly centralized state politics that became prevelant in the 1820s. The deals and concessions made to the large New York state government could be seen as a precursor to the model of large state parties and organizations run by a strong cental boss or party. The political and economic success of the canal would have been a strong argument for those that wished a strong centeralized state government run by parties and bosses (i.e. Van Buren, Clinton, and those associated with Tammany Hall). The canal helped develop a large part of New York and other Northeastern states, but its direct effects on the development of South were minimial. The canal made manufacuted products easier to transport which increaed the selling of cotton, but this only entrenched the south further into an agricultural economy, providing no real industial or manufacturing development. While the expansion of the canal was part of a larger economic boom for the country, it also had long ranging political and social effects that would later lead to the development of strong, centeralized state politics in New York and a continued argicultural society in the South. Thus, the canal acted as a major source of innovation and development, but also a source of agricultural, not industiral, stimulation for areas it did not directly affect.

Two quick things...Dr. Benson conscisely said in class today exactly what I had been trying to say in my post, except much better. He stated "what seems mundane to us is really part of the deep structure of these people's lives." Not only in the day to day, but in the events that seem life-changing and scary in the early to mid 1800s. Also, I forgot to write the information from 1831: Year of the Eclipse. Louis P. Masur, 1831: Year of the Eclipse (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001). And the quotations came from pages 4 and 5...Next time, it will be much better organized, etc.

As I've been reading everyone's posts, I've realized that the world in 1820, or 1831 for that matter, seemed so much bigger, larger than life, in fact. Several people have alluded to this. Lexi talks about how "weather played a crucial role in day-to-day life." Matthew talks about how the Robinson articles illustrate that the post office was some forty miles away from the masses. By the way, I really enjoyed these letters "To Western Emigrants." I think he wisely informs Easterners to "first seriously inquire whether or not he would better his situation or not" from emigrating (I always forget how to do footnotes on here, but Albany Cultivator, 7: 162; Oct., 1840; Solon Robinson). He in essence tells the people to come, if they want to start a new beginning that will hard and challenging, but warns them with the kind of experience they will have, and reiterates the warning that the West does not provide a paradise as they might have originally thought. In Emily's post, she references the "cause and effect of the events on the masses." Most everyone's posts have touched on my point, that life in the early to mid 1800s and beyond, was a grand adventure. Life, the world and most definitely the United States were so much bigger to people during this time period, then it is for us today. In 1831: Year of the Eclipse (which I have only begun to read), the eclipse that is coming has instilled in people an "irrational belief," "gloomy forebodings of evil," and a "fear that...a great earthquake would swallow us all," seem to be such a foreign fear. Today, eclipses are not necessarily a scary event for us, merely something we watch if we happen to be up that late or happen to remember. But back in 1831, the fear of an eclipse was a very valid fear. The unknown was such a bigger phenomenon in the 19th century. People feared the unknown, just as we would, but there happened to be so much unknown then, than there is now. Major events, like the Eclipse, seemed huge to them, a perspective that I think we all need to keep in mind. None of us can know what it felt like to be part of the 19th century, but i think it's important to realize that events in their lives held more "significance" and "relevance" simply because what was important to them, was important because everyone's guesses and fears, whether accurate or not, carried some weight, simply because the new frontier and the new world carried so much "new."

Moving away from the books and towards the class discussions that have taken place over the past few days, I've been considering the implications of "relevance" and "significance" as have we all. Because if you think about it, what we pick and choose actually says more about those doing the choosing rather than those taking part in the specified events.

For example, the events taking place in the readings. In Price's accounts, death was a very large theme, Price making many mentions of burials, coffins, and funerals for varied people. It was difficult to tell with his sparse accounts, but were those deaths relevant to those people? Was it a horrible feeling then as it was today to lose a child, or was it so commonplace that it was a merely sad event in passing? Where did people place their emphasis: the quality of the life, or the length? With all the hardships the frontiersman faced, did they have time to stop and mourn, or was death just a passage up to God?

We choose to overlook specific hardships like the fact that the weather played a crucial role in day-to-day life or that every object in use had to be carefully handcrafted in order to work because it's assumed. We assume that life is more "primitive," we assume that people lived with the buffalo, all while deciding to focus on the things we can't so easily assume, like political agendas and processes.

So, when reading a textbook, we find ourselves filling in the blanks and just allowing our minds to paint in the blank "little house in Nowheresville" backdrop with which to set our factual knowledge against. These accounts have done, I think, a very good job in helping us not only gauge relevance, but also adjust the context with which we view all other "major" events that are contemporary to them.

I tend to agree with Emily that the events found in the Ayres textbook probably did not hit close to home with the average American at the time that the Robinson letters and the Price Diary were written. I also think that this is somewhat indicative of national sentiment at the time. As observed in the Robinson letters, people had begun expanding Westward to "the unknown." Robinson even states that the nearest post office is something like 40 miles from where he lives and that they receive news updates every 5 to 6 weeks. And, although the Price account provides a great picture of what ordinary life was like at the time, it seems to pass over current national affairs. The feel of disconnection from national affairs that can be seen in these two accounts is even alluded to in Ayres: "states had few economic dealings with one another...as a result, states defended sharply conflicting policies, and their economies did not connect with one another very effectively." This attitude was only strengthened later by Jackson's "laissez-faire" policy. Therefore, I do not find it surprising that neither of the more personal accounts mention much about national events. However, I do believe that we should examine both works to get an idea of the day to day activities of people living in the broader context established by Ayres.

Edited by author 09-17-2007 10:14 PM
A person living in 1824 could not possible be aware of all the events occurring as we find when comparing the Price and Robinson sources to the textbook passage. Price demonstrates how the individual is concerned about the wind and the weather (always making careful note), the money he spends and receives, how much he drinks, and the people around him (when a person's horse dies). Robinson, on the other hand, details the hardships for a person traveling to the west. He stresses that said person should be fit for this life style and ready to live without luxury. Robinson also mentions the lack of education. Neither sources mention what is going on in the world or even the nation. The world was not globalized at this time and people had to concentrate on matters closer to home.
However, Ayers illustrates the entire picture from treatment of the native people to the roads and canals. The textbook deals with the cause and effect of each event for the masses. But we must wonder how much of an impact some of these events really had on specific individuals if they did not live close enough to the event. Not once did either source talk about the election of 1824 or politics – though we know that the leader of a nation is indeed important in history. It would be interesting to read a diary of someone who lived in Washington DC at the time and see if national matters were important to that specific individual.

I completely agree with the stances adopted by Jordan and David. The more personal "feel" of the primary sources offers a glimpse into the past that the overview of the textbook can only begin to display. I also, along with David, found the most interesting phrase in the Robinson letters to be when he said that "happiness not wealth should be the aim of all." Not only does this testimony and charge speak to the somewhat difficult and often humble beginnings many emigrants faced when moving to the "north-west" but also to the world view and motivation that best suited settlers to success on the frontier. As far as the textbook account, I found the description of the events surrounding the Missouri Compromise very interesting and enlightening. The fact that many politicians even as early as 1820 considered breaking up the union seems very indicative of the precedence it set for the years to come. The fact that the text book labeled this as the time when the north became the "North" and the south became the "South" was also an interesting discovery for me.

Obviously, as david as already pointed out, the accounts from the two personal stories were far different than those we have previously read. I found it much easier to read these personal accounts than the more general overviews because they gave me the feeling that I was really finding out what real people experienced during the time period - which is what really interests me about history. I thought the journal entries were really interesting because they give a sense of the everyday experience - economically and socially specifically - of a person in the 1820s. I really enjoyed these two accounts.

in response to the readings today it was easy to see the difference between the accounts of the textbook and that of the personal accounts of Robinson and Price. The textbook gives a rough overview of the era noting wconomic and westward expansion. it also give descriptions of the fine tuning of the relatively new government by Calhoun and Clay. The text fails to give individual insight into what it was like to live in this period. This objective is achieved in the price and robinson accounts.
I found this quote from the Robinson article in regards to moving west especially telling; "let me honestly advise you to bring the worth of berkshire pigs,... that will add much more to your wealth and comfort than mihogany sideboards,..." essentially he is saying that it is a hard life and there is no room for the frills of luxury life. The price account seems more concerned with day to day expenses than the growth of the national economy. i found a quote from the robinson article that i think sums up the mindset of most americas at this time; "Happiness not wealth should be the aim of it all..."

Well, it's about time for me to go. I'm Matthew Barnes and I am a Senior History major from Nashville, TN. I really love any type of history, and I find art history interesting as well because I took a lot of art in high school. Although I absolutely love history, I am planning on going to medical school because the field of medicine fascinates me and is a great way to make a career out of serving people. I have an incredible sister who has Angelman's syndrome (which is perhaps most similar to, but not the same as, Downs). I am on orientation staff and play rugby here, too. My favorite tv shows are pretty much anything on the discovery or history channels, seinfeld, and the office. I enjoy reading, cooking, and anything to do with the outdoors. Like Carolyn, I love red wine, and feel that you don't need to spend a lot of money for a good bottle. Wow, this is long...I look forward to the class.

Hi All:

The presentation page with its list of resources is now available at http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst41/show/1820sources.htm

Hello, my name is Andrew Proctor. I'm a sophomore from Conway, SC--just outside of Myrtle Beach. I have pretty much lived there all my life, except maybe for two years spent at a residential high school in Hartsville, SC. I intend to declare a double major in History and Political Science, though history is my focus. In terms of hobbies and whatnot, I really enjoy soccer, ping pong, videogames, and tv shows such as Scrubs and the occasional That 70's Show. Also, I really enjoy reading, though I don't get much done during the school year. Oh, and Dr. Benson is my advisor, so I had better do well.

hi my name is david bartlett, i live in macon, ga which is located in the middle of the state of Ga. im a junior political science and history major, and i hope to go to law school. over the summer i worked two jobs; first i cooked in my family's restaurant and then on the side i sold kitchen cutlery basically door to door. i actually did so well in sales that they are making me a manager next summer so i guess its kinda like an internship. and thats about all that is going on with me right now. ps my favorite show is that show with ryan zimmer on travel chanel where he eats all that weird food.

I'm a senior History major from Dacusville, SC. It's a real small town in Pickens county about fifteen minutes from Furman. I really enjoy learning about history and I'm excited about graduating. I enjoy most all sports and love attending Furman games. I also like to watch movies, play video games and watch TV. My favorite shows are arrested development, simpsons, king of the hill and futurama.

Okay so I'm late, but at least I made it.
   I'm a history major. I transfered to Furman last year as a sophomore. Before transfering to Furman I was a theatre major at College of Charleston. Funny how life changes isn't it?
   I'm 22. I have a two year old daughter, named Izzy. I am a commuting student.
   On the weekends when I have time, I usually emmerse myself in the arts community here in Greenville. You will see me casually strolling downtown checking out the numerous art gallerys or sampling the wine and cheese on opening nights for Centre Stage or Warehouse theatre.
   If I have any time after my studies, work, or my family life I visit Horizen (Record store on Stone Ave. downtown greenville) to listen to local or visiting musicians. Please don't ask me the names of the bands that usually visit. I normally can't seem to remember them. I'm surprised that I can sometimes remember my own birthday.
  I'm excited about this class. I have had Dr. Benson before and even though his class requires a lot of attention, it is very informative and experimental.

I am a sophomore from Timmonsville, SC. I live on a sheep farm and I love the boondocks. I think I am going to be a history/HES double major and I want to go to med school. I love sports, especially running, and I want to do a marathon this year. I also love cooking, outdoors, and traveling. I am passionate about working with people with special needs, which started at a young age as I have a sister with special needs, and I want to do missionary work in that field. I also like to watch the Office (the highlight of last spring was seeing John Krasinski downtown)and the food network and I really love red wine.

I am a senior history major here at Furman (obviously, I suppose...). I grew up in Greer, SC which is approximately 25 minutes from Furman. I never thought I would want to go to Furman since it's so close to my home, but my older sister went here, and I began to visit her and just fell in love with it! She actually was also a history major here and while that's not why I decided to be a history major, it was been really enjoyable getting to take some of the same classes with her. It's really too bad she has graduated and left me now for the real world! I am pretty easy going and talkative once I get to know people, but I am generally shy at first...but by the end of the term, you will probably wish that I remained shy because I generally like to share my opinions. I am one of four kids in my family. I have two sisters and one brother. I have worked for the past four years at a giftshop, but I'm currently trying to find an internship. I have a boyfriend who I've been dating for four years- he went to Clemson and played baseball there and this past June got drafted by the Padres so he's been in Oregon for the past three months...He's actually home for the week though before he goes to Arizona so that's pretty exciting. I spent six weeks of my summer in Florence, Italy studying history and art history of the Renaissance, which is probably the coolest thing I have done. Two summers ago I lived in Boston for the summer, which was amazing, as well. So this is probably way more than you wanted to know about me, but I love Furman, and I love Greenville, and that's about it!
Thanks!

My name is Jason Novak and I am a junior. I was born in Canada, but my parents won a visa lottery and immigrated to this country when I was two, further enraging Tom Tancredo. Currently, I am the only member of my family who is not a naturalized US citizen. As a child I became literate by reading the short novels of R.L. Stine-- you may remember the Goosebumps series. I have carried on this love of reading to the present day. As a literate adult, I have started a new hobby consisting of reading the nutrition facts for cream substitutes (i.e. "Cool Whip"). I enjoy apartment tennis matches, tabletop war-gaming, competition target shooting, and movies. Involvement in Furman’s mock trial team is both a passion and a constant thorn in my side. My dislikes include Tim Burton films, ostentatious end zone celebrations, and social justice. I am interested in both history and some current events.

Hey, my name is Brittany, and I'm from Kingsport, Tennessee. My dad was in the Air Force when I was young, so I was born in Arizona, then I moved to New Mexico, Germany, Florida, Mississippi and finally to Tennessee where my family is from. I'm a junior history major, and I'm hoping to go to law school when I graduate. I'm on Furman's mock trial team, and I've also been singing since I was young. Like Chad, I won't be watching Supernatural on Thursdays because I'll be watching the best show on TV--The Office. I also love the show LOST, holidays, cheese of any kind, and of course, my Australian shepherds Sophie and Sulley.

Edited by author 09-11-2007 11:50 PM
Hello! I'm Lexi Barker, and I'm a sophomore from Brandon, England. My family just moved there in May, so we spent the summer traveling and seeing a few of the historic cities in the country. I'm a history enthusiast with a particular interest in military history and battle tactics, and am a personal fan of Hannibal Barca's ambush at Lake Trasimene. I also love medicine, and love dearly my copy of the Merck Manual. I love to write when I can, though my handwriting is abysmal. And, a random fact about myself, I can recite the first eighteen lines of the prologue to the Canterbury Tales in Middle English. I intend on memorizing more in the future.

So I said I'm a Junior, but I'm actually a Senior. I'm just not used to saying Senior yet.

My name is Chad McLain and I'm a senior History major. I was born in Spartanburg, SC then later moved to Texas. I'm very interested in politics and history. I'm a member of the Furman Mock Trial team and am hoping to go to law school next year. History has always been one of my favorite subjects. I really like 19th-20th Century European History, especially World War I and the conditions leading up to it. I enjoy U.S. History and am looking forward to the rest of this class.

I'm Ashley Hazelwood and I'm a Junior History major from Knoxville, TN. History has always been my passion. I'm particularly interested in political and social History, specifically gender and race relations. I'm also really interested in Furman history (I feel like there are so many traditions and stories that Furman has lost track of) and I want to go to graduate school. Basically, I want to be Dr. Tollison when I grow up. I've ridden horses my entire life and I love it. Besides History and horses I'm obsessed with Scotland, musical theater, (it seems that we have quite a few theater fans in this class), and NYC. I'm also very fond of my little fluffy dog whose name is Hercules. I love the outdoors and I'm not sure that I could live anywhere that didn't have mountains.

Hello my name is Trey Massar. I am a Junior communications and history major from Pasadena California. For those who dont know L.A. Pasadena is a suburb of Los Angeles and hosts the Rose Bowl every year on New Years Day except when the BCS national Championship is played there. I play on the club lacrosse team and enjoy just about any sporting event including The Highland Games. I think this period in American History is very interesting what with the Lousiana purchase, manifest destiny, the California Goldrush, the Civil War ( I am told around here it is known as the War of Northern Agression).....etc.

Hi, my name is Johnny Olson. I am from a small town called Thomasville in southern Georgia. I'm a junior history major. My interests include sports, hunting, and fishing. I guess I really like just about anything that has to do with the outdoors. I've held jobs on plantations as well as being a fly fishing guide in Colorado, but this summer I worked in the bank. As for this year, I'm living in North Village K and loving it, except for the distance to class in the morning.

My name is David Ehrlich, and I'm a junior history major from Atlanta, GA. I've always enjoyed history, and this part of history (19th century America) definitely intrigues me a lot. I'm really looking forward to the time we will spend on the Civil War and Reconstruction. As the son of a yankee and a southerner, I am convinced that those events that took place almost 150 years ago still strongly affect us today. I also enjoy reading and play several instruments. I'm an avid baseball fan (more specifically a die hard Braves fan), and I also love the Georgia Bulldawgs.

I'm Jordan Sorrells, and I'm a junior from right here in Greenville. I really can't wait to get out of here as soon as I graduate - I'm really ready for a change of scenery. I am a spanish major, but am sort of pursuing a history major, but we'll see where that leads. I am on the football team here at Furman, and I love all things about sports. I've always been really interested in history, and I'm excited to get this class going.

Hello! My name is Jillian Mangum, and I am from Shelby, North Carolina. I have lived there my whole life, as has most of my extended family. As Dr. Benson mentioned, we have the best BBQ in the entire world. We also have a bluegrass hall of fame; the guy who wrote the theme song to the TV show the Beverly Hillbillies was from Shelby, hence the museum. I am a junior history major. I still don't really know what I want to do with the major as far as careers go, but I'm, hoping to figure that out. I have a sister who's a freshman at Furman this year, so it was great to relive O-Week through her vicariously. One of my favorite places to visit is Maine and I used to go about every year. Unfortunately, I haven'e been for about 4 years now, but am hoping to make another trip next summer.

Hey, I'm Chris Gilliland and I'm from Chattanooga, TN. I'm a 5th year senior, play on the golf team, and am also a Philosophy major. Basically I like history and am trying to get a second major in it and I'm hoping something interesting happened during this time period in US history.

Hey y'all, my name is David Saxton and I was born and raised in Apex, North Carolina. I'm a history major and I enjoy any topic of study save for the enlightenment. My secret talent is that I play the bagpipes, I've played for 8 years and if you ever hear the rolling sound of the pipes on campus at night then it's me playing. I am a cadet in Furman's ROTC BTN and look forward to earning my commission; I plan to branch infantry. If I have any plans for the upcoming year it is to get involved in some sort of campus ministry.

Edited by author 09-11-2007 07:14 PM
hi!!! my name is virginia, or va if you prefer :} i was born in nashville, tn and have lived in both greeneville, tn and greenville, sc. i love smiles and threes. i hate capital letters in every day writing - i only use them as a sign of respect. i am a connoisseur of pens and a lover of words and correcting grammar in essays. i write poetry and start writing novels i will never finish. i read constantly. i enjoy late-night philosophical discussions and deep thinkers any time day or night. i wear flip flops year-round . . . especially in the snow. i might seem mild, but i adore loud, fast, violent hardcore and metal music. going to shows is by far one of the best ways to spend your time. i am absolutely in awe of my Creator and the Lover of my Soul. i love people unconditionally. i trust easily and don't waste time on grudges. i am an eternal optimist who is desperately trying to avoid cynicism at all costs. spontaneity is a virtue. it's infinitely better to have a few close friends than a myriad of acquaintances. i enjoy immensely tutoring, working for Habitat for Humanity, and helping soup kitchens. i am sick of *talking* about making a difference - let's do it already!!!

Emily Franda (aka me) was born in Orlando, FL and raised in Plano, TX. She is a sophomore history/ education major at Furman. Emily's other interests involve theatre, musical theatre, swing dancing (or contra dancing), vocal performance, photography, astronomy, nature and nature preservation, water sports, horse back riding, etc. Her 7th/ 8th grade history teacher sold Emily on pursuing history with an in depth study of the Civil War. Since then, she has explored various time periods, but has decided to teach US History – especially the Civil War. Emily agrees that everyone should come see The Good Doctor (this semester's play) and is also looking forward to actually taking a class that relates to her intended major.

Hi. My name is John Tate, and I am a Sophomore here at Furman. I was born and raised in Johnson City, TN but moved to Columbus, OH about five years ago. I am an intended History major, with a possible interest in International Relations somewhere down the road. I am interested in high adventure sports and theatre. I was in two plays last year and plan on auditioning for the fall show, so you guys should come check it out! My father is a Navy Captain so I had a really great opportunity when I was 11 to go visit him when he was stationed in Germany. It was a really great trip because we ended up driving to France, Italy, and Austria, and I got to see many historical places like Venice, Verona, the tomb of Saint Mark, and a balcony where Napoleon once greeted the crowd. I hope to go back to Europe next year, but would like to see the British Isles this time around.

Hi! My name is Julia Gatten and I am a junior at Furman this year. I was born in Memphis, but I have also lived in Chicago and Dallas, and right now my mom lives in Charlotte and my dad is in NYC. I am a history major and looking towards a Latin American Studies or Black Cultures in America concentration. I love sports - I play on the Furman Women's Rugby team and I am starting to get into triathlons, so there may be a half ironman in my near future. I am living on a Freshman hall this year (Ramsay 400!) as a FRAR,and O-week was so much fun. I am also really interested in human rights and want to work for an agency like International Justice Mission after I graduate. I am also involved with Tears of Africa, Campus Outreach, and ArtGlobe on campus. I traveled to Kenya this summer with Tears of Africa which was an amazing trip, and I am hoping to go back sometime soon.

Welcome to the HST-41 discussion forum for Fall 2007. We will use this space to reflect on the contents of the course, to debate controversial issues, and to publish insights from our individual research projects.

You will find it very helpful to review the discussion board guidelines on the course website (http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/hst41/discussion41.htm) before making your postings.