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.