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 :)

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.