Great site. Keep doing.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

xACrjX comment2 ,

My post for 10/24:

While reading through the Patent Medine website, I found it interesting the techniques taken to obtain a patented medicine. Peculiar "cures" were invented to such things as knowledge of Native Americans and patriotism. While browsing the gallery of medicines, I found the cure for nervousness to be interesting. Though this product may have been marketable to those unaware of its worthlessness in actually curing nervousness. However, the cure for the common headache may have attracted much attention to those in search for a remedy. The wide array of medicines is undoubtedly an interesting combination.

After skimming back over the syllabus, I realized that I never posted anything for 11/5. So here are my thoughts on Conservationism. The president's report of the National Conservation Commission emphasizes conservation of resources for the public good. This also seemed to be a theme in the lecture on conservationism. There was special emphasis on preserving and managing of natural resources for their use to humans. John Muir's "The American Forests," on the other hand, seems to view the forest as good in their own right, not just because of their potential benefit to people.

My bonus post!!!

While studying for my exam, I took the time to review each biography that we have covered during this course. After browsing through the backgrounds, accomplishments, failures, and milestones of people like Margaret Sanger, Carl Becker, Charles Beard, and Washington Gladden, I found a whole new personal side to history. All of these people have made incredible an impact on history and democracy today. For example, Margret Sanger was the founder of the birth control movement and even originated the term. A feminist to the core, she persevered through times when women had little respect and came out with a bright, shiny gold star, as well as organizations such as the American Birth Control League in 1928 and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Other major players, such as George Wallace, 1919-1998) had an impact in a different way. This Governor from Alabama was an unwavering segregationist that worked so hard to prevent change. He was so against the civil rights movements that he was actually titled the "fighting judge". I recently found out that one of my friend's friend's mother (sorry, that is a complicated chain) actually had play dates with Wallace's daughter in Alabama. This fact gave me a personal connection to history and made studying about him, as well as other segregationists and civil rights activists, more real and interesting.
After the class review tonight, I realized just how many historians we have covered. In the progressive school, Charles Beard and his wife Mary were definitely a power couple that impacted history. Charles, who emphasised socioeconomic conflicts and changes, was a major leader in the progressive movement. His Economic Interpretation of the Constitution in 1913 expressed his views on how the Constitution was formed by interest groups with personal finance motives. His outspoken and radical views pushed others to explore these different issues and topics.
Ok.. back to studying about these fascinating people!

So.. I just typed my final reflection, as well as an extra bonus post the Dr. Benson mention. However, when I went to submit it, I forgot to fill in my name and therefore, my post was deleted! In the midst of all of this stress and studying, I am going to try my best to recompose the messages that I wrote..

Following behind the rest of the late reflection posts that I completely forgot about in the middle of all of this studying, I still have yet to post my final reflection!

This course has been unlike any history class that I have taken throughout my academic career. Not only have I stretched my brain to the furthest limit possible, but I have also learned some incredible, and very valuable techniques and resources that will carry me through the rest of life. In stead of memorizing dates and facts and only focusing on key historical figures, we have been able to peek into the mind of some of the most prominent historical thinkers. One of my favorite parts of this course was being able to take extremely different historical issues, like Carried Away by Rachel Bowlby and Our Hearts Fell to the Ground by Colin Calloway, and having the opportunity to pieces together the links between the two that I would have normally never thought about. I also benefited greatly from listening to my classmates through discussions and questions. As I study for this exam now, I realize just how much material we have covered in such a short amount of time. Learning about the several historical eras and the historians that defined them allowed me to critically view history as something that was real and tangible, rather than just data and fact that I spit back out on a test. I just hope that I will be able to remember all of it!

I just realized that I missed the last posting of the semester as well as the first one. Not a good way to start or the end semester. Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed partaking in a class that looked at history in a manner that I was not accustomed. Now, having completed my last history class in my major, it is interesting to reflect on the different ways that history is taught, and viewed. Some professors tend to focus on the dates, and major events, while others attempt to use their students implied understanding of significant historical events as a means to show its overall impact on the world's diverse societies. I thought this course was solid balance of both, while still adding its own unique flavor by giving students an understanding of "who" writes history. Some of histories most famous writers are names like Turner, Hofstadter, Weems; all of which were foreign to me until I enrolled in this class. I thought the peer-biographical portion of the class was an incredible method for students to truly understand. The difficult process that historians must go through in deciding what is important enough to be written about. I plan to carry with me a "more critical" view of American history textbooks, while at the same time a greater appreciation for those that shaped its pages. Thanks for everything.

Edited by author 12-11-2007 07:12 PM
sorry if there are any spelling problems, especially with names. i spell phonetically. or close to it.

review notes:
Periodization (dividing up)
 -precontact
 -early colonial (jamestown 1607, eurpeanization 1689 - 92)
 -late colonial (-1763, proclamation line,natives lose ability to play european powers against each other, as GB has all)
 -revolutionary period 1763 - 1776 - 87-1789
 -early national 1789ish - 1845ish
 -civil war era 1845-1877
 -"gilded age" 1877-1896, mckinley presidency, realignment, international thinking.... dated variously
 -progressive era 1896-1918 dated variously
 -20s
 -depression/new deal 1932 - 1940
 -ww2 1939-45
 -sixties 60-73
 -cold war 1945-1989

have professional historians from progressive era onward.

essay might have relationship between periods and historians interpretive schools. be aware of overlap of schools.
banning rev and earl national
calloway gilded
bowley twenties--60s
poland ww2 on


new left includes, given agency, voice, etc: african americans, women, labor, immigrants

 
exam, people to look at:
will not include "the recent trends"
heroic patrician: irving, weams (where did they come from, where did they get ideas, etc)
scientific nationalist: baxter adams, heart, wilson
progressives: becker, beard, mary beard (one of the first to say women matter), turner (one of most important ever, somewhat transitional btw SN)
anti-progressive: hoffstadr, hartz, boorstin
"new" historians: bailyn, wood

hoffstadr denies that class issues are a causal issue in anything... all leaders, jefferson + hamilton, are wealthy elites, just with some different values. arguing about details, not basic structure. small town elites control the conversation, meaning immigrants, poor, and big town elites. anything that doesn't support that viewpoint gets supressed, sometimes violently. winner take all system prevents anyone outside never gets a serious place.

gattis - others say that movement occurs slowly... shifting the concensus. workers rights, 8 hr day wouldn't happen in the gilded age.. but eventually caught on.

cooley vs board of wardens 1851 -1890s - statement about balance between state and federal regulatory power, state rights case. decided by taney court. strict constructionist... decided dred scott. in cooley, court balances: interstate commerce is province of fed gov't, but there is a certain point where state and local gov't have an interest and can control reg... ie board of wardens and having a philly pilot. where fed chooses not to regulate, state and local can take over. -> anti-dumping statutes, etc. makes fed take over more, as states aren't very good.

no more than 20/45 of short answers from before midterm, some guarnari, books, assigned biographies


look at guanari and historians lead to depression arguments, all play some sort of role, but all fairly different.

Course reflection:
I came into this course expecting to learn approximately the same things I did in HST-24, US Social and Intellectual. This however, was pleasantly not the case. In addition, i was happy to find that it didn't exactly bear resemblance to the other US history courses I have taken, either. The study of schools, specifically, is what made this class unique. I had heard of them and read from most, but the discussion on their differences and how they were brought about made them more real. The differing interpretations of historical events should be something obvious, but the extent to which these interpretations can change over time is sometimes stunning. It highlights the extent to which not just historians, but people in general are shaped by their current surroundings.

I thought it was interesting to read about democratization and the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. This was interesting to me because I could relate this to things that were happening in China at the same time. In 1989, the Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, had hundreds of protesters for democracy killed. He tightened social policies because he did not want the Glasnost and Perestroika that Nikita Kruschev implemented in the USSR. It is interesting to see how much communism around the world died at this time, but China still remained a communist state. One of my favorite things during this class was relating the material to things I had learned in US Government and World Politics.

Edited by author 12-11-2007 03:22 PM
It appears as though I'm one of the last to post on this but here's my course reflections:
I've never had a course that dealt with historiography until this term, when in fact I had two, but it was a nice respite from the high school courses that were merely repetitive dates. It was interesting to look at the different interpretations and schools of history, each that offer differing ways of perspectives on writing about events and history.
The Gaddis book drew many points together and supplements many points well. It paints an interesting picture of the sometime difficult job of the historian to attempt to explain history for us, the reader. I especially enjoyed the sometimes almost derogatory address of the social sciences considering that's what I switched my major from...Also it came in handy for an essay that I wrote on historiography for my exam this morning.

I would also like to make a post that I was out of town and didn't post for the week. The week of 11/5, we read articles by Roosevelt and Muir, both on conservation issues. Both pieces address conservation of American materials and resources but in very different ways. Roosevelt addresses natural resource conservation from an economic point of view. Issues such as the nation's waterways are addressed, not for environmental issues but rather for economic purposes. Muir addresses forests and trees. He does not address the economic issues but rather sticks to more of a moral argument.
Interestingly enough, Roosevelt argues that it is the responsibility of the current generation to conserve resources in order to not deprive and degrade the future generations. After reading Emperors in the Jungle, I wonder how Roosevelt would argue the issue of environmental conservation with all of the environmental issues that as stated in the book took place druing the building of the Canal in Panama.

Q: How should we study the conservation part of our notes?
What and who is important to know? Because my notes are all over the place
for that section.

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

A: A good question for the study session. Think of this as involving three phases, each of which carries within it several different dimensions or viewpoints.

Phase one involves the different and competing ideas about the relationship between humans and nature in the abstract, including (a) dominion over nature (2) Enlightenment "gardening" of nature (3) Romanticism's belief in a wild, rugged, "authentic" nature untouched and distinct from humans, and (4) The ordinary experience of farmers and city dwellers of nature as a dangerous and capricious force.

Phase two involves the first formal discussions of environmentalism and the mid-to-late 19th century efforts to formulate state environmental policy and regulation. This is where our discussions of the Marsh report on deforestation, the Timber and Stone Act, Water policy and the Army Corps, etc, come in.

Phase three involves Progressive Era legislation to create the national park system and the national forest system. Here the contrast between Muir's "nature as God's temple" ideal competes against Roosevelt's pragmatic "manage nature to assure its bounty of human uses."

Fill these in with dates and policies, and connect them to other developments (urbanization, industrialization, transportation, nationalization, rationalization and managerial regulation) and you'll be well on your way.

Dr. Benson, I have a question.
How should we study the conservation part of our notes?
What and who is important to know? Because my notes are all over the place
for that section.

This class has taught me a lot about the shortcomings of the discipline of history and also about the continued need for it. It has caused me to think a good deal about our time in history and what it will look like to future generations. What are our cultural blind spots that historians 100 years from now will censure us for? Gaddis was a refreshing read because he talked about the difficulties of moral judgments, and yet he emphasized their importance. Historians should censure us for our misdeeds as a country. We should look back in our history and recognize the good and bad deeds - not with an air of superiority, but with a recognition of the possibility that we could fall into those same errors if we do not learn from those before us.
This course has reminded me that our country's history is not a simple subject to study. Too often I just think of the stories I learned when I was in elementary school. It has shown me how deep our cultural myths (the Jeremiad, especially) run. It has been helpful to learn about the different schools of historians since they influence our ideas about America so much. One thing I haven't liked is that as soon as you get into a topic you're interested in, you have to move along to the next thing. But I guess that's just the nature of the class.

I know this entry for a course reflection is long overdue, but as they say better late than never. Also I just wanted to say that this course has shown me specific events and people that I hadn't studied before in a U.S. History course. But more importantly, it has opened my eyes to broader ideas and ways of thinking that both are incorporated in, and go beyond, the topics covered in this course.

Before this class, I had never before put any considerable thought into basic types of human interactions that this class has highlighted. This discussion board has been both a medium and a source of inspiration for my broader thinking- which has allowed me to ponder things such as the reasons for the countless differences that lead to disagreement and conflict, as well as diversity and individuality. It has given me new insight into the origins of humanity, basic characteristics of humans, how humans interact with other humans, and how man perceives and interprets their environment.

And it's how this period of history are presented and emphasized that really make you think more into how and why these events occurred, as opposed to the typical grade schools courses that only seemed to focus on names and dates. Guarneri's book that this class focused on most also lets you know that American history, just like that of any other country, isn't independent of the global history and that every event in American history has influenced another country's history or occurred by the influence another country had on America. So I must say I have learned a lot from this American History course- both objective and subjective in nature.

Well, this is REALLY late, because I didn't see that we had to post our "final reflections," but better late than never I suppose.

I think the biggest way that this class has changed my perspective on all of history, not simply American history, is that I now have a much deeper understanding of the need for historiographical analysis. Understanding the sources of our historical narrative is one of the most important jobs of historians and of educated people in general. This is why I chose to write my research paper on a historiographical topic, and that exercise in particular furthered my understanding of how historians' biased opinions and attempts at objectivity can lead us to see things in our past that were not actually there or neglect to observe things from our past that were in fact there.
Gaddis's book really drove this point home for me (although I was, of course, insulted by his sometimes unmerited attacks on the social sciences), because it appropriately showed the need for history as a guidebook for the future as well as proving that history can be misleading and misused, as it is something that "we can only represent" rather than recreate.

Katie Sichau[4:58:49 PM] has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[4:59:40 PM]: Hi Katie! You are the first in.
Katie Sichau[4:59:57 PM]: Hi Dr. Benson!!
Lloyd Benson[5:00:13 PM]: How are you, and how is the study work going?
Katie Sichau[5:01:23 PM]: pretty well, i have a biology final tomorrow and i started history yesterday
Lloyd Benson[5:02:02 PM]: Good luck with the Bio class!
Katie Sichau[5:02:09 PM]: thank you
Lloyd Benson[5:02:35 PM]: Want to start with general questions about the exam format, or perhaps clarifications of things in your notes?
Katie Sichau[5:03:03 PM]: is there is going to be along essay? like the midterm or will it be shorter?
Lloyd Benson[5:04:05 PM]: There will be two essays, each comparable to the midterm, or modestly shorter.
Katie Sichau[5:04:28 PM]: what topics should we focus on that for?
Lloyd Benson[5:06:00 PM]: The long essay will use major course themes (see http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/hst21/h21intro.htm) and will focus on the books, particularly, but not exclusively.
Lloyd Benson[5:06:54 PM]: See my message from the other day for things to look for in the Guarneri text, too. (I'll dig for the text of this in a minute, too.)
Katie Sichau[5:07:24 PM]: ok that seems like a good starting point.
Lloyd Benson[5:07:40 PM]: Here's the text from the other day:
Lloyd Benson[5:08:02 PM]: When reviewing the Guarneri book, pay close attention to his "Getting Started on Chapter XX" questions, on his "Timelines," and on his chapter headings and subheadings. The book is really good about labeling its subcomponents and paragraphs. These paragraphs are likely to be summary interpretations of causal factors specific to a particular moment (i.e. "Political Obstacles to Socialism," on p. 197), itemizations of consequences or policy outcomes (i.e. "achievements of Progressivism," pp. 203-204), or international comparisons (i.e. "Great Depression and New Deal: Global Patterns and Changes," pp. 205-206. These should already be in your handwritten notes from the book. Some people find it helpful to look at these, close there eyes, and self-check from memory. (e.g.: [Close eyes] "Q: What are the key 'accomplishments of Progressivism,' according to G?" "ANS: [recall these from memory]" [Open eyes] "Okay, I remembered six of the eight or so he lists, let me look them over again.") To the extent to which these topic headings connect to our course themes or to the schools of history we discussed, they will deserve more attention than things that are less related to the themes. Because this text is so short you should have no trouble rereading the whole text and refreshing your memory before the final.
Lloyd Benson[5:08:50 PM]: Much of the emphasis in these long essays will be on materials since the midterm.
Katie Sichau[5:09:14 PM]: ok, thank you.
Lloyd Benson[5:12:01 PM]: For the big books, review each chapter, (the "any book in an hour" method is perfect for this) and ask yourself what the author's thesis/point is. Then pick out one or two episodes or landmark "decision-points" in the chapter that seem most important. For these example episodes, figure out when they happened, who the key players were, what factors shaped their decision-making, and what the outcomes were.
Lloyd Benson[5:13:36 PM]: Do you have specific questions from your notes? Questions about historians? Differences in historical schools?
Katie Sichau[5:15:25 PM]: with Carnegie and the social darwinism, how are they connected? just that social darwinisim was survival of the fittest and Carnegie had to keep up with the best in order to stay in business??
Lloyd Benson[5:16:12 PM]: [Reaching for Guarneri, and browsing through the index to share specific page numbers.....]
Lloyd Benson[5:18:03 PM]: Great question. Guarneri discusses this on pp. 174 and 217, and works in Carnegie from pp. 173-178.
Lloyd Benson[5:19:17 PM]: As I see it, Carnegie developed his notions of business competition first through experience, and only later came to see how closely his attitudes came to match the social theory.
Lloyd Benson[5:20:13 PM]: That said, the theory of Social Darwinism only came into people's minds in an age of great business competition and great inequities of wealth and poverty.
Lloyd Benson[5:21:26 PM]: In that sense, Carnegie's Social Darwinism is a rationalization after the fact, but a rationalization built on a theory whose base was in capitalist competition. It was a feedback loop, in a sense.
Katie Sichau[5:22:54 PM]: ok, that helps, definitley.
Lloyd Benson[5:23:01 PM]: Not everyone agreed, of course, most notably the Social Gospelers from a religious perspective, Populists from an agrarian perspective, and Socialists from a secular industrial working-person's perspective. The Progressive movement built on all of these.
Lloyd Benson[5:24:03 PM]: That was a really good question about a pivotal person who advocated a pivotal theory.
Katie Sichau[5:25:42 PM]: another question: in my notes i have that the modern timber industry still benefits from this work around. but i dont have what the work around is. what is it?
David Samuelson has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[5:25:57 PM]: Hi David, welcome aboard!
David Samuelson[5:26:12 PM]: Glad to be here...I was formulating some questions...
Lloyd Benson[5:26:14 PM]: Q: another question: in my notes i have that the modern timber industry still benefits from this work around. but i dont have what the work around is. what is it?
Bynum Jaeger has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[5:29:09 PM]: The Timber and Stone Act of 1878 intended to preserve "small scale" producers rights. It limited the amount of land any one person could buy. Companies circumvented this by working behind the scenes to scavenge people to "claim title" as fronts for the companies. The government thought some individual was making the timber claim, but in reality all the actual claim work funneled right to the companies, several of which still exist today.
Lloyd Benson[5:29:24 PM]: Hi Bynum! Welcome aboard. David and Katie are here, too.
Lloyd Benson[5:30:21 PM]: Most of the people officially listed in the title books were literally drunks and sailors found by companies on the docks in San Francisco. Or at least that's what the histories claim.
David Samuelson[5:30:41 PM]: haha. i remember your saying that in class...
David Samuelson[5:32:04 PM]: Sorry, I haven't gotten to study this stuff yet, so I don't have any questions right now. Also, I'm in the middle of something for another class.
David Samuelson has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[5:32:39 PM]: Over the years there have been many attempts to revise these timber and mining claims so that resource extraction that takes place on land held in common by the American people ("aka" the public domain) ends up being profitable to the people of the U.S. Sometimes that has worked as intended, sometimes not.
Lloyd Benson[5:33:18 PM]: Bynum, any questions about the exam format? About things in your notes that need clearing up?
Bynum Jaeger[5:33:26 PM]: How much of an emphasis will be placed on information from the 1st half of the semester?
Lloyd Benson[5:35:00 PM]: In the two essays the weight of the questions will focus on books and other reading assignments we have covered since the midterm. The short answers will be about 55-65 percentish material since the midterm. Any historians we covered any time during the term may be included in the test.
Bynum Jaeger[5:35:01 PM]: sorry that Im being quiet, just reading over the previous conversation.
Lloyd Benson[5:35:27 PM]: No Prob. That was a good way to start.
Katie Sichau[5:36:10 PM]: for the previous material, where does the midterm stuff end in the notes?
Lloyd Benson[5:36:30 PM]: [Checking the schedule.....]
Lloyd Benson[5:37:15 PM]: Anything Civil War or before was on the first midterm, if I remember correctly.
Katie Sichau[5:37:26 PM]: ok
Katie Sichau[5:37:27 PM]: thank you
Lloyd Benson[5:38:32 PM]: On the other end, since we didn't talk about Postmodernism I won't be asking you any questions about the PM historians or interpretations listed in the field guide to historians and schools.
Lloyd Benson[5:40:23 PM]: You may find it helpful to sketch out two timelines (mentally or literally, it's up to you) that you place side to side. One would be a straight chronology of history, grouped into periods. The classic post-Civil War periods are as follows:
Lloyd Benson[5:40:52 PM]: (Note some overlap in starting and ending dates)Reconstruction (1862-1877)
Lloyd Benson[5:44:17 PM]: Oops. (Reconstruction, 1862-1877; Gilded Age, 1877-1896; Progressive Era, 1896-1918; The Twenties (1918-1932); The Great Depression (1929-1941); WW 2 (1939-1945); the Cold War (1944-1989); and then a decadish grouping of domestic politics and society, meaning "The Fifties" (1945-1960) The Sixties (1960-1973) The Seventies (1968-1980) The Reagan Era (1980-1992) and we didn't get any further than this.
Lloyd Benson[5:45:18 PM]: For each of these eras, identify the key events and decision-points (just as when studying the books) using the timelines in Guarneri and in class handouts/DB postings to figure out the biggest of these events.
Lloyd Benson[5:47:24 PM]: Then, in the second timeline, list the historians and interpretations that match up with them. Note that interpretive historical schools tend to overlap, too. This means that progressive interpretations (Schlesinger's Age of FDR, for ex.) were produced well after the first Consensus historians began publishing. Likewise, Hamby's new deal consensus argument was generated well after the New Left school had taken over a dominant voice in the profession.
Bynum Jaeger[5:47:41 PM]: Why did you say historians named the "Reagan Era" after President Reagan? I thought you said that has since beome a historical "no-no".
Lloyd Benson[5:47:42 PM]: Then think about how the two timelines link with each other.
Lloyd Benson[5:48:35 PM]: Good eye! Yes, the so-called "Presidential synthesis" has serious limitations. Yes, historians still talk about the "Reagan Era' as a cohesive block of time.
Lloyd Benson[5:50:44 PM]: Why is that? I would propose an hypothesis that Reagan's ability to tap into unmet populist needs and to empower many groups who had been feeling less central to the dominant conversation in America, gave politics and social life a grassroots "Reagan" style that extended far beyond politics.
Lloyd Benson[5:51:20 PM]: Reagan, then, was a catalyst for all kinds of people to redefine what they thought or to reclaim a polirical voice.
Lloyd Benson[5:52:03 PM]: [Looking up in the index to see what, if anything Guarneri says about Reagan....]
Lloyd Benson[5:53:50 PM]: Guarneri's interpretation (pp. 260-261) of Reagan's role in ending the cold war is to stress other factors, without dismissing the other arguments entirely. How "integratively complex" of him!
Katie Sichau[5:55:31 PM]: thank you dr. benson for answering my questions, this helped alot. i have to get going to dinner but thank you!
Lloyd Benson[5:55:36 PM]: Incidentally, I would encourage everyone to study these later chapters of Guarneri, even though the flu but a big dent in our post-WW 2 class time discussions. His treatment of globalization in these chapters is vitally important in framing every other "US in global context" argument he makes in the other parts of the book,
Lloyd Benson[5:56:08 PM]: You are welcome. I appreciate how willingly everyone in the class engaged with these materials.
Katie Sichau has left the chat.
Lloyd Benson[5:57:00 PM]: Bynum, although the session officially ends in four minutes, I'll stay logged on until your most pressing questions are answered.
Bynum Jaeger[5:57:50 PM]: Im going to study for my other test, but thank you for being available to answer questions. I will see you at the study session.
Bynum Jaeger has left the chat.

I know this is a little late, but I want to share my reflections on this past term. I really enjoyed the new perspective that this class gave to the study of American History. All of my other history classes, both at Furman and during high school, have used the same approach. It was challenging and interesting to study the historians of every age and how the historical events of their time influenced the way they wrote. My research technique has been changed for the better, along with what I study and how I go about doing it. This course gave me a glimpse of something bigger than what my other courses have emphasized, something more global and universal. American history is not solely just American. We have been influenced by others, and in turn influenced other nations. This course was interesting, challenging, and a very worthwhile experience.

I too was fascinated by the study of historians and differing historical interpretations. Connecting events from different times and across the globe was also eye-opening for me. As we talked about so often in this class, my previous studies of history had been compartmentalized or, as Andrew said, studied “in a vacuum.” This study of U.S. history in a global context helped to demystify ideas of American exceptionalism.
The research paper was useful in improving my research abilities. I didn’t even know there was a third floor to the library until a few weeks ago when I had to get a book from there. It also helped me learn to be selective when choosing sources: learning to choose authoritative sources on my subject.

I guess pressing "tab" sends you to the submit button instead of indenting for a new paragraph...
    The most interesting interpretation we discussed this term was the States' rights argument formed from an anti-slavery perspective. I had never thought about it being a right to not have slaves and to refuse to allow them within a state's borders.
   While I learned a lot, I was frustrated by the difficulty of not being able to see where the course was going at any particular moment. As I was thinking about this, I realized that the course was only loosely organized on a chronological basis; the emphasis was not on the dates and dead people, but on the way people told stories about them. That realization doesn't make it easier for me to organize things in my own mind, but it does force me to take a new perspective on life and to recognize that the way I see the world around me leaves out lots of other perspectives. Thus, whether I'm working through my own issues or studying the events of the past, I can now see the importance of looking for other perspectives and narratives.

    I had a lot of fun writing my paper. It was a lot of work, but it was fascinating to see the variety of interpretations of a single idea: The American Revision of Classical Republicanism. While it had its roots in the English Commonwealth, the framers made numerous adaptations to it so that it fit the cultural context and was salient in an otherwise divisive environment.

Edited by author 12-08-2007 03:13 PM
The way in which we studied history in this class was completely different than the high school history I had studied. Mostly, high school history consisted of dates and political history with the ubiquitous yet occasional "flapper"-like culture-based paragraphs.

This class, on the other hand, studied history in a way that I never had imagined. Not only did we study the context of American history in the international setting with Guarneri, but also we payed close attention to cultural phenomena (radio) and historiography, explaining why certain aspects of history are explained the way they are. The classmate biography allowed us to think like historians.

The term paper was at least twice as long as any paper I've written in high school, which probably speaks more about high school, but it allowed me to do more of my own research as well as develop my own thesis. For most of my high school papers, research consisted of going to Wikipedia, reading the article, then clicking on some of the references and suggested reading, but with this class, I had access to articles in highly regarded journals, primary sources, and even newspaper columns that could tell me what the people of a certain time were really thinking.

Finally, I came to understand how most people prefer historical arguments.. . in an integratively complex fashion. I agree, arguments that takes multiple sources into account is better.

Its been really interesting to see how every age writes its own history and how the history of one age is often a reaction against that of the previous. The example of Parson Weams and Washington Irving making a hagiography of American History, and then the backlash against founding legends by the scientific historians is really of how goals define what is written.

So I know this is late but I thought I would share my final reflections anyway.
After reading through all the postings I would have to agree with most everyone when I say that I too had never studied the history of history. To echo Jessica, I feel like I have been reading history textbooks, completely unaware of the fact that there are different schools of historians and therefore different interpretations. But besides learning about the different interpretations of history and how that affects how a historian records history, I also learned some really interesting facts about the United States. I know I’m not saying anything new when I say that this class has given me an appreciation for American history in a global context. Having grown up overseas, my knowledge of US history is extremely limited and so this class was educational and also fascinating. I was expecting the class to be a dry sequence of events where we focused on all the major battles but instead we looked at some aspects of history I had never thought of before.

The research paper was another good learning experience. I haven’t written a lot of research papers at Furman but we did this one differently than all the others. I think it was how we broke everything down into small chunks. The research paper seemed huge and daunting at the beginning of the year but with each little step it got smaller and smaller. Don’t get me wrong, the paper was still big and scary the last week before it was due but we had so much time to work with the material that it was kind of like writing about an old (and complicated) friend. So at the end of the day, this class has changed the way I think about US history. It is much more complex than I ever gave it credit for.

I have never taken a course that addressed historiography before. After having been exposed to it now, I will view historians with a greater sense of understanding. From now on, with any book I read whether a history one or not, I'll know the benefit of seeking the author's background. Along with that, the research for the term paper gave me a good feel for how historians process information then form their arguments. But the most beneficial aspect I think I will tale away from this class is how almost any events in history can be connected somehow, and in the attempt to connect them, a greater understanding of the events will develop. By studying different analyses of history, I can attempt to apply methods of analysis in my future studies.

Before this course I would have thought historiography was some type of reference page you needed at the end of a research paper. I had no idea you could study the history of history and I think in doing so, my understanding and own interpretation of history has been broadened and enhanced. Along with a greater understanding and appreciation for historiography, this class has taught me to take a more expansive and encompassing view of not just US history but all history. History doesn’t happen in a vacuum and by understanding that history is influenced by actions around the globe has heightened my understanding of what it means to be an American.

Aside from the class work, the research paper for the term was one of the most challenging and rewarding experience of the semester. It was by far, the most extensive, intricate and complex things I’ve written and the research that went into it gave me skills I can utilize in almost every other class.

I definitely feel like I learned a lot in the class. It was interesting to delve more deeply into certain events and time periods and the different ways that they interpreted, rather than just going through the entire course history as I have in previous American History classes. I also think I the proccess of writing the research paper help me to grow as a term paper writer and I've learned some lessons about researching well and researching efficiently that will help me out in the future.

I learned a lot in this course, and it has been interesting to see the profound impact, be it good or bad, of the United States over the course of history. The exceptionalism debate is one I have been encountering in my African history course as well, so it was good to view the argument from another perspective. After choosing to write about Red Cloud, the Callaway book became specifically relevant to me. I also agree that the paper allowed me to gain more experience in historical research and see how interpretations change over time.

In this US History course, it was great to learn the history of history. I enjoyed learning about many different historians, how they were affected by the time and place they grew up in, and how that time and place was categorized into a historiographical era. I had no idea that historians classified other historians based on their time, place, and what they felt was necessary to include and exclude for an accurate depiction of history. I suppose I will believe Dr. Benson when he tells us about the Heroic/Patricians, Scientific Nationalists, Progressives, Anti Progressives, and the others because every time I write "historiographical" on the discussion board or a word document, it tells me that it is not a real word. Oh well....Also, I found it beneficial to read so many documents and pieces that I did not even know about after taking high school US History. I now feel better equipped to contextualize historical writing to the time period it was written in and believe I am better at finding links between different topics. Before this class, I would not have even thought to find ties between two subjects so abstract as the history of modern shopping and the US intervention in Panama. Also, from this class I have learned that researching Indian life before Europeans came to North America is just about impossible. Therefore, much of the history of lacrosse, which is what my term paper was about, has been lost through the Indian's oral traditions of keeping history. The Guarneri book was fantastic in how it incorporated other countries by comparing them to the United States. It is still fun to think about if America is exceptional or not....also we view our exceptionalism compared to how other countries feel about us being exceptional. Also, writing a history research paper is not easy. It took a ridiculous amount of time and it was fantastic to learn so much about a subject that is interesting to me. Logically constructing arguments, however, and editing through all of my research was rough. I am glad we were assigned this project because it helped me uderstand how much work goes in to writing a historical document. Peace and grease, Jeff.

Edited by author 12-05-2007 12:49 AM
This course has indeed broadened my thinking. I took U.S History in high school, I took American goverment in high school, and I've also taken several political science courses, as well as a few history courses at Furman so I thought I knew everything there was to know about American history. This course forced me to thnkin about America in a global sense, which I had never done. Every other course I've taken in the subject have all been the same. You start out with the boston tea party and the signing of the independence and you end with communism and the soviet union. This class definitely did not follow that pattern. I got to read about things that I've never heard of or studied. An example is "Emperors in the Jungle." I have never heard of America's invasion of Panama. Also, I never studied history from the eyes of the historian. Usually we just study out of textbook, but hearing what different historians have to say really makes an understanding of history "integratively complex" because one will soon realize how many interpretations there are of one event. Its actually kind of scary to think about all of the biased stuff I've read from textbooks as it has been held as THE authoritative text.
I've also become a better researcher for several reasons: I now know how to tell if a book is scholarly by the publishing company, I know that the music library has books (I thought they just had cd's. who woulda thunk?), I know how to ask good questions when I read, and I think I am an overall better writer having done the research project.

Through this history course, I gained a greater understanding of historiographical perspectives and their impact upon our individual understanding of history. I found it particularly interesting how a particular time period impacts a historian's perspective. For example, when studying the varying perspectives regarding New Deal legislation, historians that wrote immediately following the depression era wrote with a positive outlook on New Deal relief programs. However, as time progressed, historians became more negative regarding Roosevelt's attempts to improve the American economy.

Also, I enjoyed reading the various books that were assigned. It was interesting to gain detailed insight on a particular events in U.S. history. The most interesting book to me was Bowlby's book on shopping. Previously, I had never learned the progression of shopping from department stores to supermarkets that are now located on every street corner. It was also interesting to see how shopping habits and styles varied as the trend globalized.

This coarse broadened my thinking about history as a field. I had previous to this coarse never read books on history, only history textbooks which severely limited my understanding of and interest in history.

Through the research project I learned that there is a huge number of interesting books on any one subject. I found that history is very controversial which can be fun. I also learned a lot about how to synthesize ideas, even if I didn't execute this too well.

As far as my sense of America in context of the larger world I can't put my finger on anything specific but I know my thought process in regards to this have definitely changed. I do consider this positively as I believe learning to think is the object of the exercise.

well i guess i will be the first to post my final reflections.
i am glad that the paper is finally done, it feels good to have it all handed in. what i liked about the paper was that it broadened my research capabilities a lot. Before this paper, i had never had to do any kind of college level research. I had a few research projects in high school but never to this degree. I also, sadly, did not even know how to find a book in the Furman library. I definitley learned how to do that and i am sure that will come in handy during future classes.
What i also liked about this final paper was the connections it had to our first assignment, the biography.
In wirting the biography, i hoped to depict my persons life in a such a way that she would feel i did justice to her life. I had no first hand knowledge about anything in her story. I only was able to draw comparisions to my own life experiences to understand to some extent what she had experienced. This is almost exactly what i did in my paper. I wrote about immigrantion during the early 20th century so i haveno first hand knowledge. I do understand some things, growing up in Catholic school. I understand to some extent the Catholic way of life and that enabled me to better understand them. i am not however Catholic so this is just a comparion and second hand knowledge. I also, in writing, hoped to capture their plight in such a way that they wouldbe proud to read my paper, that they would feel justified in what i wrote.
I feel that these two papers, although in different times in the course, and with a different amount of time committed to them, have the same general idea. The course has come full circle.

For me, the most interesting thing we have studied had been Bowlby's book Carried Away. Shopping has become such an integral part of our modern lives. Rarely, if ever, have i sat down to think about the invention of modern shopping in such a context that Bowlby presents.
I also enjoyed talking about this shopping in relation to the other books we have read, such as Emperors in the Jungle or even the book about the Native Americans. At first glance you wouldnt think they connect but in reality, they do on such a deep level.
It is really neat that through this course, i am now able to think about these very different books in the same way.

The connections in the material in this course has shown me that almost all history is interrelated in some way-you can draw connections to almost anything in history.

Summary of Progressive Legislation:

*Goals: Democracy, Social Justice, Honest Government, Business Regulation, Managerial Efficiency*

Legislative manifestations included:

*State Level:
-- child labor laws
-- 8 hour workday legislation
-- public works, esp. water filtration and purification
-- Electoral "purification" (aka. disfranchisement) through "merit tests"
-- voter initiative legislation
-- voter recall of officials
-- inheritance taxes

*Federal Level:
-- Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
-- I.C.C. (1887) and Hepburn Act regulating shipping rates (1906)
-- Federal Workman's Compensation Act (1913)
-- direct election of senators (1913)
-- Federal Income Tax (1913)
-- Federal Reserve Act creating Fedl Reserve System (1913)
-- Federal Trade Commission (1914)
-- Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
-- Johnson-Reed Immigration Act (1924)

Jacob suggests Roosevelt was "a proponent of individual liberty" while maintaining concern for the "general good." This is true, but perhaps we must consider exactly who constitutes "general."

Roosevelt says: "The first of all considerations is the permanent welfare of our people"; he then goes on to talk about "our history" and "our future". Perhaps I've misinterpreted something, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me his "our people" translates as citizens of the United States.

And so an interesting paradox arises: is Roosevelt advocating environmental conservation for the Public(world) good, or public(USA) good? Are those necessarily separate, or are they one in the same? Even if they are one in the same, for me it's difficult to justify placing America first just because it will probably help the rest of the world too (similar to pure Laissez Faire capitalism).

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly more evident that Roosevelt's environmental suggestions were greatly overlooked, and it occurs to me that if his call for conservation was more broad, more internationally focused, perhaps we would've realized how universal the consequences of carelessness really are.

It is interesting how Muir wants to conserve the environment because of its beauty and because it is a creation of God. On the other hand, Roosevelt stresses conservation in order to preserve the welfare of the people and the social system. I believe these two views are somewhat in competition with one another because even if policy is implemented to promote conservation, nothing will happen unless the hearts of the people are in accord with John Muir's. Also, it is interesting how Roosevelt is addressing this issue and making a public statement about how unregulated use of resources is a bad thing, but still believes that the market will work this problem out. He claims that people's common sense will solve many of these problems. I am not sure about this. I believe that much policy implementation is necessary for conservation because in the market I believe individuals are more out for their own good than the good of the national environment.

In "The American Forests," Muir's argument thwarts the notion of American Triumphalism and Exceptionalism. He mentions that "every other civilized nation in the world has been compelled to care for its forests," and that we insit on "leaving America as barren as Palestine or Spain." He later lists Switzerland, Russia, and Japan as countries who have taken a stance against forest destruction, unlike America. Guarneri would agree with Muir that America is not special or set aparta nd she has not demonstrated superiority over other nations. Muir's argument also shows the pitfalls of "triumphant nations." In other words, at what cost did the US earn its bragging rights, if they are warranted at all?

I thought Roosevelt's concept of industrial liberty was interesting. According to Roosevelt, "unregulated" use of resources by major corporations damages not only the contemporary generation but also hampers the nation's posterity and economic future. He claims that industrial liberty is just as vital as political freedom. However, there must be some restraints on freedom of industry. Roosevelt goes on to speak about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Obviously, he is a proponent of individual liberty, but he makes a point that, at times, the individual must yield to the "general good."

I agree with Kim on Roosevelt's point about the freedom of an individual whose limits are only the present and future. What immediately came to my mind when reading this portion of the message was Jefferson's and Madison's discussion on the usufruct of the land. Because Madison advocated that successive generations have the right to inherit the debt and profits of the previous ones, I think Madison would have agreed with Roosevelt on that point as well.

Theodore Roosevelt's "Special Message from the President of the United States Transmitting a Report of the National Conservation Commission (1909)" made a very good point that the freedom of the individual in American society should only be limited by the present and future ("...limited only by the present and future rights, interests and needs of other individuals who make up the community"), not by the past. Conservation is key to preserving not only our American forests, but the quality of life for both our generation and future generations. I felt that this piece was more centered on conservation for the sake of future generations, and the other piece by John Muir was centered not only on this point, but also on the point that the forest was God's creation, and it needs to be protected for that reason as well.

I also read Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War. Since the earlier posters have said many of the things I thought of saying, I'll take a different route. In light of Monday's discussion of immigration, it's interesting to note Lieber's back ground as a European emigrant and how that played a role in his drafting of the Liebert Code. The article says that he fought against Napoleon at Waterloo and that he also fought in the Greek war of Independence. He also underwent political persecution in his own country. Clearly, Lieber understood the devestation that intense war and civil war can have on the fabric of a nation. Therefore, when he was "uprooted" from his own country, it's no surprise that he worked diligently to ensure that his adopted country -- the US -- didn't flal victim to some of the same kind of military immorality, so to speak, that he had witnessed in Europe.
For example, he state's in his code that, "Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God." He goes on, "Military necessity does not admit of cruelty," and then defines cruelty rather broadly.
Lieber's Code, along with his own convictions about slavery show that his own opinions about American politics, society, etc. were shaped by his pre-emigration experience.
Obviously, as many others have stated, it is difficult to define what is and is not appropriate in a time of war, but Lieber made noble advances in the effort.

McCurdy’s article discusses the shift towards instrumentalism in the implementation of interstate trade policies. The role of the court is noteworthy as it becomes an active participant in the shaping of legislation. Because “commerce embraced a great variety of subjects,” it was expedient for there to be a uniform national rule.
 While large corporations were very interested in a uniform law (protecting their ability to market goods nation-wide) small businesses placed a great deal of trust in the state. The meatpacker’s testimony basically states that each state can be considered competent to apply sufficient screening methods and safety standards to locally raised meats. It is interesting how our notions of the most reliable standards of safety and quality have changed. No evidence is presented indicating that local methods were inferior or that nationalized methods were superior, the arguments rest on what is in the best interest of corporations. The decision rendered is one informed by instrumentalism more than genuine concern for the wellbeing of consumers.

The essay I had to read was Lieber and the Laws of War. As said by some earlier fellows, the varied application of military necessity presents a problem. Tax and civil laws are hard enough to codify, and an attempt to capture the essence of what had before been a set of ethics passed on through a small group of dedicated individuals would be nothing less than impossible. There is quite simply no way to convey "appropriateness" in writing that will read the same to everyone. The problems presented were readily apparent with WIlliam Hanchett's statement on the connection between the Lincoln assassination and the laws.

On top of this entire problem of wording and the limits of language, we're also dealing with war. I can imagine tempers easily flaring when you've been shot at by your countrymen.

I found a little bit of the American "Jeremiad"(sp) in the reading titled "American Law and the Marketing Structure of the Large Corporation 1875-1890". Some of the people debating their sides, whether or not states should be able to levy varying taxes on interstate goods so as to "exclude the introduction of the foreign article," referred back to their foundation to justify their argument. For example, in Welton v. Missouri, the court ruled that states could not levy these taxes.. because that's what the framers would want. That is what the founders of our nation set out to do--Congress was intended to regulate interstate commerce. Referring back to what the framers would want seemed to be a recurring theme (I read about arguments involving how the framers would want this several times, but I just so happened to have the Missouri one before me), as if what the framers wanted was the most righteous thing to do.

I read "American Law and the Structure of the Large Corporation". I liked seeing some of the basic mechanics of capitalism(ie selfish interests of individuals or groups affecting the whole in a positive way) play out and revolutionize interstate commerce.

At the same time I definitely agree with Bynum's statement: "Today, companies like Wal-Mart, who embody big business ideals, continue to rape small town America" especially after seeing the transformation Travelers Rest has undergone over the last few years. However, the laws of competition still apply and I'd like to think that the natural evolutionary processes of society will lead us to a better place, although I do fear a "Brave New World" scenario.

I thought it was really interesting to read about the adoption of standardized time zones. I had never before thought about why they were adopted, but now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense that the railroads presented a need to have a standard time. The railroads unified the nations because they ran across multiple states. People were connected to people in other states in a way they hadn't been before. Therefore, they needed to have a unifying system of time.

Due to the use of locally-based times, the U.S. was a confusing place to travel in the nineteenth century. Prof. Charles F. Dowd came up with a system to standardize time zones and published his report in 1870. The plan, however, was not exact in all of its calls for reform, so nothing happened for a while. The railroads did not see a need for widespread change anyway. As we spoke of in class, scientific universities and thought developed rapidly after the Civil War. Astronomers were the key players in prescribing a cure for the problem, but they, too, faced the stubborn railroad industry. By November 1883, mainly through the work of William Frederick Allen and the General Time Convention, an agreement had been reached with the railroads. Convincing the public of the change proved to be a difficult task, on the other hand.

The issue of who has the power to regulate interstate commerce was the central issue in Charles W. McCurdy's essay, “American Law and the Marketing Structure of the Large Corporation. The debate in this essay seems to draw close in comparison to similar issues that caused the "The War between the States". There was a great deal of nationalism being displayed at this time because the government was not restricting trade amongst the states, and was imposing tariffs on outside nations hoping to break into the new prosperous American market. However, while there was this sense of pride in the country, states imposed provisions and laws hoping to give their community a slight advantage. I feel like the states by putting their own interests ahead of the overall nation created the problem. Luckily, like Rachel said, with the arrival of big business, these companies were willing to do whatever it took to spread there business even if it meant fighting the government which allowed for an important policy change. In doing so, they laid the foundation for the free-trade market that has caused America to become the economic superpower it is. While I do understand that big business provides quality products to the masses for cheaper prices, I appreciate the fact that state governments were willing to fight for their own local population. Big business has impacts outside of fiscal endeavors. The types of businesses that big businesses “run out of town” are businesses that give each community its own unique identity. Today, companies like Wal-Mart, who embody big business ideals, continue to rape small town America, and change the make up of the area. So, while big business did help the country to develop interstate commerce, it did so at the expense of others.

The essay by Charles W. McCurdy, "American Law and the Marketing Structure of the Large Corporation, 1875- 1890," focused on a states' rights issue that I have never really thought much about. McCurdy discusses how states used to control commerce between states, i.e. they would protect local merchants and products through various laws and provisions. But after the Civil War, big business like Singer (sewing machines) wanted to start selling their products in all the states. Before, legal precedents under Marshall and Taney upheld the states' rights to govern commerce. But Singer was one of the first companies to have the financial clout to pursue their cases all the way to the US Supreme Court. It's interesting that big business has had a hand in influencing governmental policies for such a long time. I don't think that is always a bad thing, because in this case it ensured free trade between the states, which helped the US grow economically as it has. Like McCurdy said in his article: Can you imagine different commercial restrictions every time you cross a state border? It would be like trade in Europe. Also, what about states like Rhode Island and Delaware, compared to states like Florida and Texas and California? Obviously bigger states with more diverse resources would have an advantage over small, homogenous states. Big business obviously represents the interests of a group of citizens, just like environmental groups or labor orgs. We just always need to question how much their interests are in line with the good of all, or most, citizens.

I had to read the article on Standard Time as well.

I find it rather unfortunate that the author chose to title his work "The Times They Are A-Changin" (actually he uses a "g" on changing, but I refuse to acknowledge it). The entire point of the essay? The time is standardizing! The time isn't changing, it's all becoming the same.

The author also wanted to implicate the progressive nature of standardizing time and thus the changing times rather than the changing time. He writes:

"Today Americans think and act in much more national terms than people did before, and the technology of the railroads played a large part in making this change possible. No group of companies--not even the computer companies--have the power to do what the railroads could do in the late 1800s."

From this, the reader must glean that while the railroad unified the nation, it also wielded an unprecedented level of power and control that some feared might not always produce such utilitarian results. This paradox is the second reason I think "The Times They Are A-Changin'" is such an unfortunate title.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

What was Bob Dylan talking about? Perhaps he's writing about a group both unified and powerful enough to make changes as important as those made by the standardization of time in the late 1800s. It seems the author neglected to recognize that the times have continued to change. If it's "difficult to imagine anything like the story of the adoption of standardized time happening today," it seems the author should take a closer look at the civil rights movement or any of the other numerous and massive cultural changes that have taken place since the standardization of time.

For me, the poorly chosen title points to the article's weaknesses and I'm beginning to think the author didn't consider the actual content of the song "The Times They Are A-Changin'."

*Note*
I admittedly have an unhealthy obsession with Bob Dylan and his compositions and it has inevitably tainted my ability to objectively read this article.

I think it is interesting that many believe the adoption of Standard Time Zones contributed to more of a nationalist sentiment. It makes sense because it really is the actualization of the country becoming "smaller" and more accessible. I suppose with the use of railroads after the Industrial Revolution, many got to see a greater portion of the country and began to have a sense of national, rather than local pride. It is interesting that Nathaniel Alley writes that technology can create many problems. I sometimes believe that is true, not so much with transportation, but more with things like cell phones and email. They allow us to contact more people, but often times we use this type of interaction rather than a more personal, face to face conversation. Sometimes I believe technology can make relationships in general more distant than near. That may have been a little bit of a stretch, but it was just a thought that came to mind when Mr. Alley was writing about technology creating problems and the country becoming more accessible.

I had to read "Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity". I thought the discussion of "military necessity" along with the political vs. military decisions that go on during war. It was an interesting discussion of whether consumer goods from the enemy should be confiscated and used to supply their own troops, or if it is part of a civilian's property that cannot be touched by the military. It is also interesting that the 3rd amendment was not mentioned to argue against the taking of supplies of civilians, nor their entire homes for the quartering of soldiers, which seem like obvious violations of the Constitution.

I was surprised to see that the author, Burrus M. Carnahan, supported the use of "military necessity" in laws of war. It seems to be such an indefinite term that, as mentioned in the article, has been opposed by the Confederates and Germans as being an excuse to legally commit war crimes. Yes, there can be an argument that if put in very specific terms, military necessity can limit the destruction of war by having one side gain enough advantages to prematurely end a long and violent conflict. But, it is pretty much inevitable that along the way, some power hungry political and/or military leader will maneuver around the wording for military necessity, no matter how precise it is, so that they can connect all kinds of destruction to military necessity. In this way, the complete opposite effect will occur in that destruction of war will be increased exponentially.

I also read the article titled “Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity.” It was fascinating to discover that the U.S. was the first nation to come up with wartime laws: “the earliest official government codification of the laws of war was promulgated by the United States,” (p.213). I was surprised to find that no other country had created a law of war before 1863. While reading the article I felt like I was watching the process of logic and reasoning take hold in the government system, especially concerning wartime laws.

 I won’t go into the exact explanations of this idea of military necessity because I think Rebecca explains it well. I will say that I disagree with her conclusion of the concept. I agree that there are many loopholes in the statement that says “Military necessity…consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war,” (215). Of course the ambiguities of this statement make it easy for cruel tyrants, such as Hitler, to justify their acts of evil and destruction. This code gives guilty men a defense in courts; they can say that their criminal acts committed during war were meant to create military success and nothing more. But there are several examples in the article where the United Nations and army generals decided to draw the line and not attack civilian dwellings because they were trying to stick to military necessity and go no further. Lincoln saw the need in seizing cotton produce and destroying a building where railroad ties were manufactured but the concept of only doing what was necessary kept him from attacking homes. I thought the example of how the code of military necessity would have supported the U.S.’s stance on antipersonnel land mines was interesting. The United States banned the use of antipersonnel landmines by the American military. Carnahan’s belief is that “the land mine policy would have been much stronger had it been clearly based on the principle of military necessity,” (230). Carnahan goes on to say that military necessity would have given the prohibition on land-mines more clout, making it seem as if his action was based off of an “existing legal principle” and “this juridically stronger approach would have been a mightier blow against the use of antipersonnel land mines,”(231). So this concept of military necessity may be vague at time, it also serves the need for an overarching law concerning conduct during war.

Edited by author 10-29-2007 02:21 AM
I read “Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity” by Burrus M. Carnahan. This article focused on the section in the Lieber Code on the principle of military necessity. Carnahan describes the original intent of the principle and how it has been abused and misunderstood over time. However, he maintains that it could be effective if used correctly today. Carnahan concludes that, “Today, military necessity is widely regarded as something that must be overcome or ignored if international humanitarian law is to develop, and its original role as a limit on military action has been forgotten. As a result, the principle has not been applied in new situations where it could serve as a significant legal restraint…” (231). Opposition to the Lieber Code at the time of the Civil War focused primarily on this principle of military necessity. Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon claimed, “In this code of military necessity…the acts of atrocity and violence which have been committed by the officers of the United States…are to find an apology and defense” (217). He believed that the principle of military necessity could be manipulated to justify “acts of atrocity” and later events proved him right. In WWII “…Lieber’s principle of military necessity had evolved there into the doctrine of Kriegsraison, which permitted the German army to violate many of the laws and customs of war on the basis of military necessity” (218).
I disagree with Carnahan’s conclusion that military necessity “could serve as a significant legal restraint” (231). Article 14 of the Lieber Code states: “Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war” (215). I think the language is too ambiguous. It can be easily manipulated (and has been), especially the phrase, “those measures which are indispensable.”

I read the article on the adoption of Standard Times Zones too. It seems that in an indirect way the implementation of standaerd time helped strengthen interstate unity in America. Also,because England had adopted their form of standard time some years earlier, it would have been logical to assume that it would only be a matter of time before America did the same. The issue overall is a good example of how the government responded and acted on an issue that engendered confusion and discontent of a corporation and thus its citizens. It is also interesting to consider that what is now merely a mundane aspect of our daily lives was once a heated topic.

I had to read "The Times they are A-Changing: The Influence of Railroad Technology on the Adoption of Standard Time Zones in 1883" as well. America was somewhat behind the curve of standardization of time considering that England adopted a standard time in their country in 1848, nearly 40 years before America did. One of the first proposals of a standarized time system for the country came in 1869, when Charles Dowd proposed a standardized system. The system was widely accepted by smaller railraod companies, but issues that arose considering the disruption that the boundaries of the zones would cause led to the defeat of this proposal. Scientists had discussed the positive effects that such an act would have on the country, but they were unable to do anything without the support of the large railroad companies. The acceptance of the system didn't occur until 1883, but it had significant effects in helping lead to a more national America, but it is interesting that the involvement of Congress with the issue of time keeping until 1918 was minimal. I agree with Jessica that this standardization would be much harder to standardize time because there is no powerful monopolies like the railroads were in the 19th century.

I had to read "The Times they are A-Changing: The Influence of Railroad Technology on the Adoption of Standard Time Zones in 1883." I agree with Allen, I think that in America today it would be nearly impossible to standardize time. He went on to say how the decision is left to the United States government. It only begins by a local request by the railroad companies and they have nothing to go with the actual decision. One of the reasons that it would not be easy to standardize transportation today is because Americans now have lots of different methods of transportation. One transportation does not monopolize the transportation industry.

First I would like to agree with Rebecca and her discussion of the ‘us versus them’ mentality that is so prevalent in our society today. I have another thought to add to the issue of the increase of Hispanics in America. It is the issue about how Spanish is becoming a required language in America. I have heard many people complain that it seems required to know how to speak Spanish when “this is America, we speak English here.” I don’t know if anyone else has heard this argument or thought it themselves. I worked as a teller at a bank one summer and the big issue was that a bilingual teller had also been hired. I think that putting signs in English and Spanish is a good thing. I also think that having bilingual employees is a good idea. I will say that I think that Hispanics, entering America should be taught some English, as it is the most common language spoken and it would only help them adjust better. Anyway, that was just an added thought to join the recent posts.

I did want to discuss the Plains Indians book we have read for class. I know we are discussing it today and I know that no one in my discussion group addressed it at all but I found some things to be very interesting. I was distressed about the tales where the Indians were completely misunderstood and mistranslated. In the introduction of the book it says: “Newspaper reporters who covered the treaty recorded not what the Indians said, but what the interpreters said they said,” (p.22). Not knowing much about the purpose of reservations I found the information concerning them interesting too. I did not know that reservations were meant to help Indians fit into “normal” American society, (p.15). On pg 168 this process of educating Indians in the ways of modern America is called “cultural genocide.” These passages really made me think about how intolerant America has been throughout history to those who are different. It is very similar to the melting pot issue. I think America wanted to claim diversity and at the same time no one could be different. There was this attitude that everyone could claim to be different but at their core they had to believe the same thing. I would like to say that now there is more understanding for people’s differences but I am not entirely sure.

Edited by author 10-25-2007 03:53 AM
Whenever the myth of the American “Melting Pot” was taught in my middle and high school classes we would only talk about the millions of migrants that came to the U.S. The impression was that migrants came only to the United States during 1820-1930. So I was interested in Guarneri’s conclusion that “other New World nations besides the United States could justly claim to be nations of immigrants” (184). I think that the way the “Melting Pot” myth was taught is revealing of how American arrogance develops. The students were led to believe that the citizens of other countries came to the U.S. because it was so much better than their home countries. In actuality, huge numbers of immigrants were journeying to all of the Americas during that period.

David said that “this is essentially the same thing that we are experiencing today…with the immigration of Hispanic workers.” I agree. I think that the “hiatus in immigration imposed by Anglo-conformists” is comparable to the push for tighter border control today(190).
I think the resentment of many Americans about the huge numbers of Hispanics entering our country can be equated to the resentment of the Anglo-conformists in the late nineteenth century. I have heard the following prediction used as an argument for stricter border control: in the next decade there will be more Hispanics than white Anglo-Saxons in America (I don’t actually know about the validity of this prediction, I have just heard it used many times). As soon as people hear that prediction they react with concern. The simple fact that “they” will outnumber “us” is enough to disturb people. The reactions always suggest that America would be somehow less American if Hispanics outnumbered white Anglo-Saxons. I personally am disturbed that Americans would come to that conclusion. Do people believe that Anglo-Saxon Americans are somehow better than Hispanic immigrants or that they are “more American” than Hispanic Americans? (If we were truly a melting pot, it wouldn’t matter if they were immigrants…and I might also mention that the prediction includes ALL Hispanics, not just recent immigrants or illegal aliens. And it is talking about our population as it is now, not including future immigrants. So what these Americans are concerned about are those of Hispanic ethnicity in general, not just immigrants or illegal aliens.)
I’m sorry that this explanation is kind of convoluted and probably really confusing. The point I am trying to make is that I believe that argument reveals a prejudice against Hispanics. Every time I hear someone quote that prediction and see the reactions, I am disturbed that Americans believe there is something wrong with an ethnic group other than white Anglo-Saxons being the dominant ethnic group in the U.S.
I wonder if any of you know what I am talking about? Is this just a regional thing or have some of you heard the same argument? Either way, I think this prejudice and desire to quell immigration before "they" overtake “us” greatly resembles the nineteenth century exclusionists’ sentiments.

I don’t think that it’s an extraordinarily controversial assertion that much of the rhetoric surrounding our current immigration “crisis” has to do with xenophobia. Ok, maybe it is, but I think it’s true.
Guarneri notes (on pg. 189 for citation’s sake) that there has always been nativist –although he doesn’t use the term—opposition in the United States to new immigrant populations, especially to those that do not fit the anglo ideal. I really like what he has to say about the opposing American identities – “the melting pot” versus the Anglo-Protestant exclusionist ideal. (Of course, all that sort of leaves out the immigrants who didn’t want to be here in the first place – African-American ex-slaves.)
Anyway, Guarneri talks about “push,” “pull” and “means” factors that lead to the increased world wide migration between roughly 1830 and 1930. Economists would just say that increased labor market mobility, thanks to transportation improvements, took the supply of willing workers to the place where there was the greatest demand for their labor. (Aside: Guarneri bemoans the fact that some laborers came over as indentured workers on dung plantations, but think about it: If these people were willing to work for free harvesting bird crap for seven years – how bad must their old jobs have been?)
At any rate, this is essentially the same thing that we are experiencing today—actually to a lesser degree as a percentage increase—with the immigration of Hispanic workers. Some US politicians spend a lot of time talking about how “dangerous” immigration is and how it is “taking away jobs from hard-working Americans.” Most of their rants, in reality, are xenophobic appeals to an impressionable electoral base that will reelect them if they become scared enough of evil, “crime-prone” imposters.
Basically, what I want to say about the current immigration situation is that it’s mostly good. Aside from the external problems associated with illegality (ie. illegals are using a lot of government benefits, etc.), the fact of the matter is that everyone is better off when labor markets are open and laborers can find employment rather than being dependent and destitute in their home countries. This was also true during the period of massive immigration in the 1830s-1930s, and we are all better for it.

In reference to others’ comments about clinging to European hyphenated identities. I still refer to myself as Swedish-American even though I never met the great-great grandfather of mine who came off the boat from the motherland. I feel alright about that.

I'm not sure I completely agree. Sure, the incompletely melted pot issue is clear to be seen, but the idea that pre-american identifications come up more often than the american identity. I would, however, completely expect that it would vary depending on region. I grew up in the south, and I would say the predominant, nearly only, identities are American and Southern American... and surprisingly they're usually not mutually exclusive. Otherwise, I would agree, there are a fair number of people that like to flaunt their European heritage. I think this, however, could be due to a history of intolerance as immigrants. I can imagine moving into a new country, and the discomfort and the scrutiny from it would cause at least a few generations to have more pride in their own way of things.

When you ask someone what their nationality is, and you're both in the United States, I fear saying "I'm American" might be a little too obvious. It's a statement othering the other person, placing them outside the group already. The United States is not supposed to be a homogenous bunch of groupthink individuals. We absolutely need new and different cultures, as exposure is the best cure for xenophobia.

As far as the pride thing goes, I think that's rhetoric. Identifying with the nation? That all depends. For what it's worth, when I was in Costa Rica last winter, I identified myself as Canadian.

Tonight, we had to read about immigration in America. I feel that often, Guarneri presents a different view point on issues than ive previously studied. One issue he talks about towards the end of the reading. He talks about the incompletely melted pot.
One reason that this happens is because many European immigrants began to define themselves as hypenated americans-like German-American or Irish-American.
I feel that this is definitley an issue in my life. If someone were to ask me what nationality i am, i would say german, irish, english, and scottish, not American. I feel that most Americans identify with their European heritage more than their American citizenship. Perhaps this is why our country is not fully blended and why we have some many stereotypes and predjudices. No one identifies themselves as Americans, at least not as much as they should. Today, national pride is a huge deal because of terrorism and the threat of another group taking away our freedom as Americans. We sing songs, "Proud to be an American" but yet when asked what nationality we are, respond with a European answer. Im not sure waht the solution to this problem is; i dont feel that we need more national pride. I think that as a whole, Americans are proud to be here, proud for the opportunities. I think that perhaps Americans need to identify more with the nation.

Correction: he makes a stool appear.

I highly recommend the video called The Magician (#205). The video could be a sort of nationalism because throughout the moving film, the director is playing with the new inventions; could this be a form of glorification of the new age of inventions? For example, the magician appears on screen and takes off his jacket and hat. He holds them out, and for a split second (since we live in an advanced age) we can tell that they stopped the camera. After this brief shift in frames, the magician is standing without his article of clothing. He does the same when he takes off his trousers. The toying with the new invention is most apparent when the magician makes a chair appear out of nowhere then reveals a flock of geese in a pile of tissue paper.

I thought that Guarneri's discussion of foreign investment was particularly interesting. Money to help fund the industrial revolution in the form of factory building and railroads was unavailable in the United States. Various countries were eager to invest money in the United States because they were confident that their investment would yield profitable returns. And, they were correct. In the case of Britain, profits from its industrial revolution were invested in the United States. This was the second instance in which aid from Britain drastically aided the United States economy. Earlier, the great demand for cotton in Britain stimulated the U.S. economy.

At the risk of rambling, I’m going to comment on a few things that I found really interesting. First, in our discussion of historiography, we’ve talked about how everyone has subconsciously or otherwise, biases and perspectives that shape the way they tell a story. One of the comments in Our Hearts fell to the Ground really drove this point home in my mind: Many of the Indians refused to even talk about life on reservations. For all practical purposes, their history ended when they entered a reservation. I’m not faulting them for their unwillingness to discuss that time, but it is really interesting to see that this event was so a traumatic that they didn’t even want to put the story of their pre-reservation life in the same context as life on the reservation.
 Second, isn’t it interesting to see the juxtaposition of pre-industrial life with industrialization? As I watched the video clips, I was fascinated to see all of these cars driving down the street and a lone horse standing awkwardly to the side of the road. Then in the clip of the Philippinoes fleeing the trenches, there were officers on horseback! Soldiers fought on horseback for generations, but in only a few years, military strategies were permanently altered. It is strange to see that we have video clips of some of the last uses of horses in the military.

Edited by author 10-24-2007 09:30 AM
I found the video clips to be quite interesting. I though the particular clips that we were asked to watch had very nationalistic and patriotic sentiments. There was not one moment in the “Filipinos Retreat from Trenches” clip that I feared the Americans might succumb to the evil enemy. This video clip could almost be considered propaganda for support of a war so far distant from American soil. I thought the other clips were suggestive of the American progress in field of industry. I feel that movie makers at this time attempted to appeal to this notion of national pride. I also believe that, during this time period, the movie makers often disregarded some factual evidence in an effort to present the “good guys” (The Americans) in a better light. This notion is no longer present in today’s cinematography. The audience wants a more believable, factual movie, so the film has industry has adjusted accordingly. A movie like “Jarhead” does not portray the American military in a way that it would have sixty years earlier.
 
I also found The Patient Medicine Menace to be extremely humorous. “Hicks Capudine” was the medicine that was the most attention-grabbing to me. I found it to be incredibly marketable because it was only claiming to cure headaches, not some rare disease. However, the fact that they were allowed to put morphine into a headache medicine is outrageous. Of course it should make your head ache go away. One other interesting fact was the wide use of alcohol in many of these remedies. Alcohol tends to make most feel better than had previously, at least until you wake up.

The primary sources in Our Hearts Fell to the Ground have been eye-opening and intriguing. The introduction to and commentary on these sources have pointed out a lot of historiographical issues that show you can't just throw a book like this together. Take, for example, the painting by Howling Wolf "Trading Guns for Horses" (p. 48). The original caption said that it depicts the Cheyennes receiving horses from the first time. One would think that a caption written by an interpreter when it was first painted would be reliable. But later an anthropologist discovered, by asking many Indian elders of different tribes, that it depicts "the Great Peace made between the tribes [Cheyenne and Kiowa] in 1840." This goes to show that the first record or closest primary source is not always the most accurate. In historical writing you really can't take anything for granted or assume much at all.

The drastic effect of epidemic disease among the Native American populations was shocking to me. I have read about the Columbian exchange, but I didn't really comprehend its significance regarding the Plains Indians. Also, the U.S. government was particularly harsh and deceptive towards the Indians. When not massacring villages, Americans wiped out buffalo herds, hoping to eradicate food supplies. After the killing of the Hungate family by Arapahos, "friendly Indians" were invited to secure military protection at Fort Lyon. However, the army broke its promise once a few tribes had set up camp. The Third Colorado Cavalry attacked and killed most of the inhabitants, despite the presence of a waving American flag.

I was wondering if the clip "Filipinos Retreat from Trenches" was actual footage or a reenactment. Either way, I wouldn't have thought they would have filmed something of that nature. The medicine page reminded me of an Andy Griffith episode in witch Aunt Bee bought some youth revitalizing medicine that was really just alcohol and got her drunk. Anyone else? Anyways, I wonder if future generations will view our modern "regulated" medicines the same way we view these "snake oils".

I was watching a program this summer on the evolution of the hamburger and when it first was created everyone thought it was substandard meat (due probably to "The Jungle"). As a marketing tool, one vendor offered free hamburgers to doctors as long as they were wearing their white doctor coats and it worked great. I thought this was kind of similar to how some of the medicines had the picture of the doctor on the front.

Watching those videos on the American Memories site made me smile. I think it's funny how the simplest thing (i.e. traffic) captivated the imagination of Americans at the turn of the nineteenth century. American's lives were changing as their nation began to industrialize and I think this is reflected in the way many of the videos focused on automobiles, cityscapes, architecture and other things that developed in this time period. I also think it's important to note how many of the videos focused on the military. I believe this was a reflection of the nationalism and imperialism that arose in this era.

The Homestead Act of 1862 truly seems to me as American exceptionalism on the frontier. Even though Canada tried to implement a similar system where they granted cheap land to citizens willing to improve it, we were the first to try this. The Homestead Act, as Guarneri says, did help "sustain the American Dream." Similar efforts to the Homestead Act in Australia and Latin America were unsuccessful and their frontiers were taken over by large pastoralists and the rich. I believe the United States was exceptional in the way it handled land ownership on the frontier.

What Jessica says is very true. I doubt that when our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights, they intended it to apply to the Indians. They were viewed as savages more than actual people with rights.
One thing that struck me, was how radically the societies of the Plains Indians were changed by the arrival of the Europeans. Even before Lewis and Clarke, the Indians had been significantly impacted by the Europeans. The Europeans brought smallpox, which was devastating, but they also brought horse, which were very useful to the Indians. The Indians also became "tied into global trade networks" which was beneficial to them in some ways, but it also caused them to become dependent on some things. As one chief said, "In my young days there were no white men, and we knew no wants. The white people came, they brought with them some good, but they brought the small pox, and they brought evil liquors: The Indians since diminish and they are no longer happy." This quote especially struck me. It seems like the Indians had lived in relative contentment before the whites came and brought new, desirable goods that actually ended up making the Indians unhappy.
It was so sad to read this book and watch these societies just deteriorate as the Europeans pushed further and further into their land and into their lives.

In chapter one of Jefferson and Madison, Jefferson argues the necessity of a bill of rights. He believes that liberties need to be written out. In "Our Hearts Fell to the Ground," Calloway points out the many ways that the settlers took everything away from the Native Americans; their food, land, lifestyle, and means of survial. An example of this can be found in 1903 in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock when the Supreme Court declared that the Native Americans had no rights and that Congress had plenary power over the tribes. This obviously contradicts the very meaning of the bill of rights and the constitution in general. These conflicting messages can be found throughout the history of the United States and not just confined to the the conquest of the west. Also, the Native Americans were not allowed to practice their own religion. In fact, Christianity was even forced upon them. This conflicts with the first admendment, which explicitely gives people the right to freedom of religion. In addition, their land was taken from them. The fifth admendment rightly states that no private property should be taken for public use without just compensation. I think it could easily be argued that reservations are not "just compensation."

In Calloway's book I noticed a trend of the Indian accounts describing massacres or great loss at the hands of the Whites. These were generally coupled with historical sections that talked of America's national effort for peace. It appeared that the eastern portion of America was willing to try an inclusionist approach and 'train' the natives in the 'american' life style; however, those Americans living on the Western frontier seemed to disagree with this approach and were comfortable with these massacres and the possible extermination of the Indians.
All of this reminded me of the argument over slavery. That is on the point that northerners who were not directly exposed to slavery were against slavery not for moral reasons but more often because of rascist reasons. This seems to parallel the feelings of many Americans towards the Indians, because many wanted peace and were outraged by the massacres that were taking place, but these Americans were not directly affected by the lives of the Indians. Peace was wanted but little was actually done to positively ensure, so it appears as though those racsist feelings that existed towards slavery might have existed towards Indians?

Edited by author 10-22-2007 10:31 PM
In Calloway's description of life in a reservation, he claims that Indians were put in agent positions so that the others would associate their mistreatment with the agants rather than the real non-Indian authorities, which struck me as very similar to the system on Southern plantations in which the overseer, instead of the master, directlty enforced his harshness over the slaves so the master wouldn't be viewed as negatively and also so he wouldn't have to do the dirty work himself. In both cases, it seems that delegating one of the oppressed's own to directly keep them in line became a way to lessen the toll of mistreating them had on the whites' consciences.

When I was reviewing the Guarneri text pgs. 142-145, I was reminded of the theory of American exceptionalism, and how the American frontier is thought of as the prime example of expansion, nation-building and the foundation of democracy. However, that isn't completley true, and this is illustrated by the examples given by Guarneri in his text. South Africa, Argentina and Australia, among others, all had frontier situations that were equally as bold, and equally as important.

Schools:
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/show/schools.htm

American Narratives:
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/sho...ricanNarratives.htm

Age of Revolutions:
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst11/show/wcc.htm

1820-1845 Comparative Chronology
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/sho...mationchron2045.htm

Civil War Overview
http://history.furman.edu/benson/hst21/show/civwar.htm

Can anyone clarify why there was the Arminian/Whig and Calvinist/Catholic/Democrat distinction?

Just a reminder that I will answer study questions here that are posed on the board or that are sent to me via e-mail.

yes, i would love a study session. sunday night anyone??

ummm....yea. does anyone want to have a "collaboration of the minds" (aka study session) before the midterm?

After reading Lindsay’s post, I have to agree with her opinions on the view that has been taken on the role of women in the 1800s. While women had little control outside of the home, they were given incredible power within their own four walls. Raising and schooling children was a full time job in itself. However, they took on the job of running the household while their husbands worked long hours. In our class discussion, we touched on the how the changes in the market brought about the changes in the household. I agree with Lindsay that it could be argued that it was the women’s influence on the households impacted the market system. It seems to me that women had an underlying power the whole time and just were not given any credit for their influence. During this time of constant change, women were also the ones who helped redefine religious behavior. I feel that this was an incredibly important contribution. The change in moral and religious behavior is what uplifted America in times of despair and kept families together.
I promise that I am not a women right’s activist or anything along those lines, but I did find Lindsay’s comments extremely important. Why were women expected to give so much within their role but condemned when they tried to use their authority towards anything other making for dinner? Women’s struggle to be acknowledge for all they did was definitely a tough one.
I found a quote from The Household, written in 1884, which I thought was incredibly interesting since it’s entire purpose elevate the role and status of women at the time: "...some one said that woman’s best work is that which is unseen by mortal eye...that this work is the steady uplifting and upholding of a higher standard of living; it is the reaching forward and upward, both for ourselves and others, towards a loftier life... Yes, it is hard. But, sisters, it is work that belongs to us. It is work that, if not done by us, will never be done at all. For man cannot do it - as far as the family is concerned...For as a rule, and it is a rule that has few exceptions, woman creates the atmosphere of the home."

Edited by author 10-12-2007 01:31 AM
I think that this discussion about the integrity of African culture in America is extremely interesting. The one thing that everyone can agree on is that while there may be some vestiges of African culture left in American society, there are no traditions that have remained pure and completely untouched. I have to agree with Josh that molasses and cornbread do symbolize the oppression of the slaves by the masters. Of course there is cornmeal in Africa and, at least in Kenya and South Africa, people do make a cornmeal mixture similar to grits but this similarity does not directly imply that African culture has survived to this day. And responding to Jessica’s comment that: “(They say the Chinese food in America is nothing like the Chinese food in China. Is it any less Chinese food? It certainly didn't come out of nowhere)”, I would say it is not Chinese food. Once something has been added to or altered in any way its difference must be acknowledged. Think about it, if everyone thought that the Chinese food we eat in America was authentic then we would live in a warped bubble where our reality is all that matters. We have to be intelligent and truthful about our actual situation. I think this principle applies to the effects of slavery on what was originally an African group. Yes, there are elements of African culture in the African American society but we would be wrong and living in a false world to claim that this is in any way ‘African.’ But please don’t get me wrong. I agree with Jessica and I don’t think that there is anything wrong with keeping “history alive.” If we remember our history and preserve it we will have something to look back on and guide us for the future.

After those two cents, I wanted to say that I found the class lecture about the correlation between modernity and the fervency of religious activity in American in the 1800s very interesting. It was fascinating to think about the fact that factories took men out of the home, leaving women in charge, meaning women were given more authority. Marketing in the U.S. was affected by the fact that women had to buying power and then women directed the religious movements because they were distressed by the effect of the workplace on their husbands. But I do have to say that this explanation seems a little too simplistic. I believe that women could influence the market economy but I’m not sure that we have looked at the different obstacles women had to face. The process seemed to instantaneous. I understand this is not a class concerning the history of women in America but I would value even the shortest of sentences, dealing with fact that women were expected to be schoolteachers or mothers and nothing else. Were there women who saw the expansion of the market economy as a good thing?

While reading about the Colfax massacre, the images that involuntarily came to my mind were scenes from the movie “Hotel Rwanda.” Depictions of the Rwandan Genocide are the only things I have seen (or can at least think of right now) that showed the mass murder of innocent, unarmed people. I thought it was fascinating that, when trying to picture an event that occurred over a hundred years ago, what came to mind was something that happened a little over ten years ago. All these atrocities that occurred during the Civil War era seem like such a distant past to us. It feels like humanity has come so far from that. But actually those horrors are still happening, and on a larger scale. I thought the similarities between the Wikipedia descriptions of the Colfax massacre and the Rwandan Genocide were intriguing:

Colfax massacre--1873:
The blacks were massacred. Unarmed men trying to hide in the courthouse were butchered. Those who attempted to flee were hunted down and killed. Some bodies were hidden or dumped into the Red River; many of the recovered bodies had been mutilated. About fifty blacks survived the afternoon's killing and were taken prisoner. The prisoners were told they were going to be taken to a local jail, but they were murdered later that night.
Rwandan Genocide--1994:
Most of the victims were killed in their villages or in towns, often by their neighbors and fellow villagers. The militia members mostly killed their victims by chopping them up with machetes, although some army units used rifles. The victims were often hiding in churches and school buildings, where Hutu extremist gangs massacred them…People who tried to escape were hacked down with machetes or shot.

It's always interesting when you make a personal contact with history. I worked in the North Carolina General Assembly this summer and heard unending amounts of talk about Representative Thomas Wright's financial scandal and his involvement with the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission. During the countless times I went through the budget, fulflling my paltry duties as an intern, I came across the monetary allocations for the commission. I didn't think much of it at the time, but it's pretty cool that now we are (kind of) studying it--or rather, the object of its assessments--in one of my classes. Whether or not Rep. Wright committed fraud--I'm pretty sure he did--I believe that the Wilmington Race Riot Commission represents a valuable enterprise--studying and recording information about North Carolina's interesting, and in some ways downright shameful, racial legacy.
As it has always been explained to me, North Carolina's racial history is relatively unique among other southern states. As is mentioned in the wikipedia article about the 1898 Race Riots, North Carolina's African American population was initially--directly following the end of the Civil War-- afforded a relatively large amount of freedom and managed to thrive somewhat unhindered by large scale racial prejudice. However, after the early days of reconstruction, racial tensions began to heat up, and white democrats began to take control, abrogating the rights of blacks through the passage of Jim Crow legislation.
I know that my home county of Mecklenburg suffered under a long period of intense racial segregation from the end of the 1800s and into the first half of the 1900s. In fact, the Mecklenburg county school system was one of the last school systems in the country to begin forced integration. This is another area where history has personally affected me, as my grandfather served on the school board during this time.
As to the Elkins thesis and Jessica's assertions that slavery did not cause a loss of African-American culture, I tend to agree with Jessica, though I'm certainly not an expert. I've heard so many stories of African Americans passing down their histiries through word of mouth from generation to generation. If anything was lost of African Americans' old tribal identities, the culture that was created out of the unity of slaves against the oppressions of their masters was enough to make up for it.

The secession timing chart was extremely interesting. The first thing I noticed was that the Lower South's population was almost a 1:1 ratio of slaves to free men. That could go back to the hegemony between slave and slave owners--slaves definitely had the numbers in the lower south to overthrow the white men, and some of the free men could have been slaves that were granted their freedom.

There is an obvious correlation between the slave practice, the geography, and the order of secession. The agrarian Democrats were greatest in the Lower South. Also, the deep south (as opposed to the mid south) as a whole was the first area to secede, mostly because of significant percentages such as the number of families owning slaves. I wonder why Texas broke free before Virginia did? Not only did Virginia have higher slave-owning rates and lower free men percentages, but also they had a greater combined percentage of Democratic votes in the election of 1860. Perhaps Virginia's proximity to the Union states made it a hesitant state to secede, considering the Union's action.

In response to Joshua:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah
"Gullah storytelling, foodways, music, folk beliefs, crafts, farming and fishing traditions, etc. all exhibit strong influences from African cultures." It was a "creolization" process but most of their words were undeniably African. And of course you could not expect slaves to keep their native tongue when white planters purposefully split up slaves from different tribes to keep insurrections and mutinies down. Africa is a continent with six different languages so not everybody spoke the same language. They took the most common language, Yoruba, and derived from that a language, Gullah, interspersing English and African words. Side note: whites spoke Gullah too as a means of communication with slaves. More often then not, whites had no idea what they were talking about. I know what Gullah is and I never once mentioned that Gullah was an african language. And to say "no one spoke african languages" is wrong because the first wave of slaves spoke nothing but african languages. naturally as the centuries progressed, slaves began to speak english because they couldn't always communicate with eachother. Gullah wasn't a cop out.
The fact that slaves were able to transplant the knowledge they had of growing rice from Africa to America was very beneficial to white planters in south carolina. so beneficial in fact, that blacks began to be the primary targets of slave labor. only blacks knew the complexities of rice culture. that was an african crop. It is a fact that slave cooks maintained West African cuisine. That same west african cuisine is still eaten today in like what i said earlier. Of course the food is going to be changed a little bit today. Presently, we have new found evidence that suggest that high cholesterol, starch heavy foods probably isn't the best thing for our bodies, so it has changed somewhat. I don't think that is trying to "commemorate the misery of the people," I think that is prefering to eat good. (They say the Chinese food in America is nothing like the chinese food in china. Is it any less chinese food? it certainly didn't come out of nowhere.) There is nothing sad or pitful about keeping history alive. It is done so the people of our generation won't forget where they come from. By the way, they didn't have "poor education," they didn't have any education.

Edited by author 10-10-2007 10:52 AM
The notion that the South seceded from the Union merely over slavery is a common misconception. In reading over the secession documents, I found it particularly interesting that many states that are commonly associated with "Dixie" voted against secession like Tennessee. It is unfair for history to point fingers at the South for being upset over abolition because of the South's dependence upon the "peculiar institution". States that had less of an agrarian economy of course were more understanding of abolition because it did not necessarily have an impact on their way of life hence the reason that the lower states were more in favor.

The Northern states were also in direct violation of the constitution which gave the South every right to secede. Northern states were creating laws protecting the rights of runaway slaves which were in contrast with the constitution that they swore to uphold. If the constitution had been created without certain laws that it put forth, “the compact would have never been made”. If these states could just pick in choose which tenants of the constitution they wanted to uphold, the South had no reason to attempt to stay united. With the election of Lincoln, a strong favoror of abolition, the South had no other choice but to secede in an effort to protect their interests.

The southern states were completely justified in their secession from the Union. Their constitutional rights were being violated and they were being ruled by a government that did not represent their interests. Their actions and language in their declarations of secession show the utmost patriotic zeal and commitment to the ideals of the founding. Their single error was that they did not understand slavery to be wrong as we do today. It is frightening to me that the framework we have to work through is completely limited by our own ignorance of right and wrong. Must we rely on those in authority to tell us what are and are not our "inalienable rights". In a time of moral debate over homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, ect., will ignorance again be justified with patriotic zeal? How is a nation to stand when wrought with so much moral debate? Everyone's rights can be protected if they are the same, but what if they are different?

To clarify, my post is in response to Jessica's. :)

I am no expert on Elkins’s theory, but I think it’s too interesting and complex to dismiss without any reservations. You say, “African American culture HAS survived and HAS been preserved despite America's unconscious resolve to destroy Africans' past and culture.” I don’t think Elkins was referring to American culture at all; I think he was referring to African culture as the one that became obsolete. If you look at the way slavery transplanted and reshaped Africans, you must concede that he is correct on some points. For instance, no one spoke African languages. Gullah, while a unique dialect, is certainly not an African language. It is a Creole derivative that has retained African “loanwords” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah. In spite of coming over in large groups, they were unable to retain something as fundamental as their original language. Because of their poor education, they were compelled to adopt substandard European dialects and supplement them with African words.
  
A few sentences later, you argue that African culture is found in “the rich carvings that display slavery scenes of the past and of beautiful black faces” Does not the very fact that blacks 150 years after the end of slavery still choose to commemorate the misery of slavery in their artwork indicate that they have lost a sense their former history?

Furthermore, you argue that that culinary tradition of present people of African descent indicates that their culture is preserved. You cite your grandmother’s cooking of “cabbage, cornbread, chitterlings, turkey neck, molasses, [and] sweet bread” as evidence of this preserved heritage. I don’t want to come across as offensive, but it seems that these are the very things that fueled the slave industry. On page 7 of Mr. Womble’s description of slave life, he states that all slaves were given three pounds of fat meat (pork rinds), a peck of meal (presumably cornmeal because wheat was not grown in the south), and a quart of molasses. Molasses only adds to the irony of the situation because that is what was traded in the Carribean for cheap rum used to buy the slaves from African slave traders.
 I have a friend who came to the US directly from Africa (as an interesting side note, her brother plays football for the Greenbay Packers) and she told me that all of the food her mother fixes would make me sick. Apparently the authentic African food her family eats is entirely distinct from the meals we eat in the states.
 The second part of the Sambo Theory is that people begin to assume the stereotypes. Mr. Womble is only another case in point. He reminisces about drilling holes in meal barrels to get extra meal, swiping biscuits off of his master’s plate, and robbing piglets from the sty. All of these activities make him sound like a mischievous child who will get into trouble if no one keeps a close watch upon him.
 I respectfully submit to you that your comments only confirm the Concentration Camp Thesis. From what you have stated, it seems that the black American culture lost its roots to Africa and developed a unique culture of its own under adverse circumstances in the United States. This is exemplified linguistically, artistically, and in traditional eating habits.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with Andrew's statement about arguments in the Rochester article being appealing, logical and irrefutable. I found the writer of the article to be just as fearful about the southern states seceding as the southern states were of staying in the Union. The tone is condescending and downright hateful at times (calling the southerners "inveterate traitors," "rebels" and "enemies"). The writer is either showing or attempting to cover up his fear (I have no idea which he is trying to do) of the break up of the Union. I'm not criticizing his goal, but I don't have to approve of his methods.

Instead of focusing his article on the real issue of the particular states seceding, he turns to hypotheticals in which it is easy for him to paint the outcome however he thinks it would happen. Yes, the picture of NJ turning cannons on NYC is frightening, but was it in anyway realistic or plausible? I understand that he is trying to bring home the point that a precendent of secession will affect the Northern states, but it would have been better for him to discuss the economic and political difficulties that would arise with these certain southern states seceding.

Also, the author is trying to force his readers to pick a side; he does not seem to wish that they would examine the nuances of the issues involved. As he says, "There is no middle ground," "We must conquer" and "We cannot even negotiate." I would rate this author on at least the low end of integrative complexity.

All in all, this article was interesting to me, especially as a counter point to the secession declarations. I found it intriguing that both sides invoke the Constitution (another argument for it being a venerated object?) but mostly employ rhetorical techniques closely resembling fear mongering rather than healthly debate.

I'm sorry but I just had to write a response to Elkin's theory that the African American culture was destroyed during slavery. The African American culture HAS survived and HAS been preserved despite America's unconscious resolve to destroy Africans' past and culture. It survives through their memories and passed down through generations after generations. You can't go to the lowcountry without communicating with someone who still talks in Gullah. The rich accents of the Gullah language has still remained despite the forcing of the English lexicon on black slaves. What is Gullah? A complex mix of Yoruba and English. My roommates are from Beaufort, SC and I can't understand half of what they say sometimes. That's not all you can find in the low countre'. You can find the sweet grass baskets that can be woven right before your eyes. Also the rich carvings that display slavery scenes of the past and of beautiful black faces. In addition indigo dying is still being used today to dye clothes, which was a pastime found primarily in the Carribeans, but still persists today as a lot of Africans did this back at home. What about soul food? Walk through my apartment again and you might catch my roommates cooking turle soup or other lowcountry recipes that have been passed down through the generations. If you still don't believe that the food of slaves is still around then I invite you to come with me to my grandmother's house for Thanksgiving. You will find an array of cabbage, cornbread, chitterlings, turkey neck, molasses, sweetbread, etc; recipes that have been passed down for centuries. In addition, when slaves were stripped of everything they still relied on the power of memory. Storytelling, folklore, and the telling of african proverbs was a common hobby after working in the fields, which entertained the old as well as the young. Stories of Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and the such still persist today and you could probably even find them in Furman's library. What about the call and response nature of African American gospel singing? What about the power of drums used in Africa for communication and rituals. Like Dave Chapelle said, get a group of black people together and start beating on some drumbs and their going to start moving. And I don't even want to get started on the bull that Elkins spills about blacks internalizing their oppression. H*** yeah they internalized it and used it against their masters and those who oppressed them. Poisoning, stealing, fights with overseers, run aways, secret abolitionist crusades, the 155 slave ship mutinies, suicides, religious revival, and learning were just a few of the ways slaves fought against their oppressors; they might not have been as glaring as the notorious Nat Turner's revolt, Vessey's plot, or Prosser's revolt, but they were surely the foundations for them.

I found these Declarations of Secession to be incredibly interesting.

One element that most all of these Declarations shared was how they viewed themselves (the slave-holding states) to be the heirs of the founding fathers. When regarding the issue of secession, the Mississippi Declaration states that “For far less a cause than this, our fathers separated from the Union (with Britain).” They also believed that the “Black Republicans” were subverting the Constitution and that when they took office in March of 1861 they would completely obliterate all pretenses of reserved rights to the states. In this sense, according to the Alabama Secession Resolution and Speeches, by dissolving from an abusive federal government, the slave-holding states were in fact loyal to the Constitution and the founding fathers. Even the rhetoric of these Declarations emulated the American Declaration of Independence. They stated their grievances and reasons for secession and also invoked the blessing of the “Supreme Judge of the Universe,” much like Jefferson’s document.

Something else I found interesting was the element of panic had seemed to grip these specific states and how they truly believed Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to conquer and subjugate them. The four Declarations we looked at also happened to be four of the first five states to secede and perhaps because of this fact there is a note of urgency amongst the articles to secede before Lincoln is inaugurated. According to the documents, once Lincoln is sworn in and the Republicans have a majority both houses of Congress, the federal government will have become the enemy and the slave-holding states will “no longer have the power of self-governance, or self-protection.” It was also funny to see how Mississippi believed that the “press” of the Northern states had vilified them and confused slavery as a moral issue. But the most interesting part of that declaration was when it states a “blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

After a first glance at the title Why We Must Fight and Why We Must “Conquer the South” I thought that it was no small surprise that Southerners believed the North was out to get them. But the arguments contained in it against the “right of secession” were so appealing, logical and irrefutable that the South’s defenses about being the heirs to the founders and being bullied were immediately deflated. The example of New Jersey seceding and pointing canons in New York harbor was all the argument the article needed.

Today in class, Dr. Benson touched on the separation of work and leisure as we discussed Sellers' argument that the economy drives politics, religion, etc., and it reminded me of one my previous posts regarding genuine human fulfillment and it's relation to monetary wealth.

In that post, I asked why we are so focused on economic flourishing rather than personal flourishing. Now, I ask I whether the separation of work and leisure might be a huge part of that divergence.

Forgive me for excessively quoting Ignacio Ellacuria, but I think what he says is really perfect for this issue. He writes: “Work and leisure should not be opposed. Whether or not work produces value and ends up being embodied in commodities and capital, it is primarily a personal and social need of human beings for their personal development and psychological balance…to live a life freed of needs and free to realize their particular life-projects.”

How interesting! It seems that as work and leisure split, work simply became a means of livelihood and not at all a means of personal fulfillment. As an era of consumer goods and credit facilities arose, people worked harder to enjoy new conveniences. Accordingly, the harder one worked, the further one drifted from self-understanding and personal flourishing. Perhaps?

Additionally, it appears an attempt to unite work and leisure almost inevitably yields a smaller monetary reward. For example, the banker typically makes more money than the poet. (Certainly there are exceptions, but try to see what I'm saying, here). As history progresses, those who work more time and willingly sacrifice some element of personal satisfaction in their labor generally become wealthier than those who refuse to set aside their personal interest and/or talent. Maybe it's just me, but this looks a lot like the beginning of "the gap". (It also looks a lot like an explanation for why there are so many extremely rich, previously tye-dye wearing, tree-hugging, peace loving 50 year olds who hate their jobs.)

Understandably, most accounts of history seem to look favorably upon changes that pulled production out of the household and/or allowed work to be carried out more efficiently. And yet, it appears those advancements might also be responsible for creating a situation exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended for United States citizens. Is it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or is it life, liberty and the pursuit of affluence?

A lot of persons have made the comment that the slaves were treated like chattle (animals) and I agree. It's really interesting to me how the rhetoric of the constituion never uses the word slavery or blacks. It uses words like "others". In fact with the 3/5 compromise, it counts blacks as 3/5 of a person. Is 3/5 of a human, still a human?

Mr. Womble was seperated from his mother at an early age because she was "unruly" and caused the other slaves to become unruly as well. The death of owners did not have any impact on Womble emotionally, but it meant uncertainty in whether or not he would be treated better or worse by the next owner. For instance, Mr. Ripley died but then his next master was even more cruel. There were many instances of punishment and cruelty on by the master or overseers. Womble was drowned, beat, made to run behind a wagon with a noose around his neck, and there were several instances where others had their fingers cut off for trying to read and beaten in order to remain order. One way they used deception to resist the extremity of their situation was by putting sand on top of their cotton so that their cotton sacks would weigh more and they would not have to pick as much. Religion was also a coping mechanism for slaves. Womble reported that many of the slaves conducted private religous services and pointed their heads toward the ground so that they wouldn't make any noise for fear of being caught. A lot of times Christianity was used to underscore obedience. The pastor would tell the slaves to be obedient and not steal food or animals so that they wouldn't get beat and so that they would be saved and go to heaven. Some slaveholders allowed their slaves to marry slaves from other plantations, but they only did that so that the slaves could produce healthy, strong children. There are very strong and important political connotations for slaves that chose to run away. If a slave ran away then he was sending a political message that slavery is morally wrong and that act also echoes abolitionist sentiments.

Mr. Womble's account of his experiences as a slave in Georgia confirmed that slaves were treated like animals. The descriptions of the actual day to day life of a slave horrified me. Also, the fact that Mr. Womble was forced to come back and work on the plantation after the Union army "freed" his peers is incredibly unjust, although it probably happened more than we know. It was interesting reading this account, and I believe it shed light on experiences that aren't as widely acknowledged, but need to be known about.

In response to Mary Leah's observation on the extent to which the slaves were treated as animals, it seems to me that this treatment served not only to subjugate the slaves but also to dehumanize them and desensitize the whites to regarding them as animals. If the whites have always regarded them with the worth of an animal and give them many of the same conditions, it makes it easier to punish and mistreat them as animals. In a way, it could ease the whites' consciences.

One thing that struck me as I read Mr. Womble's account was how much the slaves were treated like animals. "The younger children were fed from a trough...There were times when the masters dogs and all the pigs that ran round the yard came to the trough to share these meals." "Sometimes when the male slaves on a plantation were large and healthy looking, and the women slaves on a nearby plantation looked like they might be good breeders, the two owners agreed to let the man belonging to one to visit the women belonging to the other, in fact they encouraged this sort of thing in hopes that they would produce big healthy children." It seems like they were fed and bred like farm animals.

Mr. Womble was separated from his mother when he was "quite young." She was sold to a New Orleans plantation owner, but Mr. Womble remained in Georgia, working for Mr. Ridley. When his owner died, Womble was required to serve another master. In this case, it was Mrs. Ridley's brother. There were at least five specific instances of violence spoken about by Womble. These included beatings and attempted drownings. The slaves often ran out of food during the week. Sometimes, they would steal from their masters, but obviously this incurred strict penalties. Stealing from neighboring plantations was surprisingly encouraged by Womble's owner. Slaves were allowed to listen in on the church services but even in this "kind" allowance, the masters' authority was asserted. Towards the end of the sermon, preachers would often speak directly to the slaves, warning of the penalties for stealing from the master. Based on Womble's firsthand account, it is strikingly sobering to see the outright cruelties the slaves faced. I thought it odd that Womble's owner allowed his slaves to rob supplies from area plantations, but it evidences the competition which existed amongst southern land holders.

I thought it was interesting that Guaneri said US slavery compared to that in Latin America was extremely harsh. I was wondering if this is because people in the US were more racist than those in Latin America. White people are definitely more different looking from Africans than are Latin Americans. Also, this is probably because the US did not see itself as being completely dependent on the slaves for output. Guaneri said that the "American North developed democratic ideas and capitalist practices to the point where slavery became discredited." He also said that the Southern states and Caribbean islands "defended slavery as the key to social order and economic success." Slaves in Latin America may have been treated better because their owners appreciated them more because they knew their financial success was dependent on them.

In the Guarneri reading for today, the lives of American slaves and Russian serfs are compared and contrasted. Among the differences between the two that Guarneri points out were the freedoms the serfs enjoyed, like their ability to work to support themselves 3 days a week, their ability to call strikes asnd rebellions, and their involvement in the mir, which also made their transition to complete freedom easier. These conditons seemed to me to parallel the experience of the colonists before they gained their independence in that the time they had during Britain's "benign neglect" allowed them to develop similar structures to ease their way into self-governance.

I would like to write my paper about poverty in the southern United States.
Some Questions: How did the civil war contribute to the high poverty levels in the south and what other factors have contributed to it? What percentage of the poor are minorities and why? How has poverty in the south contributed to the development of southern culture and identity?


A Few Possible Sources

The cotton plantation South since the Civil War / Charles S. Aiken Aiken, Charles S. (Charles Shelton), 1938-
 Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998

The roots of Black poverty : the Southern plantation economy after the Civil War / Jay R. Mandle Mandle, Jay R
 Durham, N.C. : Duke University Press, 1978

Carl Vinson Institute of Government Study of Persistent Poverty in the South

Term Paper Topic Proposal

For my research paper this term, I am going to study the impact of the introduction of aviation on warfare. There are many aspects to this question, but I will focus on the time before and during World War I, and what led up to the introduction of aviation and how it changed. I want to know who was flying the planes, and what led them to their decision to do so, since it was a new concept, and how aviation changed warfare. Also, I am going to write a paragraph or two on the impact of the use of gliders during World War I. I am going to investigate the relationship between the upstart of aviation in American and in Europe, and the change in public opinion (if there has been any) since the beginning of aviation and now. This may lead me too far towards the public opinion of General Aviation in a post 9/11 world, but I will see what I can find.


Possible resources:

“The Air Menace and the Answer” by Elvira K. Fradkin (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1934)
“Air Warfare” by Willam C. Sherman
“American Military Aviation: The Indispensable Arm” by Charles J. Gross
 Joseph J. Corn, The Winged Gospel: America's Romance with Aviation

Possible Sources
Appleby, Joyce. Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Lowi, Theodore. The Republican Era. University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Rodgers, Daniel. “Republicanism: the Career of a Concept.” Journal of American History 79 no. 1 (1992):11-38
Shalhope, Robert. “Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography.” The William and Mary Quarterly 29 no. 1 (1972): 49-80
Shalhope, Robert. “Republicanism and Early American Historiography.” William and Mary Quarterly 39 no. 2 (1982): 334-356
Zuckert, Michael. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.


Research Proposal
 From my preliminary investigations, is seems that in the 1950s some historians have begun to interpret the actions of the founders through the framework of what became know as ideological republicanism. Shalhope presents new interpretation as a reaction against the purely economic interpretation of historians such as Beard . Proponents of republicanism believe that the founders were not simply driven by the desire for economic stability and wealth, but were shaped by the classical notions that a fierce devotion to equality and liberty are the best safeguards of civil freedom. Over the next half-century historians explored what it meant to embrace republican ideology and how American Republicanism was related to republican tendencies in Europe, especially England. In my research I will hope to accomplish several objectives. First, I will establish a definition of American republicanism and analyze it with respect to the classical republican ideals described by Plutarch. Second, I will examine American republicanism with respect to the Puritan/Protestant ideals of the right to dissent and the right to liberty; I hope to determine if these religious ideals fostered the development of a republic. Finally, if the limits of the project permit, I would like to determine if republican ideals are still germane to modern American culture, and if not, find the general point at which they were abandoned.

Preliminary Topic Proposal:
How was the Bible Belt formed? How did evangelicals change from being an unpopular minority to a critical part of Southern culture? How did this change help form the Bible Belt as it is today? I am specifically interested in the question: In what ways did the evangelicals adapt to Southern culture in order to gain converts? Time period: 1740s—1860s. I will approach this topic primarily from a social and cultural standpoint. I also would like to look into gender issues of the period: the early evangelicals’ view of women vs. the role of women in Southern society. I would like to study the evangelicals’ view of slavery before their adaptation to Southern culture. I may also look into the role of mysticism in the faith of the evangelicals. I may compare the early evangelicals to evangelicals today. I may also look at the formation of Bible Belts in other countries. A key historiographical debate on this topic may be the question of whether the evangelicals compromised their own morals in assimilating to Southern culture. Some schools of interpretation associated with this topic might be Progressive, Consensus, “New” Histories, or Recent Trends. Many of the books I have found seem to be from the “New” Histories and Recent Trends schools.

Southern Cross : [The Beginnings Of The Bible Belt] by Christine Leigh Heyrman
Southern Evangelicals And The Social Order, 1800-1860 by Anne C. Loveland
Evangelicals and conservatives in the early South, 1740-1861 by Robert M. Calhoon
Black Religion And American Evangelicalism : White Protestants, Plantation Missions, And The Flowering Of Negro Christianity, 1787-1865 by Milton C. Sernett

The question that I plan to research is: How the gambling industry has affected the Native American population in America? I am particularly interested in why the Native American population felt the need to adopt casinos into their way of life, and if this change was met with dissension from members of the tribe who were more rooted in tradition. I also plan to tie in the affects that the law had on the Indians ability to acquire gambling licenses, as well as how past historical events helped or hindered the Indians in their dealings with the government. The time period I plan to investigate is from the late 1970’s up until as recent as possible.

Possible sources.
Pasquaretta, Paul. "On the "Indianness" of Bing: Gambling and the Native American Communitry." Critical Inquiry (1994): 694-714. 5 Oct. 2007.

United States. Congress. Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments Act of 1995 : Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, and the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Resources, United States House of Representatives,. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 1995.

Morrison, Dane. American Indian Studies : an Interdisciplinary Approach to Contemporary Issues. New York: P. Lang, 1997.

My research question is the following: What were the effects of Roosevelt’s New Deal economic policy on the rebound of the American economy—with an emphasis on investment markets and small business ventures in urban environments—during the era immediately following the Depression, and how have the opinions of New Deal economic policy evolved over time—with an emphasis on the diminishing appeal of Keynesian market analysis? I plan to study specifically the time between 1930-45 and literature from the 1930s to present. I’ll be taking a mostly economic approach to my analysis. The primary debate seems to be between those who see Roosevelt’s “control” system as beneficial and those who believe it caused too much instability and therefore prolonged the Depression rather than shortening it.

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis” Journal of Political Economy, volume 112 (2004), pages 779–816

Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly

Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

Gene Smiley, Rethinking the Great Depression

Robert S. Mcelvaine, The Great Depression 1929-1941

My question deals with comparing the propaganda techniques used by the Soviet Union and the United States from 1950-1960. Another question that follows from the first is to see which Superpower was more effective in its propaganda campaign? This is still a slightly vague topic with huge amounts of scope. The 1950s-1960s deals with the beginning of the Cold War. I am mainly interested in the effect that the propaganda techniques used by these opposing governments had on the lives of the everyday people in those countries. I think it would be interesting to investigate how cultures and society was influenced and to see if there are still effects on society from the heritage of propaganda. I have also thought about narrowing down the term ‘propaganda techniques’ to one or two forms of mass communication. I think this might be a little tricky when it comes to considering different historiographical debates. This particular time period was permeated by bias and historians of that time almost always sided with their native country. But there will also be the historians from a slightly later generation who might be able to stand back from their own opinions. I do think that this topic will have many interesting twists and turns when it comes to considering how history is created and who decides what version to tell. Some of the books that I have found so far are: The Soviet Image in Distortion, by: Frederick Barghoorn
        Soviet Foreign Propaganda, by: Frederick Barghoorn
        Total Cold War: Eisenhower’s secret propaganda battle at home and abroad, by: Kenneth Osgood.

I want to research the significance of Robert Kennedy's life--and death--beginning around 1960. I'm interested in why the public loved him so much and what America's reaction to his death implies about the state of America/ the American mindset at the time. I want to look at why he gave people hope (i.e. what was his message) and why his death seems to mark the end of the revolution. What if Kennedy had simply died and hadn't been assassinated? Most importantly, how might America be different had he lived and taken the presidency?

I'm tossing around the idea of looking at other key revolutionaries (particularly Bob Dylan) for further investigation into America's incredible longing for social upheaval and political change, but I haven't decided if it will help or hinder the richness of my thesis.

My main sources right now are Arthur Schlesinger's biography "Robert Kennedy and His Times", another book called "The Last Patrician", and a 3 hour public television documentary called "The Sixties".

 
My research question will be: What are the causes and affects of American
anti-communist/socialist sentiment? This will cover key economic,
political, and social events of primarily the 1900s. It will also focus
on the comparison of international events. It will cover from the
Progressive school of Historiography to Recent Trends noting the
importance of the shifts between trends.

Possible source material will include:
Heffer, Jean, and Jeanine Rovet, eds. Pourquoi n'y a-t-il pas de
socialisme aux Etats-Unis?/Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?
 Paris: Editions EHESS, 1987.

Lipset, Seymour MArtin and Gray Marks. It Didn't Happen Here: Why
Socialism Failed in the United States. New York and London: W. W. Norton,
2000.

My proposed research question is: What political and social effects did the Haitian Revolution have on southern slave owners? The Haitian Revolution lasted from 1791-1804, so I will probably focus on issues between 1790-1810. Some historiographical debates that I will encounter will include: How did the French Revolution affect their view of the war?, Were their views more affected by racism or republicanism? and How did economic ties influence their thinking about the Haitian Revolution? My topic will probably involve writings from the New Left/New Social school of interpretation, as well as from the Progressive school.

Possible sources:
• Brown, Gordon S. Toussaint's Clause: The Founding Fathers and the Haitian Revolution. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2005.
• Matthewson, Tim. “Abraham Bishop, ‘The Rights of Black Men,’ and the American Reaction to the Haitian Revolution.” Journal of Negro History 67, no. 2 (1982): 148-154. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992...2ROB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
• Matthewson, Tim. “Jefferson and the Non-Recognition of Haiti.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 140, no. 1 (1996): 22-48. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-049X...TNOH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

 The research question I am preparing to solve is what impressions did the Native Americans have of the so-called American "cowboys" in the 19th century. The scope of this question will include those Native Americans that were continually forced to move west by the American frontier movement that had its peak throughout the 1800s and the increase of ranches and other American settlements that diminished the size of Native American land to insignificant reservation plots. I obviously plan to include social and cultural historical approaches, but also plan to mention the various politcal tactics by American lawmakers that further dissolved Native lands.I also plan to compare the situations of Native Americans in the U.S. versus native situations in other European colonies, such Latin America, Brazil, and Australia. The schools of thought that are most associated with my topic are the Scientific/Nationalist school that would have lacked in concern of natives, and the "New Histories" school that would have seen that our democratic government was flawed from the start when we excluded Native Americans from any involvement in the democratic process.

I plan to investigate the differences in reactions of Furman University students to military war by comparing and contrasting Pearl Harbor to the attacks on September 11. Through this, I can gain perspective into the broader social issue of how college students react to attacks on American soil. Depending on if I can gain this information or not, I plan to compare this experience at Furman to another southern school, preferably a larger public university, such as the University of Florida. The time period will be from 1941 to 1947 and 2000 to now in order to see the complete contrast. I intend to take a political, social, and comparative historical approach in order to properly investigate this issue. Initially, I think I will find that at both campuses in the 1940’s, students will be shocked and interested in fighting the war. However, I think that over time, these views will change and students will begin to have an issue with the war. I think that in relation to September 11, I will find veneration and sadness on both campuses. In respect to the war in Iraq, I feel that at Florida, seeing as it is a larger school, the students will be opposed to the idea of the war and possibly protest it from the beginning. At Furman, I expect to see an apprehension about starting the war but support for Bush and the troops. In both respects, I expect to see a decline in support of the war in Iraq. I plan to use the databases such as JSTOR and the New York Times Historical to see the larger public opinion on these issues. Also, I plan to use the Furman and Florida newspapers to see the opinions of the students.

Of the three biographies that we were assigned to read for tomorrow, the one that stood out to me was that of Washington Irving. He was the youngest of 11 children, born in 1783. Today in class we discussed this idea of pre-19th century family dynamics. The women were simply to have children, the avergae women having 8 in her lifetime. After 1820, this dynamic changed, in which women began to have less and less children because the man was now working outside the home, making it harder to raise that many children alone. I think it is really important to think of him in this exact historical sense, before the innovative period of railroads and other transportation advances. Also, he was growing up before all of the organized religions wre forming. It is also interesting to think about that in 1815, when this age began, he was about 30. He was at the right age to enjoy all of these advances in technology. What else is interesting to think about in his biography is the fact that he was living in England during his twenties to work for his fathers failing business branch. However, he was in love with writing since he was a kid, writing satirical short stories about New York City. After the company failed, Washington supported himself with his writings, not really buying into the whole business man idea. This is interesting in the fact that he was not interested in the idea of men leaving the home and working jobs that took them away from their familes. He was satisfied living at home and doing his writings. Also interesting to note is that his name is Washington. At the time of his birth, many people were in the mode of veneration for the founders of the country. At this time, George Washington was a hero and many people wanted to name their children after him, perhaps hoping that they too would make such great changes in the future.

 My research question will be: Why was Prohibition thought to be a good idea? Or rather what provoked the temperance movement of the 1920s in America and brought about the 18th Amendment? In order to approach this question I would focus specifically on the 1920s and the 1890s and early 20th century that lead up to Prohibition. I would, however, also include information on the early temperance movements beginning with the formation of the United States. In order to analyze this question I would also have to approach the question from a political, social, ethical, and intellectual perspective. Some of the sources also look at Prohibition from an economic perspective, so this argument could be included into the research. Comparative and international perspectives could be taken into account as some of the sources address the effects of temperance movements in other countries. After reading some of the resources I predict that the key historiographical debates will be over issues concerning the economic effects of Prohibition and temperance as well as the ethical issues that are involved. My hypothesis for that many historians will agree that the main sources of temperance movements will be topics such as urbanization, immigration, and various religious movements.

Jack S. Blocker, Jr., David M. Fahey, and Ian R. Tyrrell, Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History : An International Encyclopedia, (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2003).
Jack S. Blocker, Jr., American Temperance Movements : Cycles of Reform, (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989).
Ernest H. Cherrington, “World- Wide Progress Toward Prohibition Legislation: World Struggle with Liquor,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 109 (September 1923): 208-224.
Salvatore Pablo Lucia, Alcohol and Civilization, (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1963).
J. Elliot Ross, “The Ethics of Prohibition,” International Journal of Ethics, 38( January 1928): 180-190.

I will not be in class tomorrow or in town to post my preliminary research topic proposal so here goes:

How has Hip Hop evolved throughout history and what are its effects on black youth in America today? My topic will include a brief history of Hip Hop in America within the time frame of 1976- 2007. It will also examine the effect hip hop has on minorities. I will approach this topic from a political, social, psychological, gender, and cultural stand point. My topic does not fit nicely in any of the schools of interpretation, but if I had to pick one it would probably be the “New Histories” school. This school is applicable to my topic because it has an emphasis on the ethno cultural conflict rather than a wholly economic conflict.

Key historiographical debates:
What makes hip hop different from jazz, r&b, ragtime, funk, blues, or rock and roll?
What void did/does hip hop fill?
What historical event created a need for hip hop?
Has the role of hip hop changed? And how?
Is hip hop merely music or is it a lifestyle?
Does hip hop negatively affect black youth?
Does hip hop accurately portray black youth?
How does hip hop affect America’s view of black youth?
How much influence does music in general have on youth?
Who is behind the image of hip hop and what does this say about the views of our society?

Possible primary and secondary sources:
Jstor
America: History and Life
African Americans in the U.S. economy / edited by Cecilia Conrad
Black cultural traffic : crossroads in global performance and popular culture / edited by Harry J. Elam, Jr., and Kennell Jackson

Ahh. **Correction -- "I AM talking about both sexes here..."

Reading the preceding discussion on the database has got me thinking of how it might pertain to the biographies of Waldo Emerson and Margaret Fuller that we had to read for tomorrow’s…rather today’s…class.
And I figured out how! In many ways, Miss Baker reminds me of a young Margaret Fuller – a woman deeply convicted of her principles, possessed of an intellectual capacity uncommon to her peers (I’m not talking about both sexes here…) and well-published as well (though, I suppose, only on this database thus far.)
Though all this may very well serve as an aside, I think that the biography of Ms. Fuller, biased though it may very well be, highlights some pretty cool historical happenings in the early to mid 1800s. Because men have written much of history, we often forget that women were just as active – though structural constraints mitigated their influence to a certain extent – in shaping the development of our nation and its predominant intellectual trends as men were. Well-traveled, well-read and also well-published, Ms. Fuller stood as an active and eloquent voice for the cause of women’s equality during this period.

Back to the controversy over America’s being or not being the land of opportunity. I have mixed opinions on the issue. I believe that certain structuralist constraints disallow some people from just “going out and getting what they 'can earn' from the marketplace.” Nevertheless, I believe that the steady influx of immigrant workers over the last couple of centuries should tell us something about at least the international opinion of America as a land of economic opportunity.

This may or may not be a correct assumption on their parts—though our per capita GDP leads me to believe that it is probably somewhat true—but I must also mention that we’ve never really had seriously problem with expatriotism either.

I think it takes someone with a good deal of economic resources to argue that economic resources aren’t “what really matter.” People who are starving do not sit around contemplating the marginal utility gains from food acquisition – essentially, whether or not it will make them happy to eat. Money is a means of acquiring goods. Will a certain amount of goods make one marginally happier than another, lesser amount – I have no clue? But I am sure that a certain amount is necessary for the continuation of life.
Anyway, it’s 3:30. Hope that made some sense. If not, I don’t particularly care.

I think Lindsay's last sentence is an incredibly important issue. She says:

"For only when we see ourselves as a part of the machine, not as an individual element, can we understand how to make this machine run the right way."

To a certain extent, this is a great thought. Indeed, as we pursue democracy and equality and justice, etc., it is absolutely essential that we recognize ourselves as small parts of a much larger unit (whether that be a community, the country, or the world). Without a broad perspective, without recognizing our personal influence on others, the result is a stratification creating separate worlds of the world.

But I think it's also VITAL that we develop as individuals. It is individuals who shape society and that places responsibility on every human being to maximize his/her positive contribution to the whole. If the people who comprise society have not been able to fully develop, humanity, too, will be held back from flourishing.

It seems to me that our self awareness must identify and cultivate personal individuality as well as an individual's relative contribution to the whole. Without the former, we see the rise of dangerously intense nationalism (Nazis); without the latter, we see the rise of dictatorships and authoritarian rule. I think with both, we see what the founders wanted to see.

To Lindsay:
I don't wholly disagree with you, but I can't help but feel some major problems with your argument. All too often I feel that major philosophers are taken out of their era; their shortcomings are glossed over and they themselves are presented as pinnacles of thought. This divination presents a problem: we end up with an image of something that never existed, like the myth of the loving nuclear family. I'm not applying this only to American political philosophy. Each was a product of their time. One of my favorite philosophers is Immanuel Kant, yet he manages to amaze me with stunningly racist statements. All too often these men are deified and it is forgotten that they are merely men and do make mistakes. Rather large ones, in fact.

In terms of the way this applies to Lindsay's statement and our class, I do not mean to vilify the writers of our constitution, but I also do not give them undue credit. Considering that true emancipation for a large portion of our American population did not occur until the 1960's, the founders should be considered at best absent minded or at worst hypocritical.

Regardless, it is true that the spirit in which those documents were written is an ideal we should strive for. I just feel that it is a complete necessity that we remember that these people were not flawless. As to the continuing strength and relevance of the Constitution, I feel that it is equally due to good planning on the founders' parts, to the vagueness of the document, and most importantly to the shifting judicial understandings of constitutionality. The ability to abandon rigidity in favor of shifting interpretations is what, I think, has allowed things to progress in our country.

Unfortunately I agree that we still have an issue with equality on many lines. Race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, religion; all have too much sway in the perceptions and presumptions of American thought.

Edited by author 10-04-2007 12:54 AM
First I would like to comment on the discussion that is going on among our class about ‘America as the land of opportunity.’ As an American who has grown up outside of America I feel like I can see both sides of this argument. Anne is right about our society valuing monetary gain above other forms of fulfillment. Living in Africa I saw families with far less than any of us have; yet money was not what was most important to them. I also know that it is easy to criticize the American government of today, especially when it comes to decisions based on the economy and the war overseas.

But we have to be honest with ourselves. Great things have been accomplished in this country. Our Constitution has stood the test of time and the bill of rights, although annotated and added to, serves as evidence that our Founding Fathers were incredibly brave and intelligent. I think the saddest part about this country is that we have not used our ingenuity and business savvy to help America keep improving. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about throwing money at the homeless as a way to improve America. I’m referring to the ideal of equality that almost everyone has mentioned in their posts. Chris said that our Founding Fathers strived for equality in the Constitution and yet we all know that there is very little equality in our society today. I think there is inequality because Americans have never achieved a ‘public spirit.’ Jefferson and Madison wanted the American public to: “[pursue] their specific interests while remaining conscious of the interests of their peers and of participating in a collectivity of equals” (Jefferson and Madison, p. 74). Clearly this idealistic vision has not come to pass and I think if we citizens of America would become less focused on our faults, on our strengths and on our desires, we could attain this public spirit and therefore, equality. But what human beings can stop thinking of themselves for even one minute? So is this hope that America can get better completely futile? Our best bet is that some politicians will see the benefit in tackling problems as Jefferson and Madison did. While they were not perfect they had vision and a desire to make America something great. Perhaps democracy, which allows each American the freedom to pursue whatever he/she wants, has actually prevented Americans from stepping outside of themselves to achieve equality. For only when we see ourselves as a part of the machine, not as an individual element, can we understand how to make this machine run the right way.

Edited by author 10-03-2007 09:03 PM
I have read through pretty much all of the last 20 entries and would like to respond to discussion of the discrepancy between the thinking of Jefferson and Madison and the reality of today. For those that say America has strayed away from numerous ideologies of the Founding Fathers (social, economic, etc.), I would say you are right.
However, these entries made it seem like we (Americans) chose to stray away from the seemingly flawless ideologies that the Founding Fathers presented to the new America. But in fact, it was not so much that the generations of Americans following our country's beginning decided not to believe in the just and logical thinkings of Jefferson and Madison; instead it is basically in our nature as a whole to unconsciously reject perfect social, economic, and political equality. I can go back to the very beginning of Guarneri's book to allude to this where he discusses the ideological differences between Europeans and Native Americans: "the ambitious, expansionist impulse of European society, so different from the inward, communal concentration of most Native American peoples, suggests why Europeans reached the New World and Indians did not cross the Atlantic" (Guarneri 37). This ambitious mentality of Europeans easily allows for a large discrepancy between the rich and the poor because such a competitive atmosphere will naturally allow for great success of the few fortunate citizens while the large majority will never experience such social, economic, and/or political success. And unless I'm mistaken, all of this relates back to Americans because America was founded and is largely populated by those of direct European descent.
So basically, my point is that it is in our nature to form a flawed government that fails to have perfect forms of equality, especially in terms of social and economic standings. So when the "mythology" of the ideals of those like Jefferson and Madison seems too good to be true, its because it is, thanks to the natural human depredation of such utopian wishes. But, the thing that all Americans should be proud of is the fact that our Founding Fathers created a country that strove for all of its citizens to be equal under the law. Along those lines, America has also at least TRIED harder than just about any other country to provide social and economic equality. And, from a global perspective, no other country has offered as close to a promise of perfect equality as America has.

I think I'll preface this post assuring you, once again, that I do not hate America. That being said, here we go:

Bynum writes: "Everyone has the ability to rise up and become wealthy in our system of capitalism."

To begin with, that statement is just demonstrably false and one I always enjoy countering. But for the sake of time and interest I'm not going to. Maybe we'll discuss that in class some day!(Dr. Benson...?) What's more important, in my mind, is the value placed on acquiring wealth. I would love to know when economic status became so central to our measure of "success." Why doesn't the statement read: "Everyone has the ability to rise up and achieve genuine human fulfillment"?

Human fulfillment in capitalism is something I've spent a number of hours reading about/discussing/writing about over the past year or two. Seeing as this is simply a discussion board post, I won't get into it very far. Basically, the way I see it, people direct their lives toward monetary wealth and as a result often neglect to pursue a career/life which fosters unique intellectual creativity and, accordingly, human fulfillment.

Philosopher Ignacio Ellacuria lambastes capitalism for its triumph in “the conspicuous dehumanization of those who, pressured by the nervous and harassed productivism of having or amassing wealth, power, honor, and the ever-changing gamut of consumer goods, opt to give up the difficult task of gradually achieving their own being.” In other words, the pursuit of monetary, material wealth distracts the individual from his/her personal, creative wealth, which arises from a strong sense of one’s identity and the contribution that identity provides to humanity.

Maybe the actual money part of unequal wealth distribution isn't the most disconcerting element. Instead, maybe it's something like unequal wealth distribution's inherent infringement upon one's freedom/ability to pursue his/her "life calling", if you will.

Maybe further investigation into this automatic and overwhelming focus on/concern for economic status would lead to an answer for my last question: how have we strayed so far from what the founders wanted?

(I hope this post makes sense. I am quite ill and my mind is roaming. If I need to clarify something, let me know.)

Matt Hayes addressed the question of how Jefferson and Madison would feel about the current state of the nation. I am inclined to agree with Banning in saying that they would be concerned, at the very least.
Reading Jefferson and Madison, I couldn’t help but be struck by the difference between how they envisioned the republic and how it functions today, especially the matter of “public spirit.”
Madison emphasized that “informed, continuous participation by the people was the ultimate security for every free regime” (70). Like Matt pointed out, our voter turnout proves that we are not living up to that ideal.
Also political parties are only concerned with getting the majority, however slight it may be. But Banning states that “For Madison and Jefferson alike, the first great principle of a republic was that the majority must rule. For both, however, this essential axiom had always to be qualified by two reminders…that on certain fundamental issues or on truly critical occasions, bare majorities are insufficient. In modern legislative bodies, legislative leaders commonly assume that their objective is to forge a bare majority and keep this fragile coalition together long enough for a decision” (81).
Furthermore, according to Banning, Jefferson and Madison believed that the public and politicians should make decisions according to their own interests but keeping in mind what would be best for the republic. “Equity results from a procedure in which each asserts her interest, but does so in the knowledge that the other’s interest and the other’s power have to be considered” (Banning 74). However, politicians today are all about reelection and getting legislation passed that benefit their constituents only.
I also noticed a stark contrast between Jefferson and Madison’s cooperation and exchange of ideas and the politicians today who are unwilling to even work together. I was reading an article in the New York Times the other day about how the Congressional conference committees, where Senate and House members once met to sort out differences of opinions on bills, are meeting less and less to discuss bills. Instead the Senate and House each prepare different bills and “ping-pong” their proposals back and forth until both sides have what they want, without any real dialogue between the two. This is such a different process than we see in the discussions between Jefferson and Madison. As is seen in Banning’s book, the dialogue between Jefferson and Madison played a major part in the forming of the Constitution, which I think, for the most part, people would agree was a success. If our process of creating laws today is so unlike Jefferson and Madison’s process of dicussing and wrestling through disagreements, how effective or successful is legislation that is being passed today?

I am definitely on the same page with Andrew in that I am astonished that the US has survived to this day, mostly thanks to world events that the US had no control over and that went our way. I am also bewildered by how our nation has survived its own internal conflicts such as the civil war to the civil rights movement. I also has always view our two party system as an internal conflict of the US but Guarneri cites it on both page 124 as absorbing "almost every shade of political opinion into an orderly democratic process" and on page 130 as just as beneficial as our constitutional innovations and our national identity. Isn't it odd that we value so heavily the ideas of the founding fathers but on this topic just ignore what they believed. It seems as if we just pick and choose from the founders beliefs, also see Anne's post for another example of our divergence from these founding principles. Are we forming more sophisticated ideas through our experience or just allowing ourselves to go off track?

Guarneri's section on "Constructing National Identity" (pp 128-9) gave me a new perspective on our identity as Americans. Nationalist identities were being created in Europe as well as America in the nineteenth century. I had never really thought about the fact that America had a blank slate when creating national identity, especially compared to European nations. Now, we did erase a lot of that slate for ourselves by ignoring the Native American history in the colonies and on the continent. As Guarneri said, we had new materials to work with, whereas Europe had centuries of identity to sift through and mold and change to fit to the national identities it wanted to create. I also liked the idea of the Revolutionary War being a "national mythology." When you think about it, that part of American history is often taught with a lot of respect and a little awe, and usually not too much questioning of historicity. George Washington is our Aeneas, Cornwallis was our Paris (okay, I know I'm mixing epic poems here). Like Dr. Benson said, we have enshrined our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This mythology taught us to look toward the future. If we could defeat the British and secure our republic, who knows what else we could accomplish? I think this mythology is still powerful today. Because we ignore or are ignorant of the unique circumstances that allowed us to survive as a republic, we think that it is our uniqueness as a people that made us who we are today. Like the text said, we wonder why other countries can't sustain a republic. We don't realize that they have hundreds, perhaps thousands, more years of history to deal with than we did. I think it would be good for all of us to consider whether our system of government is the ideal form for developing countries to emulate.

I have been reading over the discussion board debate for the last twenty minutes, and two particular previous comments stuck out to me. The first being when Andrew stated that he often wondered why new nation-states do not look to America's model of representational government as a basis in starting their own forms of government. I think that this is fairly easy question to answer. To have a representational government in a newly formed state, there must be moral and virtuous officials enforcing policy who seek government improvement over self-improvement. These newly formed states are often weak in their initial stages which allows for powerful authoritarians, or corrupt officials to take advantage of a situation for their own benefit. It takes an incredibly disciplined and willing society, who is not easily influenced, to implement such a system. The other comment that jumped out at me was when Anne argued that America was a doing a less than par job at upholding Madison's belief that "sound republics have to rest upon a relative equality of wealth." I do believe that our society up holds this tenet in that while there is a large gap in rich in the poor, everyone has the ability to rise up and become wealthy in our system of capitalism. Also, other measures have been put been in place like a progressive taxation system which demands that the upper tax bracket pay majority of the taxes in an effort not to hold the less fortunate people down. So when applying Madison's belief to society today, I think that while America may not be a perfect republic that fits Madison's model, we have developed a successful republic with our own capitalist influences.

I am always interested in discussions of inequality; last term I read some of Plutarch’s Lives which discussed the roll of equality in a republic. In the most stable of the ancient republics, Sparta, economic equality was rigidly enforced to ensure that no one would serve the republic simply to increase his possessions. This does not mean that everyone was treated the same way by the public; those who distinguished themselves were publicly honors by parades and the attentions of the women. Those who proved themselves cowardly were publicly shamed and rejected by the women. This inequality of honor and female attention was the backbone of the republic.
     Banning says that Jefferson and Madison didn’t want a republic that fostered the Spartan ideals of virtue in which one never saw himself apart from his relationship to the state. Virtue, in the framers minds, was the ability to reach a consensus not just a majority. If the people can compromise to reach a common decision on leaders and policies, then they will be the type of citizen that can maintain the republic. Being Lockeans, I doubt that they associated economic status with the word equality. Rather, they desired that all men be equal before the law, able to openly state their opinions without the hand of the government cracking down upon him. I think the founders wanted to create a country where people could become wealthy without being members of an ancient aristocracy. They would be more horrified by the rule of pure majorities than by the ability of some men to successfully apply their talents and become wealthy.

I thought it particularly interesting when Guarneri discusses why America was so successful in becoming a viable republic compared to other countries in a post-revolutionary period. Guarneri focuses on Washington as one of the main reasons that our country did not resort to a dictatorship. Guarneri states that usually in a post-revolutionary stage, a dictatorship most likely forms due to the ambitions of charismatic leaders (Guarneri 120). However, in the case of Washington, he stressed the importance of representative government and not allowing the army to be involved with politics. In a sense, Washington was disciplined due to the fact that he did not choose to serve more than two terms and he successfully transferred power to a successor. The impact of Washington is most definitely evident today due to our obvious success in sustaining a representative government.

Edited by author 10-02-2007 01:35 AM
Wow. There is quite a bit of material on the discussion board to “riff” on here... Unfortunately, I don’t know many facts about wealth disparities in this country and know even less of parading giants, so I will turn to the reading assigned for this evening.

I thought one of the more interesting things from the reading tonight was when Guarneri answers why the United States survived as a republic when so many before it had failed by resorting to authoritarian rule and chaos. The idea that the colonies had “enjoyed a 150-year apprenticeship in self rule” that other newly formed representative governments did not have is an interesting concept. (Guarneri 119) Typically, I have always viewed the benign neglect the colonies received from Britain as one of their reasons for being frustrated about the new tax policies implemented in America and not preparation for self-rule.

To me, this shows how unique the American experience was. When we look at some of the nation-building going on in our own time, I sometimes wonder why people have a hard time adopting to a representative government such as ours. Guarneri really put into perspective how the stars aligned for this country and it is nothing short of a miracle that the Constitution these guys drafted in 1787 is still “the supreme law of the land” today.

good call, Anne.....good call

Edited by author 10-01-2007 11:17 PM
I think that Madison is defined as a very virtuous and honest person in Banning's writings. According to both Jefferson and Madison, the representatives in government should not only take into account the opinions of their constituents, but also the opinions of the people surrounding their constituents and how it will affect them. Both TJ and Madison agree that representation should resemble the majority decision, and that in order for a republic to be established, the minority have to show submission to the majority decision (without coercion). Despite Madison's belief against the Bill of Rights, he does not use his power to gain his own means; instead, Madison sticks to his core majority-rules belief and helps write the first Bill of Rights. At the time, many speculated that this role resembled Madison just trying to use strategy and appease the Anti-Federalists who wanted a Bill of Rights. However, Banning concludes that Madison believed that the majority of the citizens of the United States declared a need for a Bill of Rights, so despite what he thought, the majority ruled out and deserved the Bill.

Since I wasn't in class today thanks to food poisoning from a tainted package of paladen sushi, I'll give a few thoughts on Banning's "Three Conversations." I’m having trouble putting my thoughts together because I’m on medication, so bear with me please.

The book was a little bit hard to start and was set up in an unusual manner, with all of the documents at the end. Obviously, this is because Banning originally intended the information in "Three Conversations" to be used in a lecture format.
I found it really helpful to read the comments in the back of the book about the documents for each chapter before reading the actual chapters themselves. The comments about the documents provide the reader with a perspective about the history of the period surrounding the writings of Jefferson and Madison in each section of the book. For example, the comments about the documents for chapter one (pg. 125-127) let the reader know the history of Jefferson and Madison's relationship (where they met, how and why they became friends, the events that influenced their writings, etc.) With this perspective, the reader is able to understand Jefferson and Madison's discussion/argument/conversation about "Parchment Barriers and Fundamental Rights" in a far better way.
Ok, that aside, one of the most interesting things that I took away from the book was how blindly the founders proceeded forward with the American experiment of democracy. It was amazing to hear them argue over the importance of having a Bill of Rights in the Constitution -- something that all of us take for granted today. And there are a lot of really good arguments presented in Madison's writings against having the bill of rights, even though Madison changed his mind in the end.
It's difficult for us, as modern Americans, to really understand that this was both a scary and exciting time in world history. Things were changing extraordinarily rapidly, and the people living at the end of the 1700s, for the most part, had nothing to use as a guide for making decisions that would dramatically affect the entire course of human events.
We often hear about how important republican principles were to the founders, and I think a lot of people discount that as rhetoric, mostly because the principles of republicanism are used rhetorically by modern American politicians. But, for Jefferson and Madison, republicanism was something that they took very seriously. They believed – and were afraid – that this nation would fail if it did not hold to the principles of popular representation, protection of private property, etc. All three chapters of the book highlight this fact but specifically the first and third chapters.

Alright, last thing. Anne, I don’t think you hate America, and it’s ok if you do. Our income disparities are lamentable and, as you suggested, quite telling. Still, especially if I had to choose only based on economic factors, I’d rather live here in the long run than anywhere else. The fact that we have an immigration “problem” rather than and emigration problem also speaks to this.

"Madison believed that sound republics have to rest upon a relative equality of wealth."

A few days ago Jeff said he thinks (on the basis that the United States is a sound republic) that either Jefferson and Madison were wrong, or our wealth distribution isn't as bad as it seems. I don't think either of those things are true.

First, I think the idea that sound republics have to rest upon a relative equality of wealth is an incredibly important one; the gap between rich and poor inherently contradicts the basic premises of democracy. The founders wanted to establish a constitution that left no person behind. Not for their religious beliefs, not for their political preferences, and--at least I think--not for an unfortunate economic situation. If you're going to say Jefferson and Madison were wrong in supposing equality of wealth distribution to be an essential foundation for a sound republic, then it seems to me you're saying only SOME equality is important/necessary. Maybe it's just me, but that concept is totally outrageous.

Second, our wealth distribution is definitely as bad as it seems. And perhaps what's even more telling (and grotesque) is America's place in the whole world's wealth distribution. In his book "After Capitalism", David Schweikart employs an analogy of dwarfs and giants to illustrate the gap between the poor and the rich. In a one hour parade of dwarfs and giants, where each person’s height represents their annual income (shortest being the poorest of the poor and tallest being the richest of the rich), it takes five minutes for the tiniest of the dwarfs to go by. They represent an annual income of $9,200 or less. In comparison, it takes only the last minute of the parade for the tallest giants to pass, representing an annual income of $300,000 or more. From this, the reader must glean that great wealth lies in the hands of a very few, while millions are living in steadfast poverty.

So, if the founders were honorably striving for an all-encompassing equality (of which wealth distribution must be a part)and wealth distribution really is as bad as it seems...looking back to Jeff's original supposition, these things would suggest maybe the United States isn't such a sound republic. Now, now, don't go thinking I hate America (ahem, David Samuelson). I simply wish to point out that inequality is inequality, be it religious, political or economic, and it ain't cool. It appears we need to ask how the gap has become so massive despite the founders' attempts to prevent it from happening.

Edited by author 10-01-2007 08:38 PM
My favorite part of the Banning reading was the chapter on Public Spirit. Jefferson was quoted saying, "I hold it that a rebellion now and then is a good thing, as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Throughout his life, Jefferson denounced slavery although he owned slaves himself. Although I can and will acknowledge the fact that he did try to banish slavery by stating in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." I think Jefferson is a coward and he should have tried harder to end slavery (not to mention finding away to free his own slaves). I wonder what good ole' Jefferson would have said about the Nat Turner revolt in 1830. Would he have defended blacks in rebelling against slavery after killing all of those white people? What about the Prosser revolt or the Vessey plot? I think he would have jumped on the bandwagon (once again) and spoke out against these revolts like other white southerners.

I agree with both Jeff and Mary Leah. The contrasting perspectives of Jefferson and Madison concerning rebellion are interesting. As has been noted, Jefferson believed that a little rebellion was positive to keep the government in check. Madison, on the other hand, feared rebellion. Rebellion has not become completley uncommon in modern times, but most people complain and complain rather than do anything about it, like Mary Leah said. Like Madison, I believe that rebellion is a thing to be feared, but only if it gets out of hand. I find myself agreeing more with Jefferson in respect to the need for checks on the government's power.

I found Jefferson's quote on rebellion very interesting. He believed that"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" and necessary to keep our liberties intact. As Jeff, noted today rebellions are not common. There are certainly many problems in the United States and many people who are unhappy with the government. Yet, no one seems to be angered to the point of rebellion. Jeff attributed this to the system of checks and balances, but I believe that there is a bit more to it than that. Americans today have grown into conformity. People complain, but most of them don't even consider rebelling. The early Americans, on the other hand, were infused with the spirit of rebellion after experiencing the American revolution and being influenced by the French revolution.

Edited by author 10-01-2007 10:22 AM
Jefferson's position on the Constitution interested me. Although initially "ambivalent", he began to favor it after appeals from Madison. However, Jefferson was still worried about the possibility of the chief executive abusing his capacity for reelection and the absence of a bill of rights. The first point of conflict is understandable because of qualms regarding a "monarch" taking advantage of the system. The bill of rights issue is more complicated. Madison and others were opposed to its addition because of strategic concerns (fear of "state's approval contingent on one or another alteration or addition"). Madison also thought it unnecessary in that the Constitution gave limited authority, and a bill of rights would protect rights which the government could not violate anyway. According to Madison, a bill of rights might give the Constitution a "material defect". By potentially leaving out essential rights, an addition like this would be dangerous. Madison eventually caved in after arguments for a bill of rights superceded, among others, his own.

Possibly Jefferson and Carnegie inspired Bill Gates to not give much of his wealth to his children because he believes it will be used better somewhere else.
I love Jefferson's quote at the beginning of Public Spirit. "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natural manure" However, I do not think that Jefferson was in favor of anarchy or minority defiance of law. He did believe that in order to preserve liberties, men must be able to take up arms and overthrow the government. This idea was used too liberally in the instances of the Whiskey Rebels and Shay's Rebellion. In order to prevent corruption and to maintain representation of the people, Jefferson said that rebellions are "medicine necessary for the sound health of government." However, I believe that today rebellions attempting to overthrow the government are not common because our system of checks and balances is fairly solid and "Ambition [is] made to counteract ambition." "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." I believe the government does a pretty decent job of keeping itself in check and so I do not completely believe that arms are necessary anymore to overthrow the government.

Matthew makes a good point in calling attention to Banning's suggestion that Jefferson's and Madison's surroundings affected their differing opinions. Considering that Jefferson was in revolutionary France at the time of forming his stance on the topic, it is not hard to understand why he would have come to the conclusions of reviewing the laws and contracts every nineteen years to verify their concordance with the new generation.
Reading Jefferson's thoughts in "The Earth Belongs to the Living" section made me think of Andrew Carnegie's thoughts on inheritances and the inheritance/death tax. He was against handing down one's earnings to one's children on the grounds that the community was responsible for and deserved the most credit out of anyone for a person's accumulation of wealth and therefore the community should recieve their share of it upon the person's death. He also argued that passing one's wealth down to the next generation was no way to raise good, accountable citizens. By making an exception for allowing the "improvements of the earth" that Madison points out, the communtiy and society would benefit from each person's existence, given that their debts were canceled as Jefferson argued for and their detriment to the actual land was not too great. Yet after reading both men's arguments, I found myself siding with Madison on the issue.
Another thing that struck me about Jeffeerson's views on how debt should be temporal was that he asserted that the second generation had a right to the land without any incumbrances "by natural right," but is the concept of debt also derived from nature? Perhaps it doesn't matter, and it would make sense to override an unnatural contract with a natural one.
Breaking away from Jefferson's views, the points Madison makes in his essay on Fashion in the National Gazette on March 20, 1792, I think, could really apply to the greater fashion world today and the problem of sweatshops in developing countries.

So obviously there is alot of material that can be discussed pertaining to this book, so I'll limit what I have to say to two of the topics that were part of the analysis of the letters.
First I found the debate over the belief that "the Earth belongs in usufruct to the living." I found this interesting because I had never heard of the belief that a government should be reviewed every 19 years because a new generation would take over in that period. I was surprised that Jefferson agreed with this perpetual transition of power, but myself agreed with Madison's belief that a new majority did not necessarily mean a review of government was necessary. It appears as though this is one of the only topics that Madison and Jefferson are not on the same page on when it comes to government. If I read it correctly though, Banning suggests that this is because of the surroundings that the two men were under when they formed these beliefs- Jefferson seeing the errors of the government in France while Madison was experiencing the emergence of a new nation in America. I just found this debate interesting although I don't really agree with Jefferson's debate but rather side with Madison's viewpoint.
Second I found interesting Banning's suggestion at the end of the "Public Spirit" section that Madison and Jefferson would not be able to apply their motto of " Liberty, equality, and fraternity" to the current state of the nation. Banning went so far as to say that our time might even cause these men a state of concern. He makes a good point by saying that the liberty that these men sought during their time might not be represented well today because of the lack of people that vote as well as the lack of confidence that people currently have in the government. I don't know the exact number, but the 2004 elections had somewhere around 60% of the registered voters actually voted, and over the past 50 years the number of those that have voted has fluctuated between around 50%- around 65% ( The highest being 69% in 1964. Banning also brought up that current legislative bodies only try to get a bare majority in order to remain in power, which goes in direct contrast to the suggestion of Jefferson and Madison that a bare majority is not sufficiently representative for a legislative body. These are interesting points that Banning addresses, and it is interesting to think about what great leaders in America's history such as Madison and Jefferson would think about the current state of the nation. Any thoughts?

In last night’s homework, i was fascinated to see the annotations on the amendments. The one that i found with the most annotations was the 5th amendment. This amendment states No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think that this has had the most annotations because it has been such an influential amendment. The right of a person to a fair trial is one of the most fundamental laws in this country. It also spans the issue of life, liberty, and property. Perhaps the main reason it has so many annotations is because it spans such a broad range of issues in government and society.
In response to Chris’ post, I too am fascinated by the Revolutionary War era. However, I enjoy the reasons why we went to war, not so much the effects of it. Today in class we discussed a lot of the issues that the colonists were facing. The King was being unfair to them, taxing them unfairly and sometimes even siding with the Indian “savages.” If I were a colonist at this time, it would have been hard to listen to the King, since he was not present to see the issues of America. Here comes in this idea of taxation without representation-he was taxing and demanding a lot out of the colonists but had never even seen the colonies and their issues first hand. Imagine what it would be like today, say, at Furman, if we had this big, mean, and ruthless ruler telling us what to do. However, instead of living at Furman, lives in California. This ruler might say, no more bikes on campus or you will have to pay a road tax. Since he’s never been here, he would never know that living in North Village is far away from class and having a bike is a necessity. I have a feeling that many would not want to listen to him. In fact, I am sure that a rebellion would ensue. It is so fascinating to me to try to relate to the colonists in some way. In some ways, it will be impossible to know exactly how it felt to be there, in that time, living under the rule of a King who does not care about your welfare, just his own personal gain.
Also, along the same lines, today we talked about Lexington and Concord and how the colonists won-they had a speedy communication system, capable of organizing a local militia in hours. It is really neat to try to think about how it would feel if you were a colonist in those times and the call comes in that the British are coming and you have to pick up and fight without much notice. They were also not paid, they were all volunteers. Or better yet, imagine what it was like for the women during that time. Seeing there husbands and a lot of times their sons go out to fight, not knowing if they would be retuning that night alive. This time period has also interests me and I love hearing these new perspectives on it, thinking about different groups of people in that time period.

Mr. Klaes,
Your observation about the U.S. genocide of the native americans is right on point. I hope you didn't take my atomic bomb comment as sarcasm; it wasn't. I believe that was an area where the U.S. committed a terrible atrocity. Here's where I take issue with you: The fact that America at one time committed genocide against the native americans does not abrogate the fact that we acted justly and commendably during WWII when we helped to free those being persecuted by Hitler.
I think that your perspective about the history of the United States is in many ways a helpful one. As historians, we must look at the past from a critical perspective. Nevertheless, it is also our job to celebrate elements of our history that deserve it.
All of the comments about the third amendment have made me think about the differing interpretations of the Constitution as a whole. Jefferson once wrote that he would like for the U.S. to re-write its Constitution from the ground up every twenty years. From Jefferson's legacy, many scholars and judges have argued that the Constitution was designed by the framers to be a "living" document that is subject to change and constant reinterpretation. Opponents to this view--known as "strict constructionists"--argue that the Constitution was inscribed by the founders to set a lasting framework for republican government and therefore should be interpreted as close to its original meaning as possible. The fact that the third amendment is really no longer necessary could be used as part of a strong argument for the Jeffersonian constitutional interpretation.

Tonight I read that Jefferson and Madison "believed that sound republics have to rest upon a relative equality of wealth, that people's governments are incompatible with huge disparities between the many and a few." This made me wonder about the US financial wealth distribution. I found online that the top 1% of Americans have 39.7% of the wealth, the next 19% have 51.5% of the wealth, and the bottom 80% has 8.8%. To me, this does not seem like relative equality of wealth, but I am not exactly sure what Jefferson and Madison meant by "relative equality of wealth." I believe that the United States is a sound republic, so either our wealth distribution is not as awful as it seems or Jefferson and Madison were wrong.

Dear Mr. Samuelson,
I wanted to respond to a few things in your post especially the line "but I want to take issue with Mr. Klaes assertion that this was the first time that he has been impressed with anything our nation has done, ever." I found it particularly interesting that you cited fighting the genocide of the Nazis as an example of American valor, when we have a clear history of genocide against the Native American populations. However, the point I am trying to make you also noted in alluding to our use of the atomic bomb and the many facets of historical interpretation. Every conflict has many sides and it is a matter of perspective that decides who is in the right. What was impressive to me was that the founders in a way gave up their personal interests or "sides" for the greater good of creating a republic.

  Josh, I found your question "Do citizens of our time have a firm grasp upon their liberties, or are we falling behind the bill of rights like corrupted Spartans behind a city wall?" very thought provoking. The bill of rights is the peoples means of protecting themselves against the government. However, the government has the power to and has interpreted the bill of rights as it sees fit. This being said, I would respond that we do not have a firm grasp on our liberties. We look to the bill of rights as the defender of the common man, while it is really out of our control all together. I feel like the founders believed that the people where in charge of the government, but that today the people struggle with the government as if it was some separate entity.

Like David, I found it interesting that Findlaw.com noted that “There has been no Supreme Court explication” of the third amendment. It’s fascinating how some amendments have become so controversial, like the second amendment, and others, like the third, have become obsolete. What is so important to one generation is irrelevant to the next.
Like Lindsay pointed out, there was so much care and deliberation that went into forming our constitution. This deliberation has produced the “Bill of Rights. This insistence upon a guarantee of freedoms was one major factor that set the American revolutionaries apart from their counterparts in many of the other revolutions taking place around the same time” (David’s post). It is interesting to see that, even after all of their deliberation, the founding fathers decided to include the third amendment, and it ended up not even being needed.

I love this Revolutionary period in American History- its really cool to think about how much of underdogs the colonists were to the great British empire, and that our success unshered in an age of revolution all around the world. Now, I'm really not into the what-ifs of history since it is what it is, but just imagine for a second what not just America would be like, but what the whole world would look like if we had fallen to the British.

It seemed entirely possible, especially in the early years of the revolution, where we actually lost a lot more battles than the British but were successful enough in regrouping and out-maneuvering the British to outlast them. But, a lot of these survival methods were only made possible because of the assistance of several British enemies, such as France and Spain. If even one of those assisting countries had decided not to help out the colonists, the British probably would've won. That's how limited our assets were in managing the war funds. There are several other factors that happened to work just right for us, such as that the Native Americans didn't fully support the British and actively fight against us. Same for the colonists that didn't support breaking away from us (I've heard that only a third of the colonists truly DID support the revolution).

Either way, if the colonists had lost, imagine how the world picture would look today if other countries had seen us fall, and had seen the hopes of their revolutionaries dashed. Maybe the French saw how pointless it was to risk their lives if a revolution wouldn't even work, and since the French Revolution was so influential on European affairs for the rest of its history, the European landscape would probably look at least somewhat different today. Even India would have looked back, centuries later, and at least had more doubts about breaking away from the British since even Britain's own citizens couldn't do it. Anyways, I just wanted to throw this hypothetical thoughts out there so we can value what we have today.

Looking back at our discussion in class yesterday, I was thinking about the influences on the early Americans and I found myself stuck thinking about the enlightenment. Dr. Benson said that ideas are the product of experience. During the time of the enlightenment, people all over the world were experiencing new things: exploration, religion, politics, and so much more. If new experiences causes new ideas, and if intellectual activity is what causes change within a group, I think that it is safe to say that we are always in a constant age of enlightenment and change.

In the early eighteenth century, the thirst for knowledge was insatiable. Everything was new, interesting, and waiting to be discovered. It seems as though the thinkers of the day, like Locke, Smith, and Montesquieu, were motivated not only by the hope of furthering society but also by the pure joy of intellectual discovery. But what about the thinkers today? Have we lost that intellectual drive? Are we motivated not by interest but by but power?

Sparta had no walls. Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan republic believed that if the citizens of his country were not capable of defending their liberties with their own bodies, walls would be of little use. I bring this up in relation to the discussion of the bill of rights that is outlined in the Banning book. Jefferson “denounced the absence of a bill of rights” because the guaranteed freedom of the people is the most integral part of vibrant republic (p. 5). He believed that if the government consciously limited itself and the people had their fundamental liberties clearly outlined, liberty would be more secure. I think that this was largely a reaction against the unwritten body of traditions that comprise English common law and opened the legal system to the abuses of kings claiming divine right.
 It is interesting that another founder, with the same fundamental issues at heart, takes the exact opposite opinion. Madison contended that such a document would be just another parchment wall. He seems to embrace the Lockean notion that liberty, in its purest form, lies in the mind. If a nation is to truly remain free, a bill of rights is superfluous. If citizens must consult the constitution to remember what their inherent rights as human beings are, something has gone very wrong. Instead, Madison advocated a “governmental structure that would make it harder for an overbearing, interested majority to rule without restraints” (P 10). What, however, would such a structure look like? What would the proper size be? A small government would lend itself to effective control, but a large government would be harder to manipulate by a particularly powerful or popular leader. If a government is too large, however, won’t is just conform to the overwhelming will of the majority and smother the voices of minorities? Where is our government today? Do citizens of our time have a firm grasp upon their liberties, or are we falling behind the bill of rights like corrupted Spartans behind a city wall?

Edited by author 09-26-2007 11:58 PM
On another note I was also interested in the concept of ‘presentism.’ I was struck by the thought that I had had trouble, while writing the biography, with taking the era and its impact on my partner into consideration. I mention this only to say that I understand some of the issues Beard might have faced trying to understand the reasons for the Constitution. However this idea of ‘presentism’ does make me wonder if historians ever successfully find the truth in history? At the beginning of the year our class discussed subjectivity and it seems that the more we look at historiography the more we see how history is tainted with subjectivity.

I found the connection between the reading assignment today and the reading we have been doing in Jefferson and Madison interesting. One particular example that I appreciated was Madison’s belief that: “an effort to enumerate essential rights could not be safe unless it was complete. Any list of rights could become the ground for an insistence that the government could act on matters that were never meant to be included in its province,” (Jefferson and Madison, p.8). Of course the eventual response was the ninth amendment which states that: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It is beneficial to see that Madison was concerned with the fact that creating amendments might leave loopholes for the federal government to slip through later. I think this fact is beneficial because it allows all people to see how carefully thought out our Constitution is and then how careful the writers of the Constitution were to make sure that no one could abuse it. Perhaps the ninth amendment is not as controversial, or as well known, as the first amendment, for example, but I believe that it stands as a sign of the great care that was taken to create our Constitution. Perhaps this thought can join with the posts of David S. and Alex. Our country had made some errors but there are some aspects to be celebrated

According to Findlaw.com, one of the least annotated amendments to the U.S. Constitution is the third amendment – the one pertaining to the quartering of soldiers. The amendment reads, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The fact that no case law exists regarding this amendment isn’t surprising to the modern American. When the “War on Terror” began, I doubt that many Americans sighed and thought to themselves, “Oh no, we’re going to have reserve soldiers staying in our house again just like we did in ’91”? I know that it certainly didn’t cross my mind.
However, the first generation of Americans considered this amendment so important that they refused to have their state governments sign the Constitution without the promise of its passage – along with the passage of its nine counterparts in the Bill of Rights. This insistence upon a guarantee of freedoms was one major factor that set the American revolutionaries apart from their counterparts in many of the other revolutions taking place around the same time.
 In his post, Mr. Klaes notes that he is proud of America for having a “real” revolution that didn’t just shift power from one elite group to another but that truly adhered to the ideals of the founders and that, at least in theory, formed a government that is based on the principles of republicanism. This lasting adherence to republicanism that has never allowed our government to devolve—in any real way—into a tyrannical state can be in many ways attributed to the checks on our government that are intentionally written into our Constitution. Even though the third amendment is never brought up in case law, it still stands as an important historical marker, proving that the first generation of Americans was dedicated to protecting themselves from the overreach and injustice of the Federal government. For this reason and many others, America has—allowing here for a lengthy list of caveats—remained true to its revolutionary heritage and has stood as a bastion republican principles.
I hope that this doesn't come across as combative, because I really don't mean for it to do so, but I want to take issue with Mr. Klaes assertion that this was the first time that he has been impressed with anything our nation has done, ever. I'm not an American apologist, but I have to imagine that, for example, America's joining with the Allied powers to battle the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII and to free the countless number of people dying in concentration camps was something worthy of our being impressed. Then again, I guess we did drop the first atomic bomb on hundreds of thousands--maybe millions?--of unprotected Japanese civilians...Ah, the many sides of historical interpretation!

I found it particularly interesting how conflict in Europe made it much easier for the colonies to break from the British. The British Empire had over-extended itself, and did not have the money or ability to commit the man-power to suppress the revolutionary colonialists. I also feel that had Britain taken less of a forceful position against the colonies, and not sought to make "North Americans pay larger share of the empire's cost", as well as lessened the harsh trading restrictions; the colonists would have been much less likely to generate a revolutionary wave (98 Guarneri). Because the Americans were successful in their break from their former authoritative power, groups of people from all over the world began to look to the Americans as a model of how to break from a controlling power. I had previously thought that these countries that had used the Americans as an inspiration did so, merely, on a military basis. However, it was much deeper than that. These countries saw how the Americans felt that they had inherent rights that were suppose to be guaranteeed to them regardless of who was in power, and sought any means necessary to achieve them. The idea that "all men are created equal," and had the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was a common idea that revolutionary leaders around the world used as central theme in their movements in Latin America (107 Guarneri).

After completing the reading on pp. 95-114 I was for once impressed with our nations actions. It seems that the American revolution was successful not only in shifting the power from one set of hands to another, but in maintaining the "ideals" that the founding fathers, such as Jefferson and Madison, emphasized so much. In maintaining these ideals it seams that they created something lasting and new, where as the French revolution brought about, as Guarneri puts it, an "empire even grander than the old regime's"(105). This leaves me wondering how these different ideas of revolution are manifested today. The modern US has a narrow political spectrum and could be considered conservative in social issues, while France has a much wider political spectrum and is "liberal", or as I would argue forward thinking, in social issues. My question is has our strict adherence to old "ideals" left us behind on the evolutionary social and political time line? Has France's turmoil acted as a catalyst in the process of social and political growth?

Regarding the question of why did only thirteen colonies break away from British rule I think it's important to remember a couple key feautures of geography and history. The first is that those original thirteen were all connected to each other with no ocean or major geographical feature there to isolate them from each other. This doesn't mean travel was easy but it does mean that colonists from New York would have more in common with a Virginian than someone from Jamaica. Secondly, these original thirteen all suffered through the French and Indian War and this common experience united them in a way that someone from Nova Scotia wouldn't understand.

According to Guarneri, the war for independence had more impact on the Native American peoples than they had on the war. Although they were urged by both sides not to get involved, different tribes joined different sides. They probably tried to side with who they thought the winner was going to be, in the hopes of receiving some concessions, since they could not seem to get concessions in other ways. I doubt that many of them were truly interested in either sides’ goals, since both parties had been encroaching on their land and killing their people for decades.

Guarneri also talked about the role of slaves in the revolution – how an overwhelming majority of those who fought were on the British side because of the Dunsmore Proclamation. What I found interesting was that Guarneri did not mention women’s role in the war. He highlighted the roles of two major disenfranchised groups, but not the third one. Were they involved in supporting the war like women did in World War II? Did they just keep their families’ farms running while the men were gone? I realize that there may not be many records about women’s involvement or views, but I feel like if there is information about Native American involvement and slave involvement, there must be some sort of information about the involvement of women.

Corrections: rope around those colonies was* still tighter
French and English back and forth too* much

I was just musing why only thirteen of the American colonies revolted against Britain or their leaders. The West Indies, also colonized by the British, were so much more valuable and important to Britain than the Americas, so the British kept a close eye on them and "scrutinized their trade and governance so closely". Although the citizens may have hated this close scrutinizing, the citizens of the thirteen rebellious colonies had been going through a period of salutary neglect. During this period of time, Britain's control was so loose that the colonies were given the chance to become more self-governing and autonomous. Perhaps when the era of salutary neglect ended and such acts like the Stamp/Tea/Townshend Acts were implemented, the colonists who had grown accustomed to being autonomous couldn't stand this increase in control, hence revolution and grievances. The Spanish and French colonies, however, found some ways of avoiding absolute control, but the rope around those colonies were still tighter than the 13 British colonies. Also, perhaps the Canadian colonies were being switched French and English back and forth to much to allow time to grow to hate a certain monarchy?? Just some thoughts.

In tonight's reading, I found it particularly interesting the dynamic impact the American Revolution had upon Latin America. Liberals in Latin America were stimulated by the effects of the American Revolution. Guarneri states that even translations of Common Sense and the Declaration of Indepence were common to be found in Latin America during this period. However, though the revolutions in Latin America somewhat paralleled that of the American Revolution, the outcomes were extremely different. During the post-revolutionary period, North Americans were successful in uniting under a new government. But, in Latin America, class hierarchies were still very apparent which led to difficulty in uniting under the new government. Additionally, Latin American countries experienced difficulties in relations between church and state. The Catholic Church entirely controlled education. This was not the case in America due to the presence of multiple Christian groups. Though the American Revolution led to changes in Latin America, it never became as stable as American post-revolutionary society.

I agree with everyone who posted so far. I searched for Tom Paine and got images not pertinent to the person, and I got the occasional cartoonish, comical drawing. On the other hand, when I searched for George Washington, I found countless pages of our first president in patriotic, distinguished and professional images. I think the American public needs to pay attention to the Tom Paine's and the George Mason's of history, because their influence helped shape our country to what it is today, just like George Washington and Patrick Henry.

I have had the same experiences with my searches. George Washington is represented in the usual poses, which project a stately, strong composure. Many times, portraits potray him in uniform, giving you an idea about his military rank and importance. He appears to be a forthright leader. Patrick Henry's images have little variety, but they tend to show his gift for oratory. The search for Tom Paine and George Mason produced some relevant images but, all in all, these pictures gave you no clues concerning their personal characteristics or historical significance.

George Washington may not be smiling in any of his portraits simply because it would be very uncomfortable to sit around smiling for hours while someone paints you. He probably would have smiled if they were just snapping a photo. I noticed that there were many different photographs of Washington and only one very popular head shot of Paine and Henry. However, pictures of some of Henry's speeches appeared. There were also pictures of him before the Virginia House of Burgesses where he said about the Stamp Act of 1765, "If this be treason, make the most of it." There was also a picture of him at the Virginia Convention where he proclaimed "Give me liberty or give me death!" After searching for George Mason, I learned that he was a very tall, African-American basketball player......just kidding. However, many pictures of the George Mason University basketball team did appear.

Edited by author 09-25-2007 12:53 AM
The search for George Washington yielded lots of portraits of him standing very regally in various positions. Hardly any of the imagery gave you any idea as to what his accomplishments were, but you did get the sense that he was a very important and powerful person. From the images of him I got the impression that the values and morals shown was of wealth, prosperity, masculinity, wisdom, strength, and valor. I saw two postings from founders of America and educational synthesis, but all of the others were sort of random. I definitely felt there was a conservative bias. Tomas Pain yielded lots of pictures of different people and documents; all from different sources. A few of them had nothing to do with him, but was inspired by his life decades later. Unlike the portraits of George Washington, a couple of the searches for Tomas Pain actually revealed his profession. I did not get the impression of any morals and values being instilled except maybe the value of expression. Some of the postings were definitely from political organizations. There were a lot of portraits of Patrick Henry speaking at various places. There were obvious political connotations behind some of the pictures because of his famous line, “Give me liberty or give me death.” There is an obvious value of equality before the law. Most of the sites were politically based. George Mason gave me a lot of images of George Mason University. Unlike the search for George Washington, George Mason did not have a lot of postings from politically and culturally conservative sites. They were all pretty random.

I'm beginning to think the title "America in the World" is slightly misleading. Though Guarneri does, indeed, take measures to include the affects America had on the rest of the world during its initial establishment, I find that he is glossing over issues that are potentially vital factors is considering world history as a whole, and especially America's place in it.

One example might be Guarneri's discussion of "Silver and the Asian Trade" on page 90. Europe's desire to trade with Asia is made clear, as is the colonial exploitation of New World silver in an attempt to begin those trades. And yet, Guarneri doesn't mention that as British command over New World silver decreased, and demand for tea from China increased, Europe (particularly England) had to start looking for a trading substitute. Their solution (opium) was far from ethical and, of course, resulted in the Opium War of 1839-1842.

Perhaps you're thinking that has nothing to do with America, past or present, or perhaps you're thinking that I'm just being ridiculously critical and nit-picky. Maybe I am. But I think leaving opium out of his discussion of "Silver and Asian Trade" is a huge mistake. It seems to me that China's essentially forced addiction to opium was one of the key factors in opening Asian trade with Europe, and had it not occurred, we might very well be living in a world of Asian superpower--and that definitely concerns America.

I guess the more history I read, the more I realize how hard it is to really be objective...and so I continue to think in terms of what's being "left out", if you will. How unfortunate!

The results of these searches also came as no surprise to me. The portrayals of these men, especially Washington and Henry, play into the romanticized persona that have been cultivated by stories like the cherry tree and crossing of the Delaware. Certainly, the portrait of Washington that we're all used to seeing resembles a stoic man incapable of telling a lie, and the images of Henry convey the "give me liberty or give me death" sentiment which he has come to embody. As for Paine and Mason, lesser known figures, the search results were more varied.
I agree with Matthew that these images are to be expected because these are the instances we know them for.

Yes you make a good point, Matthew. None of the sites portrayed these men in any negative light. They are always shown the same way as most people think of them today: as the heroes of the heroes of the American revolution. They are certainly idealized, not only in these images but also in the American oral and written tradition. Although it is likely that there were many who strongly disagreed with these men in their day, most modern Americans view these men as the epitome of American ideals. Perhaps if the American revolution had had a different outcome we would not feel this way.
I especially noticed that in the portraits of Washington, there was never even a hint of a smile on his face. The other men tended to have more pleasant expressions on their face, but Washington always looks very stern. Perhaps this is to convey that he is a strong, capable, no-nonsense leader.

The images that appeared in a google search on these men came as no surprise to me. Each image portrayed the men in nice dress, in the case of George Washington he was represented in uniform. How they appear in the images paints a picture of what people think that their morals and character would be. Many of the pictures were just head shots or paintings of the men; however, some did show the men in action such as George Washington crossing the Delaware and Patrick Henry speaking to crowds about treason. These images represent the triumphs of the men and are to be expected because in my opinion people like to think of the great leaders of our early nation as great men that had very high morals and were born leaders that lived lives full of triumph such as Washington's crossing of the Delaware. Did anyone happen to find any negative portrayals of any of these men because I looked at pages of pictures and never found anything along these lines.

Adding on to what Lindsay posted below, I also found it interesting, and very ironic, that even though England was the last great power in Europe to make an attempt at colonizing the New World, the very thing which some though could have been a major downfall turned out to be incredibly beneficial. Yes, England was behind not only in technology, but politically and economically as well. However, the time that was spent waiting to get to the new world actually worked in their favor. Being able to see how the strategies of other explorers and play catch up in their weak areas was a great advantage, even if it wasn’t immediately apparent.
I am sure that the English were not exactly thrilled with being stuck with North America, since most saw it as “leftover land”. However, while there wasn’t the abundance of gold that they were hoping for, the resources and life that they discovered in North America was the most valuable and lasting.

Edited by author 09-20-2007 02:53 AM
I have been particularly struck by the idea that the Europeans came over to North America and simply created a new Europe. Guarneri says: “…Europeans not only replaced the native population but also successfully transplanted their ecosystems and ways of life” (p.66) I had never thought about the fact that the ecosystems were similar and I had never heard that as an explanation for why the British settlers faired very well in the New World. It is ironic that the “England’s late start” actually benefited their cause. They were the last to get started,no other countries wanted North America and yet they ended up with the most profits from their exploration. England was “technologically backward” (p.43) and yet this country managed to develop tobacco industries, and its people were able to eat as much salt cod as they liked. To be balanced though I think we should at least acknowledge the fact that Europeans did bring horses to America and cattle. Naturally horses cannot compare to the diseases brought to the Native Americans nor can horses compare to the profits Europe, and particularly England, made off North America. But for the sake of the other side I thought it should be mentioned.
In one sense I agree with Rebecca when she says that the Europeans sort of lucked out when they came across the “New World”. I also agree with the thought that this history of England’s settlement process is probably selective and not entirely accurate. Guarneri discusses the fact that England “inherited the Spanish habit of ‘inventing’ the New World ad much as ‘discovering’ it” (p.45). From this point of view it is perfectly feasible to consider that the British ‘invented’ a little part of their history.

Joshua said: "While each type of history builds off of the type before it, it must inherently contain blind spots. It seems that as time continues, the blind spots shift; for this reason, early American historians don’t seem too troubled with the treatment of the Indians they encountered. They seem to have no qualms about encroaching on their land, stripping their temples, and killing off whole tribes of 'unruly' natives."
I think the "type of history" Guarneri is writing is a reaction to those early American historians who turn a blind eye to the Europeans’ cruel treatment of Native Americans. Maybe that is why his account of the interaction between Europeans and Native Americans almost demonizes the Europeans and presents the Native Americans simply as innocent victims of European brutality (and luck) (At least that’s the impression I got from the readings). Although this very well may be true, it seems to me to be an extreme interpretation. And like we discussed in class, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle—between the two extremes.

In response to Chris:
The overriding reason I believe history happened the way it did is the domineering nature of European culture. One only needs to look at European history to see their tendency to attempt to dominate each other (French and Spanish Expansionists in the early 1500s, English in the mid 1600s) as well as other cultures. Their interactions with China, for example, lead them to believe that the Chinese were inferior, simply based upon their reluctance to interact with outsiders and explore.

Why did they advance "faster"? Differential development priorities. It is important also to remember that cultural evolution ≠ biological evolution, and that the European culture was necessarily a more advanced version of Native American culture. Comparisons cannot easily be trimmed down to fit on one line of development. It all, in my mind, stems from different ideologies, different mindsets. Native Americans, while most likely romanticized in recent times, had arguably no cultural use for developments the Europeans couldn't live without. The evolution of European culture, I agree, had to do with the peoples of that continent. There were many interactions between opposing views, and that interaction inevitably bred conflict.

In any case, I doubt Native American culture would have been able to be in a place to dominate other cultures as wholly as Europeans did throughout history.

Like Katie the extent of the unfairness in the Post-Columbian Exchange was new information to me. Guarneri asks the question on page 61, “Did any New World germs kill Europeans?” and answers, “The exchange was remarkably one-sided.” But he shows germs were not the only exchange that was one-sided. While the Native Americans were dying of these diseases the Europeans were gaining cures for diseases from New World plants and herbs. Instead of gaining from European plants, the Native Americans were forced off of their lands to make way for crops. It seems as if everything Native Americans did backfired. They greeted the visitors with pipe smoking, which resulted in the thriving tobacco trade that lured more Europeans to the Americas. The Native Americans shared how to cultivate crops such as potatoes and corn and that backfired as well. “Potatoes, along with corn and manioc, played an especially important part in increasing human survival. Where these crops were adopted they raised nutritional levels, reduced crop failures, and boosted population growth, contributing to the great surge in world population growth…Rapid population growth in Europe and Africa in turn benefited Europe’s colonies: it produced millions of overseas migrants, whether free or enslaved, to work on New World farms and plantations” (p. 63). It’s strange to me that, during all those years of discovery and settlement, the Native Americans just kept getting clobbered and nothing very detrimental ever happened to the Europeans (aside from casualties of their wars with Native Americans). Could this exclusion of any damage to Europeans be a sign of bias? Or were European casualties simply too insignificant to mention?
Could this be the “intentional neglect” that David was talking about?
Or maybe conquering the New World was truly that easy for the Europeans because the Americas had, as the people of the period believed, “been providentially opened to Europeans (and their native peoples destroyed) in order to propagate Christianity” (p. 46).

Edited by author 09-19-2007 10:14 PM
I also became very interested in these diseases that swept through the Native American population from the Europeans. At first I wondered why it was that the Europeans were the ones to initiate the introduction of "New" and "Old" Worlds, as opposed to the Native Americans coming over to Europe first. I had actually thought about this on my own free time and had heard about pieces of literature that talked about this, such as the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", but had never read a logical explanation before. But then as I was reading, Guarneri talked about the topic on pg. 37, where it says, "the ambitious, expansionist impulse of European society, so different from the inward, communal concentration of most Native American peoples, suggests why Europeans reached the New World and Indians did not cross the Atlantic."

This explains why history happened the way it did, but it still didn't answer a more rudimentary conflict. Why was it that the New and Old Worlds were so different from each other in the first place, in everything from religious to political ideologies? What made it so one society evolved and advanced quicker than the other in that it could invent the means of reaching the other first, and then once connected, to dominate the other? I guess the one encapsulating reason is that when the New World became isolated from the rest of the world after the last Ice Age, it was left with a smaller population to evolve from, along with no other peoples to interact and advance with these early nomads.

I mean, imagine if circumstances had happened so the New World ideologies had instead dominated everyone- we all would be praying to cloud and tree spirits instead of a singular and supreme God and live by the interdependence of nature instead of dominance of it. I know we wouldn't be worrying about global warming or any of the other environmental issues like we are now if that were the case. Anyways, I know that there must be many other reasons why the New World population became so inferior, but I'm just going to leave it at that.

I was really interested in this issue of diseease from last nights readings. It amazed me how fast these diseases moved in the native american world and what a path of devestation they left. Looking at the way in which Indians communicated, it is easy to understand though. They often traded with eachother and if one disease hit a community, it was likely that all of the people living there would be infected, since they liked in such a close-knit community. Still, it is astonishing how much of the Indians' lives were affected by the European invasion-their land was taken, sometimes their women were taken as brides(by the Spanish), somethings they were used as slaves and manipulated into doing unfair trades, and they were greatly affected by these new diseases they had never seen. In return, the Europeans only recieved benefits-more access to the land and ability to exapnd their towns. The only disease the Europeans got was syphillus, which doesnt even seem that bad to be honest. I mean if left untreated FOR YEARS, then they could die. But if treated, they would be fine. There was no treatment for the Indians for these diseases. What also interested me what the fact that because of these diseases, the African slave trade started. If it wouldnt have been for them, the Indians could have worked the land, that was actually there land. I never knew the extent of the European invansion on the Indians before-i guess it was all sugar coated for me.

Edited by author 09-19-2007 04:46 PM
One of the most interesting questions regarding biographies that we discussed in our groups today was, “What kinds of things would an interview subject be likely to avoid disclosing?” I know that when I was giving my partner information about myself I intentionally didn’t mention a number of things that had shaped my life simply because they are a little bit embarrassing. The members of my discussion group today admitted to having done the same thing in their biographies.
But what if this same sort of intentional neglect took place in the writing of histories of not only people but of entire nations or periods in history? I’m sure that it has and does.
This brings up a more fundamental question: How much of the history that we have learned over the course of our lives is biased, incomplete or just simply wrong?
For example, in our Guarneri reading last night it was mentioned that a popular topic in the Protestant historical tradition of the discovery of the New World is that of the “Black Legend” of Spanish cruelty to South American and Caribbean indigenous peoples. Some historians have painted a picture of New World discovery that includes two opposing types of European explorers – the Spanish, who brutally killed and subjugated Native Americans, and the English, who came mostly just to escape tyranny and religious intolerance and to live in peace.
According to Guarneri, and to more recent historians, this view simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. In fact, English explorers were just as brutal and self-serving as the Spanish. They simply had fewer opportunities to exercise these practices.
Anyway, this is just an example. The point that I’m trying to bring up is that it is almost scary (or daunting) to think about the amount of bias that has been included in the histories that we take for granted as being entirely factual.

I think that Rachel Pope brought up a great point in her post about the focus of early Europeans on South America rather than North America. Guarneri notes that North America was thought of as the “dregs” of European exploration. I guess all those South American explorers didn’t realize the lasting wealth creating potential of setting up a stable agrarian pre-capitalist economy.

Rachel, to response to your question about the line "The path of disease from Africa ensured that the Americas' temperate zones would attract more white settlers, while tropical and semi-tropical lands became more racially diverse." It is my impression that this sentence is referring to the ways in which each European county established themselves in the New World. The white settlers brought an equal number of women and men and essentially recreated their old culture. Other countries such as Spain or Portugal, which were going to the tropical and semi-tropical regions, brought a majority of male soldiers with a minority of women, because of their conquest approach. Because of the larger number of males the men would take natives as their wives and blend both their cultures and ethnicities, hence the diversity.

The thing that stuck out most to me in this reading was how everything from the discovery of the Americas to the success of the English in the New World was a product of trends or events that where really out of the English’s or for that matter anyone else's hands. To start off there was already an expansionist movement i.e. the Crusades (1095-1272) and the reclaiming of Grenada in 1492. (p38) Then the Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople in 1453 (p38), forcing Europeans to find a sea route to Asia for trade. When Portugal was successful in sailing around Africa, the Spanish where really left with only one choice, to go west (p39) where they happened to come across America. Its funny that Europe’s greed for trade with Asia is what caused them to discover a new land that would make them even more rich than their trade with Asia, not to mention that the navigational devises and ship designs that made this westward voyage possible where attained through Asian and Arab trade. Then when England finally gets in the game all the land is taken except for the leftovers of North America which could really only be settled and not exploited for riches, coincidentally England has a population boom at the same time. (p 44-45) The seeds of democracy where then sown only because there was so much land that almost everyone could get some. (p 55) The Indians spend thousands of years cultivating crops like potatoes and corn (p61), which the Europeans adopt as there staple food allowing them to flourish in the new land and then the Indians immediately die off from disease. It is astonishing to me how almost everything that lead up to our modern circumstance just fell into our laps.

 In class we have been discussing the writing of history and how every generation/age writes its own. While each type of history builds off of the type before it, it must inherently contain blind spots. It seems that as time continues, the blind spots shift; for this reason, early American historians don’t seem too troubled with the treatment of the Indians they encountered. They seem to have no qualms about encroaching on their land, stripping their temples, and killing off whole tribes of “unruly” natives. I refuse to believe that we moderns have simply evolved to the point that we now have fully developed consciences that exude respect for different people groups. This makes me wonder what created the blind spot and how could it (in our retrospective opinion) have been avoided? I would greatly appreciate the insights of others at this point.
 What would you have Columbus and the rest of the Europeans do? Should they have merely traded with the peoples he found in the New World? Should leniency be shown to the Europeans because there were experiencing overcrowding and intense internal conflict as a result of diverse religious opinions? People group have always moved around; it wouldn’t have made any sense to forbid people to leave their homeland. While people have criticized the Vikings, I rarely sense the same invective in the criticism of the Norsemen as I sense in the discussion of European colonists seven hundred years later.

 As I have been reading John Locke, I think I begin to get a sense of why there was no outcry in the consciences of the settlers: the Europeans really didn’t see the land as belonging to the Indians. The Indians on the eastern seaboard established “semi-permanent villages” and would move around seasonally. They engaged in some rudimentary farming, but they were a woodland people. In his Second Treatise, Locke argues that possession is not granted by merely squatting on the land but by mixing one’s labor into the ground. In a treatise regarding the education of gentlemen, Lock states, “Where there is no desire, there will be no industry.” European and Indian desires were so different that the Europeans couldn’t recognize the industry, or goals, of the Indians.
 Please don’t misunderstand me; I am not necessarily condoning the actions of the British. I am, however, trying to find a rationale (other than pure greed) for why they would conduct themselves in a way that appears so brutal to our modern sensibilities.

Questions about Biography
Scope:

1. What balance did you choose to strike between personal doings, on one hand, and the influence and context of time and place, on the other?

2. Which common categories of human activity and experience (such as economic, social, political, cultural, religious, intellectual) did you emphasize, or did you try to incorporate a variety of categories?
Selectivity:

1. Five hundred words is a typical biography size but a challenging limit within which to write. What were your criteria for including and excluding events, descriptions, etc.?

2. To what extent did your own interests shape the things you chose to include?

3. Speaking generically, what kinds of things would an interview subject be likely to avoid disclosing?

4. How did you incorporate "hot-button" issues such as religion, politics, musical preferences, etc?
Simultenaity:

1. What were the most important things going on in the world during the life of your subject? Which impacted them most personally? Which seem of great significance but DID NOT impact your subject personally? What explains their insulation from the latter?

Andrew, I also found the comparison between how disease affected conquest in America and how it affected conquest in Africa to be eye-opening. Another point that interested me was the exchange of disease not only from Europe to America, but also from Africa to America. Guarneri says that diseases like malaria that were brought by the slave ships affected the Pilgrims' decision about where to settle (p. 61). I have a question about the last sentence in that section, so if there are any science majors/doctor's kids/people who lived in Africa that could help me out, that would be great. Guarneri says: "The path of disease from Africa ensured that the Americas' temperate zones would attract more white settlers, while tropical and semi-tropical lands became more racially diverse." Would malaria affect the white settlers and natives in the same way, since neither group had been exposed to it before? Guarneri makes it sound like the white settlers would be most affected by it, so they would not go there. Or is he saying that the white settlers had the opportunity to choose to go somewhere else, while others didn't, thereby making tropical zones more diverse? Any ideas or suggestions? I also think it would interesting to know whether African diseases contributed to the devastation of native peoples.

I think my favorite part of our reading is the Map of the Americas from 1512. It emphasizes how much more was known about South America than North America at that time, and how much more the Europeans cared about South America at first. It also helps me get into the mindset of the Europeans of that time just a little bit more. Obviously they didn't know how far away Asia was from the west coasts of the Americas, but it seems like they really hope it will be close. I often think that once the Americas were discovered, the Europeans completely forgot about Asia and Africa because they had found the "jackpot." But this map and our reading reminds me that they were still very much interested in trade with Asia. They are excited to find precious metals in the New World. One reason for their enthusiam over the gold and silver is that they need to fund their trade with Asia, because there is a high demand for spices and silks in Europe.
Also, Italian cuisine without tomatoes?! I had never even thought about that!

Adam Chandler (November 6, 1987) was born in Fairfax, VA and resided in Falls Church, VA, a city in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area. His mother (originally from Bronx, NY) works in the IT business which his father (originally from Georgia) was in also but has since started his own business. The younger of two children, Chandler spent many of his years enjoying sports, including playing soccer, basketball, and tennis through high school.
 Growing up under his mother’s Hebrew influence, Chandler went to Hebrew school for a brief period, but shortly dropped out, though he still continued to celebrate Hanukah along with Christmas and doesn’t continue to hold much religious affiliation. His Jewish background, but mainly growing up in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area fueled his liberal views, hence his affinity for shows such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report”.
 Though Chandler’s main influence has been in journalism, where he has written over 30 articles for his local newspaper, The Falls Church News Press, where he dealt mainly with advertising and writing about high school sports. His writing with the local newspaper led him to broader horizons as he later started writing for a national magazine, Federal Computer Week.
For Federal Computer Week Chandler covered many interesting stories regarding the technological workings of various government organizations, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Chandler also covered stories relating to the IT field, a field that his parents are very familiar with. He was also did extensive work in covering the 9/11 Bill and the Freedom of Information Act, writing articles about both of these on more than one occasion.
Chandler currently goes to Furman University where he has yet to declare a major, though he is very interested in putting his journalism to good use by possibly declaring communications as his major. He also plays for Furman’s club rugby team and is a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity.

Something I found very interesting from the reading was the English's rejection of the old-school Feudal system. The Spanish monarchs created the encomienda system where large tracts of land were granted to conquistadors or court favorites who could own the Indian labor and control the lower class on the hierarchy, such as society in Old Spain. On the other hand, the British settlers resisted implementation of the Feudal system in their society. Also, land available elsewhere and the desire of the proprietors themselves to attract workers who would actually pay taxes destroyed the old feudal system. Also, the practice of indentured servants may have even backfired when instead of staying such a low status, the servants tended to create businesses of their own after paying off debt. While the other Europeans ruled with a minority in their colonies, the British sent large numbers of people to create a 3 to 1 white majority, and this coupled with the departure from the feudal practices allowed for the spreading of land wealth, making what will become the U.S. truly a land of opportunity (for whites), creating the ability to rise in society, and planting seeds for a representative government.

Joshua King, born in the late 1980s, is a history major and scholar at Furman University. He was born and originally raised in Gainesville, Florida, while his father was in residency at the local University of Florida. While being schooled in Florida, his father made a critical decision that perhaps shaped Josh’s future and personality—his mother was to school him at home.
 However, shortly thereafter, the Kings packed up their bags and moved to Montgomery, Alabama. Now, his parents were faced with a choice: They could either continue his homeschooling, or they could enroll Josh in a private school, rejecting the sort of southern aristocracy that went hand-in-hand with private schooling. Josh’s homeschooling is one of the most deciding aspects that defined who Josh King became. Firstly, King, the eldest child of five, became very close-knit with the remainder of his family as he was always surrounded by his siblings and parents. Perhaps one of his most beloved hobbies, fly fishing, originated from this close-knit community at home. At about this time, Josh began finding peace of mind in the music of Nickel Creek—a group he could relate to, since all three members of the band were homeschooled themselves. Also, a major instrument used by the band, the mandolin, may have inspired to Josh to, as he describes it, “plink on a mandolin”. However, the most important dynamic of being homeschooled influenced Josh’s unique vision and perception of education that is currently a part of what outlines Josh King’s life.
 Approximately ten years ago, the Kings moved once again, this time to Columbia, South Carolina, where Josh continued his homeschooling. As Josh matured, his assessment of education really began to take shape. As opposed to the current public school system throughout the United States, Josh believes that school and education is not so much about socialization. Instead, students should attend school in order to learn how to study. While given the tasks of studying for tests, his idea was to learn from the experience of studying itself so that he could incorporate his studying and hard-working habits into future learning situations, thus maximizing his ability to learn new knowledge. His emphasis on the learning aspect of school versus socialization is also derived by one of his role models, Sir Walter Scott. Scott wrote when England was a complete disaster, but through all the national adversity and personal adversity, such as failing health, to make people aware of England’s history and give the desperate British models to emulate.
 Two years ago, Josh King entered a small liberal arts college, Furman University, as a freshman, another major decision that helped outline his theory of education. Hopefully, Josh can incorporate his other definitive factor, Christianity, with his perception of education. Josh believes that every man is born with original sin and is “fundamentally flawed”. In order to regain enduring virtue, man must find an outside source to save himself, and that outside source is the savior Jesus Christ. At Furman, Josh may continue to grow and use his newly-obtained knowledge through study to help others find themselves and enduring virtue through Jesus.

I thought it most interesting in the reading when Guarneri specifically detailed each reason for European and Native American social unrest. In previous history coures, I had simply been taught a general overview of European-Native American conflict. I thought the most interesting point that Guarneri made was about the property and economic trends in the time period. Private ownership of property and the idea of individualism were imperative for economic progress. However, the Native Americans adopted a "communalist" view of land ownership and relations within the tribe(Guarneri 37). Indians were looked down upon by the Europeans because of these views. In addition, the beginning of private ownership of property resulted in an increasing difference between rich and poor which was completely foreign to Native Americans (Guarneri 36). As well as being labeled as "backwards," Native Americans suffered great economic hardship as Europeans' profits increased.

Born on July 2, 1986 in Greensboro, North Carolina, David Samuelson immediately moved to Charlotte, North Carolina at the mere age of two weeks. Immediately following his birth, doctors discovered that he had digestive complications. In an effort to alleviate this health problem, physicians recommended the use of Karo® syrup. Unaware of the precise dosage that would be effective in treating the condition, David’s mother administered large doses of Karo® syrup. In just two months, his birth weight had doubled, resulting in a quite chubby, yet cuddly young boy. Everyone loves a cute baby, and David’s experience at daycare proved it. The end of each day at daycare meant another return home with a lipstick-covered face due to the excessive amount of loving he received from his caregivers. The affection that he received as an infant shaped David’s life tremendously. David sees himself as an affable individual who enjoys engaging in other people.
 David made an early public debut with a feature on America’s Funniest Home Videos; however, his fame was short-lived and did not culminate in a Hollywood career. While growing up in Charlotte, David enjoyed spending time with his older brother, Bobby, a role model to David and his best friend R.H. Throughout David’s home-schooling during his elementary years, David always looked forward to playing games with R.H., especially “pretend.” Beginning in middle school, David’s parents enrolled him in a strict, private Christian school. David enjoyed rebelling against authority during his middle and early high school years, specifically in the form of vandalism. In his state of rebellion, David made a decision that he wanted to live a hippie lifestyle in Hawaii doing manual labor for the remainder of his life. When David’s father learned that his future lifestyle decision was not “pretend,” he forced him to work for a landscaping company during the summer following ninth grade. After enduring a long, hot, and intense summer of manual labor, David understood the importance of going to college to become successful.
 Immediately after ninth grade, David began to engage in his school work and determined to improve both his behavior and his attitude toward life. However, it was at this point when it became imperative that he focus on an additional element in his quest to be a better person. In addition to turning away from rebellious motivations, David had to overcome a sudden diagnosis of Type 1 diabetes at the age of sixteen. He was confronted with the harsh reality that for the remainder of his life, he would have to give himself multiple insulin injections daily in order to live. Following this diagnosis, David placed even more value upon his life than during the period preceding the onset of diabetes. It was at this time that David truly understood the importance of fervently working toward his goal of going to college and becoming a success.
 While applying for college, David especially wanted to attend the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; however, he was unable to attend that particular school. Following in the footsteps of his role model and brother, Bobby (Furman Class of 2007), he chose to attend Furman University. David is majoring in Economics and Political Science and enjoys being involved in a variety of campus organizations including writing for The Paladin and South Carolina Student Legislature. He has indeed been successful thus far at Furman. Much of David’s success may be attributed to the attention he gave toward identifying the correct priorities, determining to achieve established goals, and choosing a positive role model.

I thought that the most interesting thing from the reading was the section on how “environmental determinism” affected Europe’s efforts to colonize central Africa at the time of exploration. Ever since elementary school, we learn that one of the primary reasons Europe was able to subjugate and expand into the Americas was because they brought diseases to the continent that the native populations had not previously encountered. I thought that the way Guarneri described why, after discovering the Ivory Coast, Europeans had to abandon attempts to colonize Africa was fascinating and something I had never heard before. Studying the neocolonialism movement of the nineteenth century, which was focused almost exclusively on the African continent, made me wonder how Europeans had missed the giant chunk of land to their south and the opportunities that it held until that time. Guarneri explains that Europe was aware of Africa and its wealth but that “the disease barrier of central Africa helps explain why Europeans failed to establish colonial rule in the region until 400 years after their traders first explored the Ivory Coast…” (Guarneri 60)

Kaitlin Nancy Sichau was born on August 22, 1988 to Ken and Jane Sichau. Her parents met in a bar in New Jersey, having been introduced by mutual friends, and were married in 1978. Their first child, Kristin, was born in 1986. Two years later Sichau was born, when her father was 34 and her mother was 32. When Sichau was a toddler the family moved back to New Jersey from Maryland and she was raised in the small town of Chester. She did not find approval in her older sister, Kristin, who refused to play with her. Instead, she found companionship in AO, an imaginary friend who went with her everywhere from the ages of 2 to 6. Sichau’s relationship with her father was also difficult. Because of his career, he was away from home much of the time; when he was around, Sichau was “obsessed” with him, following him around and seeking attention from him. This obsession continued until late elementary school. During middle school she felt some resentment toward all the work he did, but the relationship improved when he retired when she was in 9th grade.
 Sichau mostly attended Catholic schools and she enjoyed school, although she was a self-proclaimed “terrible” student. One activity that she involved with was the Girl Scouts, which she joined in the 1st grade. Sichau continued in the Girl Scouts until the 12th grade, when she received her Gold Award. To receive it, she collected baby items and sewed bags in which to put them to give to underprivileged mothers when they took their babies home from the hospital. Sichau was also active in sports, playing basketball, tennis and lacrosse. When she began high school, she realized that she wanted to be able to go to college, so she began putting much more effort into her school work. Her time in high school was also influenced by her older sister, who became involved with a bad crowd at her public high school. Sichau saw the grief her mother experienced because of her sister, and she decided to never upset her mother like that. In fact, she tried her best to be “perfect” for her family.
 The family moved to Hilton Head, SC in 2006, the summer after Sichau’s senior year in high school. Staying close to her family was a major reason that she decided to attend Furman University in Greenville, SC. She also wanted an education from smaller institution since she went to a small high school and grew up in a town of about 10,000 people. Once at Furman, she began to miss the many female friendships she had in high school and in the Girl Scouts. And so she became a sister of Delta Gamma sorority during her freshman year. Sichau also began pursuing her dream career of restoring historic homes by declaring a history major. She hopes to one day open a restaurant in an home she has restored.

Painter and Redskins enthusiast, Chris Wathen is currently a sophomore at Furman University in Greenville, SC.
On April 23, 1988, Chris Wathen was born. Chris is the only child of Nancy and Gene. His mother, Nancy, is a relief veterinarian who travels to different animal hospital practices each week. His father, Gene, is a computer software engineer who created his own company called Superwylbur about twenty years ago. He works in his own office in the basement of their house in the small, suburban city of Bethesda, Maryland. (“In an email message to author on September 16, 2007, Chris wathen revealed “It is a five to ten minutes drive to the DC line or two stops on the Metro rail system.” Chris lives on the edge of Kensington, a much smaller, less prosperous town. Bethesda has impacted Chris in many ways. Chris was afforded the opportunity to befriend people of every walk of life and to compete with the best and brightest. Bethesda houses students from all over the world and is known for its wealth in economic and multicultural diversity.
Growing up, there were three people who truly impacted Chris’s life. While in medical school, Chris’s mom was the one of the few female veterinarians of her time. Chris admired her for her intelligence and good-natured personality. His other role model was his uncle, Allan Weiss. Chris admired his uncle because he simply enjoys caring for people. He gave great advice about life and was the closest thing he had to a father figure. His other role model was his high school art teacher, Mr. Bartman. Although his paintings are recognized virtually everywhere, Mr. Bartman enjoys his lifelong passion for teaching. These traits suggest the value Chris puts on having passion in something one does for a living. This could very well be the reason Chris has not chosen a major and does not know what he wants to do after college.
Although often regarded as “the quiet type,” Chris is not quiet at all. He can be very talkative once he knows you and is very sociable and kind. He also enjoys a wide variety of hobbies and activities. He currently loves playing soccer and video games. His favorite magazine subscriptions are Time and Sports Illustrated. His all-time favorite NFL team is the Red Skins. His hobbies suggest that he has a keen interest in sports.
There have certainly been a few key, turning points during Chris’s life. One key turning point is when he made a bad grade in Art History. He noticed that he was not able to focus in class as much as he would have liked and had difficulties studying. He took some tests and subsequently discovered that he had ADD. This was a horrifying, yet relieving experience because now Chris is able to understand why he has problems focusing and can reach his full potential. Another key turning point happened during the 911 attack. Because Bethesda is close to the Pentagon, Chris was given a first-hand look at this nation in crisis. Since then, he has become a more concerned citizen in current events.
Chris is currently a sophomore at Furman University. He came to Furman University with an art scholarship in fine arts. His talent is painting and charcoal. He can draw just about anything and enjoys making portraits. He has notebooks full of sketches at home. Despite this talent, Chris had decided to venture down new paths and is currently interested in making History his major. Chris’s dream job would be to work at the Redskins store, but if that does not work out then he would be happy traveling.

On May 9, 1986, in a quaint Hospital with horse ties and a watering trough out front, Bynum Jaeger was born to a military family in the Amish, Leonard Town Maryland. His father was a naval captain and his family lived on the Navy base. Shortly after his birth his family moved to a Navy base in Pensacola Florida. In 1990 Bynum’s family moved to his grandparent’s house in Rosewell, Georgia, as his father began a job as a pilot with Delta airlines in the nearby metropolis of Atlanta. Once his father was established in his job the family moved to Marietta, Georgia, where Bynum has lived ever since.
 Bynum attended private school since the second grade, except for a one year stint in the public school system in eighth grade, prompted by his private school teachers’ weariness of Bynum’s reputation as a trouble maker. During this year he excelled on the multiracial football team and on the Basketball team where he was the only white. He made black friends in this new cultural environment where the children’s lives were quite different from those of his private school classmates. In ninth grade Bynum returned to private school where he played soccer, basketball, and was the quarterback on the football team his father helped start. He was also voted “Most Athletic” by his classmates.
 With a solid work ethic and level of discipline learned from his father, Bynum choose to attend Furman because of his desire to play football at a strong academic school. When Bynum’s pursuit of an accounting degree turned out to have a negative affect on his grape point average, Bynum turned for a major to his love of history, which was cultivated by an earlier teacher and mentor Dean Phillips. Although a history major, Bynum wants to continue in the field he worked in this past summer and pursue work in Financial Planning, so that he may satisfy his desire to work with and assist people.
 As a Delta Airlines employ’s son, Bynum has been able to fly around many parts of the country. He also annually visits his best friend who works as a successful actor in LA. As he loves to travel, Bynum hopes to go to Europe this summer. His father’s employment by Delta has shaped his life in more ways than developing his taste for travel. The financial struggles of the Airline Business left Bynum with the choice to transfer to a less expensive school or find another way to pay for collage. Bynum found a solution in Army ROTC that solved his financial need and also steered him towards the military legacy of his family, despite his adolescent ideas of staying away from the service. Now Bynum is headed toward flying not as passenger on a cross country airline flight, but as a pilot of Blackhawk helicopters in Iraq.

Matthew Jarrett Hayes was born July 7, 1987 in Marietta, Georgia. Matt was raised by his father, Jarrett, who owns an electrical contracting company and his mother, Judy, who graduated from Virginia Tech and is now a homemaker. Matt also has an older sister, Jennifer, who is a fifth year senior at UGA. He grew up attending a Presbyterian church in Marietta with his family.
As a child, Matt attended a public elementary school. He then attended The Walker School, a private middle school and high school. At Walker, Matt was a member of both the swim and golf teams. He was also a member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in high school. Now a junior German major at Furman, Matt spends much of his time playing Furman golf during the fall and spring terms and continues to be involved in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, participating in a Bible study with the golf team.
Matt enjoys traveling. In fact, his decision to become a German major was due largely to a two week visit to Germany and Austria. During his time there, Matt developed an appreciation for European culture and cites Southern Germany as one of his favorite places in Europe. One of his favorite college classes was a German poetry and philosophy class, which taught him to look at the world in a different light and appreciate a unique view of life that is very different from American views.
His travels have also enabled him to see foreign reactions to American policies. Matt was in Rome when the United States declared war. In the streets of Rome, he was caught in an anti-American demonstration and witnessed the burning of American flags. Experiencing different cultures and hearing their views first-hand has been an important part of the development of Matt’s own opinions.
The job Matt has held for the past two summers has also had a significant impact on his view of the world. He manages golf tournaments for underprivileged children in Atlanta. Watching these children find so much joy in small things has made him realize how much people take for granted. The reality of the kinds of lives that those children lead put things in perspective for him. Now Matt is working with some of his fraternity brothers to start a new philanthropy for his fraternity. In this program, Matt and his fraternity brothers plan to teach sports to underprivileged kids.

Mary Leah Friedline
The city of Athens has been in Mary Leah’s blood even before she was born. Her parents, Connie Wilson and Michael Friedline met while attending the University of Georgia in Athens. Her father graduated and became a substance abuse counselor for the university. Her mother was a free spirit, leaving college early to explore the country. She had many exciting jobs but eventually returned to Athens to start her own restaurant. She now owns a business called Educational Assessment, in which she evaluates the degrees of immigrants and tries to find an American equivalent.
 Although both Connie and Michael have influenced the city of Athens, their main contribution has been Mary Leah. She was born on August 28, 1988 in Athens. She was named after her great grandmother, Leah Rodel, who was an activist for establishing state parks in Delaware and is a big part of why Delaware now has over a dozen.
  In 1991, her little sister Maggie joined the family. The Friedline’s also have two pets, a dog named Roxy and a cat named Rue Pert. Mary Leah describes her family as very close, four people who truly enjoy each other’s company.
 Growing up in Athens has influenced Mary Leah. Athens has a buzzing musical scene, home to such bands as the B-52’s and R.E.M. As a child, the first song Mary Leah sang along to was “Shiny Happy People” by R.E.M. Many of her favorite bands are from the past, including The Beatles, The Who, and the Rolling Stones. Living in this musically nurturing society has definitely harvested a passion for listening and loving music, as well as creating it. She has played the viola since the 5th grade, choosing that instrument because it was the only one she had not heard of. She also enjoys playing tennis, eating exotic foods, and watching Disney movies, such as the Beauty and the Beast.
 Mary Leah is grateful for attending public schools her whole life, allowing her to see the troubles of society first hand. Athens is a city of about 175,000, with a poverty percentage of 29% (Wikipedia-Athens,Georgia). Mary Leah’s high school was right near some housing projects and many of her peers were from low-income families. From this, Mary Leah often wondered how she could help the poor and improve their educational system. A main reason for her urge to help people is certainly based in her strong Methodist faith. As Jesus said, “What ever you did for one of the least of my brethren you did unto me” (Matthew 25:40).
 When deciding to attend college, Mary Leah wanted to get away from Athens for a while, discovering that Furman was the right place. Here at Furman she is very involved with the Wesley Fellowship, serving as the treasurer and Religious Council Representative. Mary Leah is also the director of programming for Heller Service Corps. She would love to work for a humanitarian aid organization, taking after her great grandmother by advocating change and bettering people’s lives.

Caroline Ingram was born in Columbia, South Carolina to two loving parents in the winter of 1988. Though that winter’s unprecedented snow storm created an atmosphere of uncertainty and danger around Caroline’s birth, her familial surroundings were safe and secure. Her father, a successful attorney, and her mother, a licensed pharmacist, consistently cared for and nurtured their only child –though were careful never to spoil her – and constantly encouraged her to live up to her amazing potential.
Unlike many families in the United States during the late twentieth century, the Ingrams lived within just a few miles of almost their entire extended family. So, even though Caroline was an only child, she was never wanting for contact with family members her age, since most of her cousins also lived in Columbia.
 As a child, Caroline was encouraged to take part in a number of different activities, but ballet was always her passion. All in all, she performed with the Columbia City Ballet for ten years, taking leading roles in countless productions and touring with the group to cities all over the Southeast. Coupled with her home environment, her experience with the Columbia City Ballet taught her the benefits of working hard, despite adversity, in order to achieve her goals.
In middle school, Caroline was dealt an unexpected blow when she was diagnosed with scoliosis and kyphosis – a severe curvature of the spinal column that would cause her medical problems for the next several years. She was required to wear a back brace for two years in order to stop the scoliosis from worsening. However, this therapy proved ineffective and, in her senior year of high school, she had to have a corrective surgery that would cause her to miss the first few months of school. In the end, this surgery too would prove ineffective, and Caroline would be forced to have another surgery after the spring of her freshman year at Furman University to correct the remainder of the problem.
 While undergoing all of this medical treatment, Caroline’s life went on. She moved on to high school, where she was active in many activities, including the varsity tennis team, student government and Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA). She also remained close to the friends she had made in elementary school and, for the most part, stayed out of trouble.
 Lexington County, which includes the area just outside of Columbia where Caroline grew up, is the second most conservative county in the state of South Carolina – a conservative stronghold in its own right. All of this conservative influence certainly made an impact on young Caroline, but it wasn’t one which she realized until she was asked to join the Young Republicans at her high school. Since that time, she has been very active politically, interning with the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors, in the Office of U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, and with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign office.

At first glance, Jeff is a laid back, easy going guy who is quick with a smile and full of light hearted humor. And in many ways this interpretation is an accurate one. But there is so much more to Jeff Hennessy than meets the eye.
Jeffery Bailey Hennessy was born on August 8, 1988 in Annapolis, Maryland. His mother was a Texan and his father was from New York. Jeff’s dad was gone a lot of the time because of his job as a first mate on a merchant marine ship. Jeff’s childhood was a happy one but during high school Jeff got caught up in drugs. Jeff attributes this to his dad being gone a majority of the time, growing up outside of church and his mother’s own struggle with alcohol. “But who really knows what degree one thing influenced me more than another.” The only reason Jeff never turned to any real hardcore drug usage was because his half brother, Ryan Suter, became schizophrenic from his own use of LSD. Eventually, at the insistence of his then girlfriend Sarah Lynn, Jeff began attending church services. This was the catalyst that brought about one of the biggest changes of Jeff’s life. Jeff was able to stop using drugs and began to follow Christ at the end of his junior year in high school. In fact, one of Jeff’s biggest role models is Shane Claiborne who wrote a book about devoting your life to truly trying to follow Jesus and loving your fellow man. “Basically, he made me want to live in the hood and be poor when I am older,” says Jeff.
Another of Jeff’s most important choices was his decision to come to school in the south instead of studying and playing hockey up north. Jeff says it was a “leap of faith to try something new in the south.” Jeff loves his hometown of Annapolis and struggled with this decision to come to Furman for some time. “Annapolis is amazing,” he states and Jeff believes not being from the south is one of his most distinctive traits. For most of his life he has played both hockey and lacrosse, two sports much bigger in the northeast than in the southeast, and played in two national championships with his hockey team. Despite not playing up north, Jeff still plays both club lacrosse and hockey at Furman. When asked about what he thinks about Furman, Jeff said that “Furman is a great place to learn but sometimes I get sick of all the wealth here. …People at Furman tend to be more close minded than those at home, but they’re also super friendly.”
As of right now, Jeff is living in the Poteat residence hall as a FRAR and is pursuing either a history or political science major here at Furman.

On the fourth of January 1988, Paul Samuel Ramos was born in Santa Ana, California. Unbeknownst to young Paul, his parents Denise and Porfirio Ramos would lead he and his sister, Bethany, through a life of constant change.
As a child, his greatest aspiration was flying planes; one might have caught young Paul running through his yard, arms stretched out far, pretending to fly. Abandoning solid ground, Ramos reached his dream at age fourteen and received his pilot’s license. He can be quoted saying, “There’s nothing I like better than flying in a plane.”
The young man has an astounding sense of adventure. Not only does he fly planes, he jumps out of them (though he certainly doesn’t do both on the same trip)! Skydiving is among Ramos’ favorite activities. In addition to great heights, he also seeks great depths: when Paul isn’t flying or skydiving, he’s scuba diving.
One must imagine that schools of fish would be more serene than schools of people—especially when those people are regularly changing. Paul has already moved six times in his nineteen years. That aspect of his life has been one of the most influential in shaping who he is today. Adapting to an adolescence lacking in consistent friendships and communities, Ramos developed a keen sense of independence. He presumably experienced at a very young age the sense of loss that comes with moving; accordingly, he learned the potential dangers of attachment.
Even so, Paul made a name for himself during high school (though his time was split between two schools) in Louisville, Kentucky. From sports to debate to mock trial, it’s not surprising Paul Ramos was a name people not only recognized, but also regarded highly. So highly, in fact, he held an elected official position and served as a school ambassador.
 Despite requiring him to so frequently uproot himself, Ramos’ parents are among his most inspiring role models. Also on that list is political commentator Rush Limbaugh, a sometimes controversial radio talk-show host. And if Limbaugh isn’t controversial, Esquire magazine’s John Ridley certainly is. Ramos declares Ridley’s “The Manifesto of Ascendancy of the Modern Nigger” to be one of the most influential articles he has read. Ridley writes of a “New Black America” and in closing he proclaims, “We will rise to the simple obligation of taking care of our own with the same dedication we will give to improving our community and country and our world.” And thus it becomes evident that Paul Ramos is not simply aloof and independent, but also compassionate and bold.
        Ramos, at age 19, now resides in Greenville, South Carolina, where he attends Furman University.

Susan Shepard Elliott was born on September 11, 1987 in Piedmont, Georgia.
Growing up in Atlanta, Susan lived a charmed life with her parents Jim, a marketing CPA, and Linda, a stay at home mother who was once an insurance broker, and her twin brother, Grant Mclean, who is only five minutes younger that Susan. Susan and Grant both completed their education, from kindergarten through their senior year in high school, at Woodward Academy in College Park, Georgia.
An equestrian to the core, Susan began riding horses in 7th grade and continued throughout high school. Her first horse, Tux was a great companion until he became lame and had to be given away. However, it was the time Susan spent at the barn, after school and on weekends, that still holds some of her fondest memories. As a young girl, Susan was also involved in many other sports and activities; she took ice skating lessons, was on the swim team, and was a member of her cross-country team in high school. Now, running is still a loved hobby that Susan does both for fun and to keep in shape. Another one of Susan’s passions is reading. She enjoys reading everything from novels by Flannery O’Conner to A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving.
 Family has always been an important part of Susan’s life. While Atlanta did provide diversity and new experiences for a young Susan, she had to rely on her strong Christian background in order to stay true to her morals and beliefs. One of the greatest influences in Susan’s life has been her twin brother, Grant. Growing up with a twin, Susan has always had a built-in best friend. She and Grant shared mostly everything from their taste in music, classic rock, to their friends. Grant, a strong and focused young man who currently is in his second year at West Point, is a natural born leader, which is a characteristic that Susan has always admired. Having such a strong role model constantly by her side, Susan learned so much about the person that she wants to become from Grant.
Today, Susan is a sophomore at Furman University. She lives on the Tri Delt hall with her roommate, Virginia King, who is also coincidently her brother’s girlfriend. Susan is currently involved in many organizations and activities on campus, including Tri Delta, FCA, and the Leadership Program. Upon coming to Furman, Susan joined the equestrian team as well. However, she resigned after the first year due to schedule conflicts. She is a French major and is considering her options in the history department. She dreams of traveling the world, especially exploring the Mediterranean. While is may seem as though Susan has already lived a full life, her story has only merely begun.

Rebecca Ruth Vickers, affectionately called Becca by her friends, was born on June 22, 1988, in Franklin, Texas. Her hometown was a small country town with one school, one stoplight, and one grocery store which was owned by her father. Her high school peers consisted of many that were involved in the Future Farmers of America, and the opening day of deer hunting season was a much anticipated day among the community. Rebecca’s early years allowed her to develop and shape her individual ideas about topics such as stereotypes because many of the friends she grew up with would be classified as “hicks” by others. These stereotypes of her friends allowed her to become a more open-minded person and realize the mistake of stereotypes. Throughout her early years Rebecca developed a great respect for her grandfather that led her to call him her role model. His unyielding love and support for her grandmother, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, has led to a great admiration that she feels towards him. Rebecca was able to develop her core beliefs and personality during her childhood because of her interactions with her community, her family, and her church.
An interest in the community was sparked early in Rebecca’s life as she became involved in the development of a community service organization at her high school. She also held the position of secretary for the city’s Chamber of Commerce, where she was instrumental in the creation of its website. She graduated as the valedictorian of her class and decided to attend Furman University because her older sister was already enrolled in the university.
At Furman University, Rebecca has become a Young Life Leader at Traveler’s Rest High School. She is also heavily involved in the Baptist Campus Ministry. Outside of those responsibilities, Rebecca enjoys spending time with her friends and family. When she is able to find free time for herself, Rebecca enjoys reading books such as The House of Mirth, The Hero and the Crown, and The Irresistible Revolution. Rebecca currently considers the possibility of majoring in history but is still undecided. She considers this path because her grandfather led her to an interest in history with the stories and history lessons that he told her in her childhood. Modern History catches her attention the most because Rebecca enjoys being able to speak about history with those that have lived through events that she is able to study. The summer before her sophomore year, Rebecca’s family had an eleven year old boy from Ethiopia come and spend the part of the summer with them in the hopes of finding an adoptive family in the United States for him. Rebecca’s family instead decided to adopt the little boy who is named Towodros and affectionately called Teddy for short. After college Rebecca hopes to take a year off and perform missionary work in other parts of the world.

Lindsay Shane was born on 4 November 1986 in Nairobi, Kenya. Her parents were missionaries to the area, and Lindsay spent the first twelve years of her life in Nairobi. After finishing elementary school, Lindsay, along with her family, moved back to the United States in order to facilitate her brother’s transition into college life. Lindsay’s brother began attending Furman, a private liberal arts university located in Greenville, South Carolina. Meanwhile, the family relocated to the thriving metropolis of nearby Rock Hill, SC. Lindsay lived here for her junior high years, although she was not the greatest devotee of the region. Once again, the family moved back to Africa. This time, however, they lived in Capetown, South Africa. Lindsay finished up her high school studies in Capetown, where she attended a British school. Following graduation, Lindsay, like her brother, came to Greenville. She is currently a sophomore at Furman University, considering a major in history or communications studies. Lindsay is sarcastic, determined and oftentimes, blunt. When not in class, Lindsay likes to spend her free time reading, watching movies or talking with others. She is anxiously awaiting Season 3 of The Office. Lindsay also dabbles in photography, another one of her hobbies.
 Lindsay is a Christian but more importantly, she has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Rather than just a title, she is adamant that Christianity should affect everything one does in life. After junior high, Lindsay was faced with an important turning point in her life: the shift to South Africa. Moving to Capetown helped her realize that she had to actively live the life of a Christian, not just talk about it. Another crucial decision occurred when she decided to come to the United States and pursue her college education. Lindsay chose Furman because she desires to grow in knowledge and enhance her opportunities in life. At Furman, she has thrived in the intellectual atmosphere, learning to listen and employ logic. Encountering an array of views, Lindsay has learned to articulate her beliefs through private study. Lindsay’s parents are great role models and have inspired her through their dedication to the African people. Obviously, being a missionary is an extremely arduous task, and Lindsay is continually amazed by her parents’ faithfulness and compassion. Since she grew up in Africa, Lindsay has encountered poverty and disease on a personal level. While she is not callous in her attitude toward Africa’s problems, she feels that there is a general misuse of funds and failure to take responsibility among African governments.

Rachel Catherine Pope was born in Pensacola, Fl on January 20, 1987. She was named Rachel after her father, Ray. Her mother, Kelly, was a working mom, and Rachel missed her when she was working. Rachel was the younger of two children. Her brother, Daniel, was a quiet boy who did well in school. When her parents saw that the young Rachel was much more social than her brother, they expected that the two siblings would be opposites. But although the two children had different personalities, they also proved to have a lot in common. Like many younger siblings, Rachel looked up to her brother, followed him around, and always wanted to be like him. Daniel came to have a big influence on her life. As they grew up, the siblings came to share similar beliefs and attitudes towards life, as well as a common interest in History.
 Rachel attended private school her whole life. From Kindergarten to eighth grade she went to East Hill Christian School. Like her brother, she did well in school and loved learning, but she also loved the social aspect of it. She was competitive by nature, and this helped her to do well in school. She also loved team sports and grew up playing basketball.
 When Rachel was twelve years old, her parents divorced. This was hard for Rachel, as would be on any young girl, but the divorce was amicable and the parents shared joint custody.
 In high school, Rachel moved to Trinitas Classical School. It was a tiny Christian private school in which Rachel was the oldest student. As a classical school, Trinitas employed a method of learning and teaching that was entirely different from any thing Rachel had experienced at East Hill. The focus was on integrated learning. All students took one major class, called Omnibus, which incorporated history, English, writing, philosophy, and the Bible. Trinitas believed that students should apply themselves at school, but when they were at home that was family time. As a result, students were given no more than an hour of homework per day. Trinitas changed the way that Rachel viewed school and learning.
 As her high school career came to an end, Rachel was unsure of where she wanted to go to college. She knew she did not want to go to school in Pensacola like many of her friends and classmates. Furman was recommended to her during her senior year of high school by a friend of her mom. Rachel fell in love with Furman. She was taken with its campus, community, programs, and study abroad options. She now attends Furman as junior history major.
 Rachel’s Christian faith is an important part of her life. She grew up going to church, and she is still very close to her church in Pensacola. Rachel’s experience at Trinitas challenged her to learn more about the history of her faith, what it stands for, and what it means. At Furman she is an active member of the Religious Council. She is also involved in Reformed University Fellowship (RUF), a Presbyterian group on campus which was recommended to her by her brother. RUF has challenged her to grow in her faith and taught her how to apply it in the rest of her life and her dealings with other people.
 After she graduates from Furman, Rachel would like to teach at a classical school like Trinitas. If she has children, she would like to be a stay at home mom.

Alex Klaes

Alex Klaes’s life has been greatly affected by his environment around him. He was born June 3rd, 1987 in Greer, South Carolina. Growing up in the upstate has had a profound impact on Alex’s life. His love of the outdoors blossomed while living on a seven-acre farm north of Greenville in Cleveland, South Carolina. It was here where Alex developed his passion for hiking, and backpacking. His times spent in the woods gave him a strong appreciation for all that nature provides our populous. Because of this passion for nature, preserving the environment has become an integral part of his life. He is a serious advocate of recycling, and rarely wastes anything. He continues to strive to remain as “green” as possible in all that he does. Alex hopes his example will serve as an inspiration for others to do the same.
Along with Alex’s love of recycling, he has generated an intense enthusiasm for education. Growing up on the outskirts of Travelers Rest, Alex observed that many people in the community had fairly similar views, and were often uneducated. These same people were incredibly set in their ways, and rarely challenged anything that they had been taught. While in high school, Alex took a class entitled “Theory of Knowledge” instructed by a teacher who had a profound impact on his life, Mrs. Chance. Mrs. Chance encouraged Alex not to accept everything for its face value, and that through critical analysis of his surroundings he could become truly knowledgeable. Alex took Mrs. Chance’s charge to heart, and his quest has since led him to Furman University.
Furman University seemingly is a perfect fit for Alex because of Furman’s commitment to a continued education. With Furman’s rigorous academic curriculum, and abundant academic resources, the university gives Alex an intimate academic setting where his mind can be truly focused on acquiring a wider understanding of his surroundings. Alex has always demonstrated an intense desire to become increasingly more educated, and he is considering the possibility of one day becoming a college professor. Teaching is a profession that Alex is incredibly familiar because his brother, the person in his family who he is closest to, teaches music at a high school in North Carolina. Alex truly admires his brother, and credits his brother for his own interest in teaching. However, it is clear that Alex does not want to settle for following in the footsteps of his older brother, and aspires to blaze his own path wherever that may take him.
 Alex is a person who never takes himself too seriously. Anyone could identify this character trait of his when one first meets Alex by merely laying one’s eyes on his blond mohawk that he can be seen sporting around Furman’s campus. When Alex is not in the woods or the library, he enjoys listening to classical rock music, and hanging out with his friends who share a similar outlook on life. He also enjoys the comedic television show Scrubs and witty comedic movies like Life Aquatic and The Royal Tenenbaums. Alex’s loose, and humorous demeanor is apparent through interaction with him which makes incredible easy for anyone to enjoy his company.

The Life of Kimberly Stein

 The events of Kimberly’s life, thus far, have not only been those of a normal childhood but also others that have shaped her into a unique and authentic individual. In Wall, a town on the Jersey coast, Kimberly Grace Stein was born on August 22, 1987 in Point Pleasant Hospital. Joining older sister Katie, she was the second born to Steve and Missy Stein. With a friend, Missy owned an imaginarium children’s museum, while Steve, formerly a competitive gymnast, owned a few gymnastics schools at which he coached. Kimberly’s childhood days were spent at school and at the gym. Before entering the fifth grade, she had progressed to level eight in gymnastics.
New Jersey was home for about the first ten years of her life until Steve decided to sell his share in the gymnastics schools to his partner and take a job in Florida. So, on June 21, 1997, the Stein family packed up the car and made the trek to Delray Beach, situated on the East Coast of Florida. There, Steve worked in construction with his sister, while Missy became an accountant. Less than a year later, while driving to church, Steve was hit and killed by a drunk driver on April 19, 1998.
Her father’s death, coupled with the unwanted, cross-country move, really shook her up. She became a very quiet person for a while afterward. It did however allow Kimberly and her sister to grow closer and rely on each other. As a result, Katie, who is three years older, has become an integral part of Kimberly’s life as a role model and best friend. Because Kimberly could learn from Katie’s mistakes and advice, her influence stemmed from her constant presence in Kimberly’s life.
Once the Steins had settled into life in Florida, Kimberly started attending a small private school. During her high school years, history was her preferred academic subject; she credits her junior year American history teacher with inspiring in her the desire to teach. Instead of treating history as simply a study of the past, this teacher created assignments for her students to make the material come alive. She won influence on Kimberly’s ideals because of not only her teaching methods but also her personal interest in each of her students’ lives. Aside from academics, competition cheerleading took up most of Kimberly’s time. Her background in gymnastics made her perfect for cheerleading, which became a lasting passion for her. Having had an amazing coach in high school, Kimberly knows the value of encouraging, committed instructors. Just last year, she coached a high school team in Greenville.
Once high school ended, the choice of coming to Furman was not a difficult one. While many of her classmates opted for big state schools, Kimberly knew she would thrive in a smaller setting. Now at Furman, she has developed a good core group of friends and participates in a variety of activities, from joining a sorority to working for the director of admissions. After over a decade since living out of New Jersey, she still considers it home and keeps in touch with her friends. The events of her childhood and adolescence shaped her into an adaptable, loving person. One aspect that has been pervasive and influential throughout Kimberly’s life has been the presence of a core group, family, or community always there to support and encourage her.

Biography of David White

When I asked David White, a junior history major, to describe himself using only one word, he grinned and said “awesome”. And although a one class period interview can barely suffice to reach the real essence of a person, it seems that David was correct in his description. He is a centered person who knows the value of what he is given, which is represented by the small “2/3” tattooed on his left arm. David says that this little fraction reminds him of the fact that 2/3 of the world’s population subsists on less than two dollars a day, and that he should remember to be thankful for the life he is living. As a South Carolina native (he grew up just seven miles from Furman’s campus, in the town of Traveler’s Rest), David didn’t go very far for his college education, but he knew that even though he’d be close to home, Furman was the place for him. He knew that he wanted to go to a small school with a good reputation, and Furman offered him money, so it was a no-brainer! Also, Furman was the only school he applied to. However, this situation shows that David is confident in his decisions, and he seems to be very dedicated to whatever he does, which includes applying to college. Perhaps this mentality echoes that of the author Kurt Vonnegut, who is not only David’s role model but also the author of his favorite book, The Sirens of Titan.
Growing up, David attended a Methodist church with his family that wasn’t too strict, but as soon as he was able, he stopped attending. He chose to form his own opinions about his faith and spirituality. Now, he calls himself a “Teapot Agnostic”, because he says he can argue his faith just as well as he can argue that there is a teapot orbiting the planet Mars. David is a free thinking, unique person and he hasn’t let anyone’s beliefs shape his own. His personal history is entwined with that of his parents, his family, his friends and his peers here at Furman, but it is also set apart by the unique traits David possesses, and the things he believes are important. He claims that he doesn’t identify with his parents, which is understandable and applicable for most people around the same age, but their histories are a part of David’s, and vice versa. David is a creative, fun person, shown by his interest in music, recordings, and self-proclaimed “shenanigans”, yet he is also grounded and aware of where he came from.

Russell Kooistra
 Russell Kooistra, the second of two sons, was born in 1990 and has grown up in Campobello, SC, a small community on the outskirts of Greenville. His parents, especially his mother, were determined that he would not be restricted by the size of his hometown and the limitations of a more rural high school. From an early age they instilled within Russell the desire to attend a leading university and have made every effort to propel him towards that goal. Even as early as elementary school, his parents sought to hone his competitive edge and encourage him to be a diligent student. As young as age three, Russell’s parents involved him in competitive soccer with the hope that one day the sport might open university doors. As Russell grew older, he continued to compete in soccer and expand his academic horizons by taking classes at Furman University.
While Russell has come to enjoy competing at such high levels, he does recognize that there is a tremendous personal cost associated with it. He realizes that to merit a place among the best he must constantly analyze his performance and solicit criticism from others. At times Russell found such constant criticism discouraging: while other parents congratulated their children at the end of a soccer game, his focused primarily upon finding ways for him to improve. In retrospect, Russell believes he would have profited from a balance between positive and critical encouragement.
 The analytical environment in which he developed has greatly shaped Russell’s own view of the world. The effect is obvious in his choices of entertainment. Because he has been taught to think critically, he has developed a preference for music and movies that are thought provoking and critical. One of his favorite movies, South Park, exemplifies a cynical interpretation of life that has no regard for social or political constructions and criticizes all sides equally. In addition to enjoying satire, Russell also identifies with the absurdist ideas exemplified in Catch 22. He is intrigued by the notion that life has no significance except that which is imparted to it by the individual.
   While Russell has endured hard work and tremendous amounts of stress, he feels his efforts are justified by the results he has earned. One of his greatest memories is of the day he learned ACT scores. Without his knowledge, Russell’s father had phoned the scores in to the principal’s office. The principal called Russell into his office and informed him of the scores; he was completely taken aback by the results. Russell, to his own surprise, learned that his scores had surpassed even those of his older brother, who is currently a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This tremendous success has given him confidence as he begins his college application process.
While his high school career has been very successful, Russell doesn’t want it to give him an inflated sense of self-importance. He models his attitudes after those of wide receiver Marvin Harrison. Harrison, a remarkably talented and highly successful athlete, has been diligent to maintain a humble demeanor that stands in stark contrast to the arrogance of his peers. At present, Russell is uncertain precisely where his path will lead; he has a hard time deciding whether he prefers studying the sciences or humanities. However, he does know he would like to play soccer in college and is carefully considering the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Upon completing his undergraduate degree, he plans to pursue a career in either law or medicine.

Source Consulted
Russell Kooistra, personal interview with the author, September 14, 2007.

Andrew McCarthy was born of Paul and Karen McCarthy, both of Iowa, in Dallas, Texas on June 2, 1987. Andrew is the oldest of three siblings; his sister Claire is eighteen, Kelly is thirteen, and Daniel is fourteen. He loved having siblings during his childhood because “he was never alone” and always had someone to play with in the yard or pool. Not only does he love his parents and siblings, but claims to love his chocolate lab named Joe more than he could possibly love any human baby. To compliment Andrew’s more sensitive side, he has an intellectual sense of humor which he credits to watching too much Conan O’Brien. Since the sixth grade, he has enjoyed singing in the choir and has earned many awards. As a sophomore, junior, and senior in high school, Andrew made the all-state choir. During his years as a Plano Senior High School Wildcat, Andrew also ran cross country and track.
Paul McCarthy has influenced and defined Andrew above anyone else through his responsibility as Andrew’s father and role model. Andrew believes that his father’s strong conservative beliefs and political philosophies have been directly passed down to him. He also credits his grandfather, Ken McCarthy, for much of his personal growth because he took him to Catholic Mass weekly, which instilled in him a “strict moral code.”
During Andrew’s seventh grade year, he experienced one of the most eye opening events of his life. His mother was hospitalized after a near fatal car accident, where she broke three ribs and a leg. Andrew reflected on life at this point in time and came to the realization that “life is extremely precious and we only have little time to spend with those that we love most dearly.”
As a sophomore in high school, Andrew realized that even though his interest in politics was strong, he did not feel that becoming a politician was the right career path for him. He came to this conclusion as he lived on his own for a summer in Washington, DC. There he worked as a page for his representative, Sam Johnson (R, TX). This experience displayed to Andrew the unattractiveness of the busy and divisive life that most politicians live.
 Texas will always be home to Andrew and he will never lose pride in where he is from. He expressed that the culture of the state has made him a proud, confident, and bold person. Even though Andrew’s heart still remains in Texas, he made a huge decision to attend Furman University in order to embrace a different culture and become a more worldly person. Andrew has become acclimated the south, but still believes that “Texas is the best country on earth.”
While pursuing a major in history, he is also currently sitting on the Public Relations Committee and Standards Board for the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. After Furman he hopes to return to Texas for graduate school.

Jacob Hughes: A Biography
Jacob Hughes was born and raised in Greenville, South Carolina. He has a sister, Meagan and a brother, Ethan. Jacob plays the clarinet and while in high school he played with the well known Carolina Youth Symphony. During his involvement with the Symphony he visited and performed in Carnegie Hall in New York. This past summer Jacob spent his days working for his father’s company, Hughes Builders, which deals largely with renovations of existing homes in Greenville. Currently he is a senior at Furman with a Music Performance and History double major. He spends his spare time reading and playing golf.
Growing up in Greenville greatly influenced Jacob. The small town atmosphere of Greenville made it difficult for him to recognize the many problems that millions of Americans faced such as poverty or unemployment. But Jacob is interested in travel and is returning to New York to play in Carnegie Hall in 2008.
Family has also affected Jacob. As the eldest of three children, he understands and loves the bond that a family can experience. The home that his parents provided for him has greatly influenced who he is today. The work ethic that his parents believe in has inspired him to work hard throughout his college career. Not only have Jacob’s parents shaped him by their work habits but he is also grateful for their commitment to their church and to the Bible. He considers his parents to be the ones who helped him develop his own beliefs in God and helped him develop as a Christian. Jacob appreciates that his parents’ examples of character and integrity have, since childhood, helped him develop his own life philosophy and have allowed him to build a sturdy foundation for his future.


With graduation drawing closer, Jacob is looking forward to a possible career in law. He is primarily interested in business and real estate law. At the end of the month of September he will take the LSAT. While pursuing a degree in history and acknowledging the practicality of a law profession, Jacob chose to also major in something that gives him pleasure, Music Performance. In middle school he discovered that he enjoyed playing the Clarinet and has continued to play ever since. While he knows that he may not take his music career any further than Furman’s gates he believes in studying what he loves. He is thankful for what he has been exposed to in college. He realizes that Furman has not only been a vehicle for him to gain more knowledge or a place to provide job opportunities, but that Furman has also taught him to consider the beliefs of other people while learning how to better defend his own.

Good point, Jacob. I didn't intend to minimize the significance or nobility of working for societal changes like equal rights. I simply find it necessary to look at the progress these people made from more than one angle. We can't disregard the fact that we wouldn't have had to abolish slavery had we not started it. I wouldn't question the importance of Lincoln or the Emancipation Proclamation. I would, however, question his intentions. Did he do it out of ethical concern for the enslaved? Or did he do it to preserve the union?

George Whitefield's influence on the culture of America extends beyond just religion. the American outlook still today has an evangelical side to it very similar to Christian evangels. Spreading democracy rather than Christianity is the American ideal.

yes I think he had a disagreement with John Wesley over predestination. Wesley believed in free will while Whitfield believed in Calvin's idea of predestination.

Although Whitefield was not a huge fan of religious denominations, I believe he actually taught a Methodist theology that was very similar to Calvinism.

This is definitely a good point. These people had a big influence on American ideals. However, it is important that we realize that we very often fall short of our ideals, as in the case of the Native Americans and many other times throughout history.

I do agree that America's initial founders were not free of "unethical" attitudes and practices towards the native population, but that fact does not negate the significance of future Americans' lives and ideas. Through education reform, Margaret Fuller helped women gain a foothold in a male-dominated society/world. Carl Schurz actively promoted his views on slavery and minority rights. Restoring order and effective government, Douglas MacArthur took part in the restructuring of Japan following its monumental collapse at the end of World War II. Each of these figures contributed greatly to the rights of others. Would you also question the importance of Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation? Correct me if I'm making any assumptions.

Anne makes a very good point when she says that these great people wouldn't have had a place to do what they did unless there was serious inequality in the first place. It bothers me as well. The "idea" of America is a wonderful thing, but in actuality it doesn't really exist....even to this day. True, we have made improvements, and attempted to pay debts to those who deserve them, but is that really helping?

Edited by author 09-17-2007 09:10 AM
I see where everyone's coming from on the "American freedoms" posts. I suppose that's why we read biographies of these people: they were the first to challenge status quo and they set out a foundation for equal rights. But honestly, that's old news; I've been reading about these people since the eighth grade.

What's more interesting, I think, is to look at these biographies right next to the reading from the beginning of chapter one in America in the World, particularly the description of Native American lifestyle. Take what Fuller and Baker were saying and then contrast it to how the Native Americans had previously structured their society--i.e. "Iriquois women chose the men who represented clans at larger tribal meetings", etc. It seems to me the Native Americans already had everything figured out (before we killed them all, that is).

As I said, we've all heard about the so-called great Europeans who dared to make societal, cultural changes in times of intense conservatism. Furthermore, most of us have probably heard about those things in some sort of "the West is great" context, no? I certainly did. But recently I've started to think: are these peoples' accomplishments really that great if they're being carried out in an America that was established relatively unethically?

It's a disturbing thought, but one I think we must consider. Margaret Fuller and Josephine Baker and George Whitefield, etc. wouldn't have had a place to make such an impact had we not essentially wiped out between 7 and 10 million people. That bothers me.

Douglas Macarthur is remembered by many as a great general but also as egotistical and a glory hunter. He broke army uniform regulations to wear what he wanted, including his famous corncob pipe. Despite his inflated ego and insubordination leading to his dismissal, he is amongst the greatest generals in US history. He oversaw the occupation in Japan, and with his agressive style it seems like no wonder that Japan signed a constitution.

George Whitefield's significance outside of the US was great. He was an evangelist who spread "the good word" throughout Britain and the Americas. He was interesting because he did not discriminate based on region or denomination. I thought it was peculiar how he did not care for distinction in denomination during the Reformation era; where there was the birth of many denominations within the Protestant faith- Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc. Margaret Fuller was a feminist. She was very distinctive because she fought to enrich women's lives through the pursuit of education. She was a champion in her own right during the rise of feminism. Carl Schurz was a German-American political reformer. From the battlefield to the US Senate, Schurz repeatedly stood by his morals; be it antislavery, rights for blacks, forming the Liberal Republican Party, or writing. He truly exercised “American” freedoms after being held in captivity while in Germany. Jospehine Baker broke color and geographical barriers during the 1920s. She became one of the most popular hall entertainers in France. She also participated in civil rights demonstrations while in America. Douglas MacArthur lived the American dream. He was afforded the opportunity to command the Southwest Pacific Theatre in World War II and he also led the United Nations during the Korean War.

I definitely agree with Kim and Matthew. You can see the development of what have become American Ideals through the lives of these prominent figures in American history. I also found it interesting that George Whitfield seems to have popularized the idea of being "born again". He believed that "every truly religious person needs to experience a rebirth in Jesus." This has become a really important idea for Christians and I would say that it is particularly prevalent among Christians in America.

Hi, my name is Russell Kooistra, and I'm a senior in high school doing dual-enrollment in this class. When I'm not playing soccer matches, I'm usually practicing for them. I have one older brother, Tristan, who is in college. My favorite band is Interpol.

This is also my response to the biographies for tomorrow-
I found it interestin that Carl Schurz, although born and educated in Germany became very active in American politics. His desire for rights for freedmen and Indians was uncommon, and I find it very interesting that he took such an interest in this subject considering he was not originally American. Margaret Fuller and Josehine Baker were both Americans who worked for more rights just like Schurz. Fuller worked for rights for women and was behine the feminist cause during a time when feminism was rising but probably not popular among all. This is echoed in Baker's work because she came back from France so that she could assist with the civil rights cause during a time when not all agreed with such rights. All three of these people had "American" ideas that helped with the cause for more rights for different groups of people in America.

Hey guys! This is my posting for tomorrow's class....
I was reading the Britannica biographies for the 5 individuals, and I thought that it was very interesting that a few of these people, Josephine Baker and Carl Shurz in particular, were ex-pats (although from different countries), and they still held "American" ideals concerning civil rights (at the time these ideals weren't the norm, but in modern times Americans like to believe they think this way). Baker traveled from France to participate in civil rights demonstrations, and Shurz was a big supporter of Black rights immediatley following the civil war. It is interesting that these people lived during different times, yet they held the same opinons. Also, during the respective times these people were living, their personal ideals were not the most accepted.

Hi, I'm a sophomore from Bethesda, MD. I'm still undecided but I'm leaning towards history as a major. I love the Redskins but like anything about football. I love music, movies and just hanging out. I have no idea what I want to do once I leave college but I like keeping up on current events and love to travel

I'm Adam and I'm a sophomore with an undeclared major. I play rugby here at Furman. I enjoy relaxing, the outdoors on a nice day, and air conditioning.

Hello everyone. My name is Bynum Jaeger. I am from Marietta, GA. I am a senior history major. I play football here at furman, as well as participate in the Army ROTC program. When I graduate in the spring, I am headed to flight school to learn to how to fly blackhawk helicopters. Unless there is some sort of major change in political world, I will be headed to Iraq for 9 months upon my completion of flight school.

Hi, I'm David Samuelson, and I'm a Junior Poly-Sci/Econ double major. I'm from Charlotte, NC. I enjoy economics. I do not like politics. I really dislike the dining hall and think that its policies regarding how much food one can leave with are unreasonable.

Edited by author 09-14-2007 09:34 AM
Hey. I live in Greenville. I'm a senior, double-majoring in history and music. I play in the Furman Symphony and spend a majority of my time in the vacinity of McAlister Aud. I plan to attend law school following graduation. I enjoy the outdoors, be it hiking, climbing or fly-fishing.

Word. I'm a sophomore who has not decided on a major yet but I am considering History. I'm from Travelers Rest. I like the mountains and I think everyone should try to recycle.

I'm a junior and I'm double majoring in Philosophy and History. Aside from school, I spend most, if not all, of my time doing something outside and/or playing music. I'm joining the Peace Corps when I graduate.

Hi everyone. Im a sophomore and i dont have a major yet. perhaps history. I am from Chester, New Jersey. However, we moved to Hilton Head,SC after i graduated from highschool last june-my parents are retired and im the youngest. When i have some down time, i really like to run, go to the beach, or hang out with my friends.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...okay, not really, its just my junior year. I've lived for the past ten years in Columbia, South Carolina and I am the eldest of 5 children. I'm a history major, but I also enjoy studying political philosophy. This past summer I worked with Child Evengelism Fellowship and went to Wales for 10 days. When I have free time, I alternately flail the waters of North Carolina in an attempt to catch trout, and torture my roommates by plinking on a mandolin.

Hey! I'm a sophomore and am currently undecided but considering a history major. I was born and raised in Franklin, TX which is a tiny town between Houston and Dallas. I live in the country and have a pasture with hay bales and horses. Also, I was once bitten by a copperhead snake in my front yard.

Hey, I'm a junior history major from Pensacola, FL. I don't have any unusual hobbies, except maybe for how much I like to read, but I just really like being around people. This summer I went to India for 6 weeks and worked with street children. I'm not totally sure about what I want to do after college, but I think I'd enjoy teaching high school.

Hey yall, my name is Jess Giles. I'm a junior History major, pre-law. I love sports, music, and politics. I am invovled in Students for Barack Obama and a proud member of the NAACP. I am a huge gamecock fan. Go gamecocks!!!!

Hey, I'm a sophomore history/religion major. I'm from Athens, Ga which has a really big music scene. So I've always been pretty into music of all types and I also play the viola. I'm also a big tennis fan. I love both watching it and playing it.

Hey! I'm Kimberly and I am a junior communication major ( and maybe history). I just moved to Hilton Head, SC from Delray Beach, FL. However, I am originally from NJ and that is the place I will always call home. I want to work in the broadcasting industry after college, but I eventually want to be a high school history teacher.

Howdy do,

I'm a junior, history major. I'm from Travelers Rest. Music is essentially my life, listening, recording... and as I said in class I'm the WPLS manager for 2007-08.

Hey, I'm a sophomore and I am planning on being a history and communications double major. I was born in Nairobi, Kenya and I have spent the majority of my life in Africa. I went to high school in Cape Town, South Africa and I plan on living overseas once I graduate. I love to play around with photography and I love sports and reading.

Hey, guys. I'm a History major from Dallas, TX. I come from a family of seven and love my home state. I'm a huge Cowboys fan but am able to tolerate people who enjoy football in general. I enjoy running, reading and hanging out with my friends.

Hey! I am a sophomore French major. I am from Atlanta, GA and enjoy running, reading, and horseback riding.

Hey Y'all. I'm a junior German major and possibly doubling in History. I'm from Georgia and play on the golf team here at Furman.

Edited by author 09-12-2007 09:38 PM
Hey! I am a Sophomore Political Science/History major from Columbia, SC. I am very interested in politics. This summer, I interned for Senator DeMint's office (R-SC). I enjoy playing tennis, kayaking, and running. After college, I plan to attend law school.

Hey everyone! I'm from Easton, Connecticut but I lived in Charlotte this summer with some relatives. My brother is a senior in high school and my parents are going to move back down here once he graduates (they both went to school in SC). I have my private pilot's license in gliders and my student pilot's license in powered aircraft, and hope to one day fly for the airlines.

Biographical Introduction: I grew up playing hockey, lacrosse, the drums, sailing, eating crabs, and rooting for Navy athletics in Annapolis, Maryland. My dad grew up in upstate New York and my mom in San Antonio, Texas. I have a half brother and I enjoy peanut butter and fluff sandwiches.

Welcome to the HST-21 Issues in American History course discussion board. We will use this forum to consider documents and assignments from the course, to discuss strategies and approaches to historical interpretation, and to pass along insights to the larger group. Before starting you will want to read the discussion board guidelines page (http://facweb.furman.edu/~bensonlloyd/hst21/discussion21.htm) on the course website. Good luck and happy posting!