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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.