Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=192.65.245.100McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:16:06ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments328--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-01T14:17:12Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Betty Jeanne Boggs, "Balancing Work and Family" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Debate topics or comparative questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, "Balancing Work and Family" ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the article "Balancing Work and Family." I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren't that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn't need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as "real" as the ''perfect'' manicured family?<br />
-- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs. It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school. Also the attitude of if 'one can't go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.' I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50's wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other's dream possible. --Julie Robert<br />
<br />
== Wilma Mankiller, "Indian Relocation" - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanna Rubin, "An Unplanned Pregnancy" 1950s ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ethel Barol Taylor, "Women Strike for Peace" ==<br />
The article "Women Strike for Peace" by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying "Take your children off milk," and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940's and the 1950's. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mother had thyroid cancer - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Louisa Randall Church - "Parents, Architects of Peace" 1946 ==<br />
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==<br />
<br />
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pauli Murray, 1947 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==<br />
The article in MP, "Nonconformist Joyce Johnson..." was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn't matter, as long as you didn't go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions? I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this "escort" invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letter from black reader to ''The Ladder'', in 1957 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Betty Friedan, "The Problem That Has No Name" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==<br />
I actually felt a little dumb with this week's readings. There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was "Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970." They mentioned 'therapeutic abortions' and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about. I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading. --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) <br />
<br />
<br />
== Vicki Ruiz, "'Star Struck': Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950" ==</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T05:59:53Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death."(183) This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that at the same time as he seems so mad at everyone he is almost begging it seems. And he doesn't even ask for equal rights... just less mean rights. Like, he says its fine to be punished to the full extent of the law, but not the sold. seems like he would try for a farther up bargain. I found it interesting. -- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
When Jefferson persuaded Sally Hemmings to return to VA with him, I thought it was out of love but i guess not because Madison stated that Jefferson did not show affections toward his siblings and him. I find that odd. And I find it kind of confusing when he promised her that her children would be set free at the age of 21. To my understanding the child she was pragnant with in France is her first. So wouldn't her child be free anyways since she is free in france? -- Eun Yi<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T05:38:32Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* James Forten protests 1813 PA Law */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death."(183) This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that at the same time as he seems so mad at everyone he is almost begging it seems. And he doesn't even ask for equal rights... just less mean rights. Like, he says its fine to be punished to the full extent of the law, but not the sold. seems like he would try for a farther up bargain. I found it interesting. -- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T05:06:20Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death."(183) This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T05:58:11Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T05:34:21Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-22T05:19:31Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>La Barre's Failed Bluff<br />
<br />
The Iroquois Indians were in recurrent wars with the French for a significant amount of time during the 17th century. Calloway states on page 118, "Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre's Army)" Why didn't the Iroquois decimate the last of the French forces and possesing the knowledge that La Barre was bluffing his military potential to scare the Iroqois into submission? If the Iroquois destroyed La Barre's Army it would have possibly set in motion a rallying cry of Indian resistence, which leads to my other question. The Native Indians of the Americas were strong and prosperous during the initial European colonization; they had the power to make or break European colonies because many colonies survived only by the genorosity of the Natives (sharing of corn, berries, and meat, as well as farming/hunting techniques, etc). As the years past, the Natives lost their influence and diplomatic power and are in a situation where their population is steadily declining and reaching a point of possible extinction. Why couldn't the Native tribes unify for the sole cause of driving the Europeans out of their lands, or atleast resisting them and forcing the Europeans to live in co-existance? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
"Boston Massacre Oration"-- I found it really interesting how Joseph Warren compared the Acts of Parliament. He likened it to being slavemasters, and the colonists the slaves. Since Warren lived in Boston, I have no doubt that the New Englanders had pretty radical ideas about slavery and were not as strict about power over them; if freed slaves in the North were able to join the Continental Army and Southern slaves had to get permission, then obviously Boston and New England were slightly more abolitionist than the South was. All that aside, did most colonists feel like slaves under the strict Parliamentary Acts? And if so, then wouldn't the colonists thus realize how oppressive it was and free their slaves? Also, I liked the statement addressed in the questions at the end of the document about Warren feminizing liberty, which makes me wonder whether or not this was the first time liberty has been feminized. I know today liberty is also known as Lady Liberty, further proof is the female Statue of Liberty. Is it possible that Warren or other colonists feminized liberty because then they were able to make power masculine? If liberty is feminine and power masculine, then obviously more colonists would defend liberty under the idea that liberty is weaker than power, which leads me to think that feminizing liberty was a way for Warren to promote independence prior to the Continental Congresses. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Memoir"-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes' account sort of "debunked" everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn't as violent and dangerous as I thought it was and it was actually a bit disappointing; there were no hard-core fighting between the crews and colonists, and most surprising was the fact there was no British resistance. It seemed like the fierce rebels expected every single colonist to feel the way they did about the British and the taxes, as shown in how they treated those caught taking tea and those still loyal to the crown who sold tea to fellow Tories/loyalists. But my question involves the actual Tea Party itself. In the excerpt from the memoir, Hewes said that they were "to do no damage to the ship or rigging," but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little "temper tantrum" so long as they didn't damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn't damage the ships and rigging because the ships could have been built in New England or built using American products, thus to damage them would to hurt their fellow colonists? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the "Memoir" I agree with Meganne when she said that she was dissappionted in the fact that there was no "fighting", I too thought the British fought back more. I also was wondering if when Hewes and the other colonists dressed up in "costumes of an indian", if the British were supposed to fall for these costumes and think it was the indians who were throwing the tea, or if the costumes were for personal disguise?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
What things would of had to of been different for this war never to of happen? Were they ever close to an agreement not to fight? What were most colonists thinking at the time just before the war began? They knew they were going up against the strongest army in the war. Did most of them believe they didnt have a chance?-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of "all men being originally equals" seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he states that, "..For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in the perpetual preference to all others for ever..." Doesn't this same statement apply to the slavery of blacks and American Indians that was taking place within the colonies at this same time? The colonists spoke of the power of England as tyrannical and complained that their rights were being taken away as if they were slaves....did they not see a connection here with slavery? I also wonder if the colonists ever really realized how economically dependent Britain became on the colonies themselves? Perhaps if they did the colonists could have used this weakness against Britain. What would our country be like today if the relations between the colonies and England had stayed friendly? What would have happened if there never was a revolution? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed John and Abigail Adams letters for several reasons. First of all I really like correspondences because I think they make the people more real. To me they are more interesting because they seem to be more individuals like us as opposed to these really obscure historical figures. One of the reasons I like them is I like the way that we see a female patriot's view of the war. Abigail Adams is just as ardent as John Adams in her support of the Revolution. My favorite part is that unlike the idea we are often presented with of women being considered inferior, John Adams seems to treat Abigail like his equal and his letters don't have a condescending air about them. The letters just provide a new way to look at the war and the society in which all of this was occuring.--Melissa Brokaw <br />
<br />
The documents in Calloway show some continual themes throughout Indian-White Relations. Primarily the idea that the Indians ally with whites they expect something in return. However, as Joseph Brant shows in his letter to the Britsh government, they are taken advantage of and used by the British for their own ends. With this kind of continual treatment, what is the incentive for Indians to ally with any whites? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party is very vivid, and I found it interesting because of the details that were provided that I had never heard about. However, I was most intrigued by the description that Hewes gave of beating of Malcom, the custom-house officer, who had stroke him with his cuddgle earlier, instead of the young boy. I am curious if the actions of this custom house office enraged the colonists enough to give them that extra motivation to carry out the Boston Tea Party or if it was a separate event all together that Hewes had experienced? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I found the Origin & Progess of the American Revolution to be quite detailed in the actions that were carried out on the various victims that the mob took. It seemed that the victims were those with some sort of political power, be it a judge, lawyer, or even a preacher. I was curious if the Mob was just a group of anyone or if there were any requirements for the people who were involved? Was there any action taken against these men or where they just so greatly feared that no one did anyting? Is it possible that many of the other citizens agreed with these actions because they too were displeased with the government officials at this time too? Quincey Garica<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Boston shoemaker’s recollection of the Boston Tea Party it says that people were trying to grab tea off of the deck of the ship and if they were caught the tea was taken away from them, one man was even thrown over boar. It also says that after all of the tea had been thrown into the harbor that there was some still floating in the water and a boat went around and made sure that it all got wet so that it could not be used. Was tea such a valuable commodity that people were willing to risk ridicule and abuse to get it? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question I have a few words as an avid tea lover myself. It was not that tea was such a valuable commodity that people were willing to risk ridicule and abuse to get it, it was a part of their heritage and culture. The British are very much dedicated to their tea and the colonists, who were likewise trying to become increasingly more British, were trying to be as much dedicated and symmetrical to the culture and practices of England. Also, they just plain liked it and it is not hard to believe that many were addicted to it just like people are addicted to Starbucks coffee today. This account veyr much reminds me of the means and lengths to whihc people went to obtain Beanie Babies back in the day. - Landon James<br />
<br />
I noticed in the Boston Tea Party recollection that they dressed up as indians before going aboard the ships. What was the point of this? Was it just to disguise their identity or were they actually trying to frame the indians? This doesn't make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn't support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In response to Jessie's question. It makes perfect sense that they would dress up as Indians and you gave the answer to your own question in your post. The Indians were allies with the British, so going aboard a British trading ship coming from England bearing English tea, I imagine the British would think twice before acting harshly and reprimanding Indians for coming aboard their ship when that was one of the minorities they were explicitly trying to recruit to fight int he war against the colonists. - Landon James <br />
<br />
I have a question that's quite off topic yet must be addressed. In "A Boston Shoemaker Recalls British Arrogance and the Boston Tea Party", Hewes writes that after he rebuked Malcolm for almost striking a boy that Malcolm "struck me across the head with his cane, and knocked me down, and by the blow cut a hole in my hat two inches in length" (102). I have rolled this over in my mind for quite a bit and I still cannot figure out how a cane blow to the head can cut a hole in Hews' hat. Does anybody have an answer to this? - Landon James<br />
<br />
The soldier’s experience of the Revolutionary War give the reader an idea about how hard the times of a soldier could be and the many things that were promised to the soldiers that they did not get. It is sad to think that they joined and fought for their country and never received any reparations for their efforts and were basically forgotten about after the war. Was this because people were just glad that the war was over and didn’t want to think about it any more, or was the economy in such shambles that the government could not afford to pay the soldiers? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party, the beating of the boy and of Malcolm both seem very harsh for the crime. Were all crimes at this time in the region punished to such a harsh extent? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Cheda "Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain," At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as "Giving eight beavers." What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In George Hewes' memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom's punishment isn't severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In Boston King's memoir, he says that he runs away to the english militia because of the horrible treatment by his master and to be a freeman after the war. However, i find it strange that King is still a slave in the unit and it seems as if he could choose his master. Because when Captain Lewes asked if he could be his master, he replies no because he is Captain Grey's servant and then after serving him, he went to other masters. -Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading "A Loyalist Judges's Catalog of Rebellious Crowds" i started to get really annoyed with the patriots actions. How did they expect to get anyones respect or convert any loyalists to their side when they were acting like blood thirsty mobsters? I'm aware there may be some bias in the statements due to it coming from the writings of a loyalist, but if this is even remotely how the patriots acted then i have a hard time finding sympathy for them in their cause. I almost understand why the British enforced a standing army in the colonies, it sounds like an army was very much needed during these times. Also is this how the loyalists acted? Were there mobs of loyalists running around town beating up any patriot they saw? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I have more of a general/overarching question...if the British saw that the colonists were getting extremely angry with all of the taxes and laws that they felt were restricting their freedomn as British citizens, then why didn't the British government back off a little bit and give the colonies some breathing room in order to re-group and get back to the old ways of an adult/child relationship-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
This is a small detail and it probably doesn't really make a huge difference to the article but in "Peter Oliver Origin & Progress of the American Revolution" why are all the names of people and places in italics? Is it simply for emphasis; to draw attention to them so the readers don't miss them? Is this a detail that was added later on when the article was published? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find that the accounts of the men particapating in the Boston Tea Party were so mundane leading up to the event. It seems like everyone just went on with their lives as usual and what they were about to do didn't really affect them. Why exactly was this? Why are their lives right before the Boston Tea Party so important to know? Was there a point in proving that the event that was about to happen wasn't taken seriously by those who participated in them? Wouldn't they know that what they were about to do would ultimately alter the course of history? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the letters that George Washington wrote to Bryan Fairfax, he uses the term Americans several times. I was just wondering when this concept of "american" was actually put in place. And with my understanding, why would they be referring to themselves as anything but British citizens becuase this was a time that they wanted fair British rights more than anything, so why would they distinguish themselves as a different group of people? Another question that comes to mind is how Washington would have gotten this concept, because as we have discussed, the colonies were not nearly as unified as we are taught to believe -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
To try to answer part of Dani's question about the use of "Americans", it might be because at the time George Washington, along many other Chesapeake Elites, were Patriots, and therefore against British power. It says in the introduction that the "colonial rights had to be defended", so maybe this was the beginning of Washington's Patriotism. I am not completely sure about this, but I believe he is using his point of view( as a Patriot) to disagree and defend the colonies.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In George Hewes "Memoir", I thought it was interesting that man of the colonist participating in the Boston Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians. I wonder if the colonist chose this disguise on a whim, or if there was supposed to be a deeper parallelism implied. Also the colonists sense of unity in this act surprised me. Being able to work together, the way Hewes describes, under pressure and with little direction, was a commendable feat. These Boston colonist seem to share a single goal, purpose and identity for the first time during the Boston Tea Party. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In George Washington's Letters to a friend, he uses the term Americans to describe himself and all of the colonist under British rule. Was the term American, in refernce to the North American colonist commonly accepted in 1774 when this letter was written? Washington obviously feels the need for the colonies to become a separate nation of their own, but had others already accepted themselves as Americans? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Like Quincey, I was curious about the account in “Memoir” concerning Malcom and the beating. My question is though how the Boston Tea Party connects to the story of a man beating another with his cudgel and then the resulting flogging etc.? Is it showing the mind set of the colonists at the time and their retaliation? I think I’m just missing the connection between the two stories. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Chickasaw Chiefs “Message to Congress” seems to ask the question who is in charge of the tribes. The chiefs basically ask for American guidance or leadership saying, “Such a man living among us particularly at this time, would rescue us from the darkness and confusion we are in.” With a past where the Indians want nothing to do with colonists or someone trying to take control of them would they then ask for their guidance in who it was appropriate to trade with? Isn’t that asking for Americans to take some sort of leadership over their tribes? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Burke’s speech- Burke speaks about the colonists’ spirit of freedom, “The fact is so; and these people of the Southern Colonies are much more strongly, and with an higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the North-ward. Such…will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves.” Do historians believe that slave ownership caused Americans to be more protective of their own freedom and therefore, more sensitive to British control?-Emily King<br />
<br />
Soldier’s Experience- Martin states, “I never spent a thought about numbers, the Americans were invincible in my opinion.” Did many soldiers enlist into the American army due to these patriotic feelings or were there other reasons? Did many feel pressured into enlisting?–Emily King<br />
<br />
In the "Boston Massacre Oration," Joseph Warren is in complete oppposition to Parliament's numerous tax Acts that have been passed on the colonies. We talked in class about how the colonistes argued "no taxation without representation," and Warren definitely exploits this argument in his speech. He even makes a reference to Parliament's rebuttal of "virtual representation" by saying "I would next ask, whether the lords, who compose the aristocratic branch of the legislature, are peers of America?" Warren definitely expresses the growing unrest and dissatisfaction of the Patriots with Parliament's attempts to govern the colonies. - Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
In Peter Oliver's Origin and Progress of the American Revolution, I couldn't help but notice what appears to be blatant embellishment of some of the facts. For example, describing Colonial Gilbert's beating of 100 men with a single arm and the FOUR THOUSAND MEN who attacked Thomas Oliver's house. What was the purpose of this document? Was it meant as propaganda for the British to quell these rebellions or was it just written to perhaps save some post-war pride for the loyalists? Can we even trust any of these events really happened?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs, in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the author suggests several future plans for an Independent Republic including the idea of a "President", equal representation, and delegated districts. Were these ideas his own? Were they debated in the Constitution Convention as such? How revolutionary were these thoughts?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
The one major thing I realized when reading the "Boston Massacre Oration" was that the language seemed very different from English. I mean this in the way that Warren's speech was very much like the dialect and spelling used by Americans today. How could the language have changed so dramatically if America was mainly settled by British people? Were the colonists notice this growing change in dialect and spelling from traditional English? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" it seemed little he was contradicting himself throughout the passage. How could he be a man that was so pressed on limiting the spread of slavery but yet held bias views about the slaves? Is it that he really believes all the stereotypes about slaves or is he merely speaking about what white people thought of the slaves? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
While reading Martin's "Memoir," I was shocked by how badly the soldiers were treated during the Revolution. They weren't really provided with any of the items in their contracts. Also, they weren't taken care of at all. They were forced to march for days at a time without rest, they had no proper lodgings, and very little food and clothing. Why were the soldiers treated so poorly and with such disrespect? - Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the letters between the John and Abigail Adams. I think that it shows a personal side of the two of them that is very sweet. To see the viewpoint from a woman in that time who was so closely linked to one of the most influential men of the Revolution very interesting. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
In "Memoir" I found it interesting that in the last three paragraphs Hewes talks about how the citizens went out the morning after they raided the ships and beat the tea floating on the water to a point where it was useless. I guess that this makes sense but I never actually thought about tea floating in the harbor! ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
<br />
In Joseph Plumb Martin's "memoir 1830", I noticed he had alot of pride for a young man in America. He felt that he knew enough about what he stood for to fight "the mother land" as they called Britain. Were farmers a good source of politcal stance and information, since that is where he received his information and chose to call himself a patriot. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the "March 22, 1775 Speech to Parlaiment", Burke gives a fairly descriptive breakdown of the colonies and how each is based on different principles. The Northern colonies are described with a Religious standard and the Southern Colonies having slavery and how people view freedom differently. Since the colonies weren't really fighting for a common goal, Did the regions pride themselves on their differences? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I personally enjoyed reading the "Letters of John and Abigail Adams." It was interested to me to see how they interacted with each other. I found it unusual that the only greeting reference was John to Abigail saying "dearest Friend." You don't exactly find greeting cards at Hallmark in the Wife section starting out with "Dear Friend." It was also fun to watch them politely argue when she complains about his short responses to her letters.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I thought the picture where John Malcolm is getting tarred was very descriptive in that the British really portray the Americans as bad people. The looks on the Americans faces say it all. Im sure when people back in Britian saw this picture they thought of the Americans as barbarick people when really they are just trying to win there freedom.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In the textbook in the section talking about the Boston Massacre it says that there was a black man, Crispus Attucks, was one of the five people killed. It also says that his funeral was held along with the white men's funerals and that he was treated as an equal. Was he given a better funeral than most black people of the time because he was killed 'for the cause'? I just don't see how they could have rationalized treating him better after death than they did during most slave's lives. ~ Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
Also in the textbook reading it was said that two soldiers convicted of manslaughter were branded on the thumbs. I was just wondering if this was a common punishment for murder, because I have never heard of it before, and what exactly was branded on their thumbs? If it is known... ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In the Memoir of R.T. Hewes, I noticed that he wrote it many years after it happened. Thus, the source can not be that reliable. I also noticed that when he talked about what happened when the men went to dump the tea overboard that the captain willingly gave them the keys as long as they didn't hurt the ship. Why didn't he try to signal the British ships docked neerby, or keep the men away from the cargo? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In "A Loyalist Judge's Catalog of Rebellious Crowds,"I found that because the writer was a loyalist he might have been bias toward other loyalist's like himself. I also noticed that during all the mob riots, not many people were hurt, but rather just scared into doing what the mob wanted. Was this common? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In Peter Oliver's "Origin & Progress of the American Revolution, 1774-1775", I found data that contrasted with information in class. I had thought that the mob's intents were not to kill, but to scare. However, in Oliver's accounts, the mobs came very close to killing the English supporters. Did they actually intend on killing them, but different circumstances prevented them from doing so? Or did they intend to bring them as close to death as possible to scare them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Atiwaneto's "Speech Resisting Colonial Expansion", I found his plea to the English very well written and thought out from their point of view. But right before and during the Revolutionary War, how much attention was actually paid to the Indians? Were the Patriots and English fighting to have them on their side? Or were they left alone, apart from traveling and slight skirmishes in their land? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I really like the letters of Abigail Adams and John Adams. I read the same letters in high school and still love them today. I find it really interesting that Abigail asks John to not forget the women and his response is even more interesting. The way my high school teacher put it was, he basically told her that she was a silly woman and should mind her own business. I also find it interesting that he basically flirts with her in response to her comment by calling her saucy. I still enjoy the letters 6 years later. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting about the letters of John and Abigail Adams was when she was describing the cannon's going off and said that she went out to Penn Hill that day and was practically a spectator to the war. I know that during the Civil War people would set up chairs and watch the fight but I did not know that it also happened in some sense during the Revolution. I wonder when it was that people's view of war changed to the point where we could be appalled by people viewing a battle as if it was a sport. And now a days the innocent civilians would probably be attacked along with the soldiers. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
<br />
In "A Boston Shoemaker Recalls British Arrogance and the Boston Tea Party" I was very surprised to hear that Mr. Hewes, and according to himself, many others, dressed up as Indians to go to the dock. This doesn't quite make sense to me. Where they dressing up to shift blame for the tea party? It seems pointless to do so because the colonists are the ones sending the message... not the Indians. It seems that England would get a much clearer message if the men were dressed as... well, themselves. Maybe i'm missing something? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
In Hewes's Memoir, he mentions that he turned a man in for trying to take tea for his own during the Boston Tea Party. Were there any groundrules established beforehand that said that they couldn't do this? And if the point of the Tea Party was to oppose the tax on tea, why wouldn't stealing tea be fair game in this opposition?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Boston Massacre Oration" it started me thinking about the past art I'd studied about the Boston Massacre and how the Americans had portrayed the British as ominous and dominating as they emerged from billowing smoke, and the Americans as a rag tag innocent group trying to flee from them. Like the print, the piece made me realize just how twisted a view the colonists had on British ruling and just how much that has influenced our current view on colonial rule. ( image is here if you’re interested http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/massacre2a.jpg ) <br />
- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I was wondering about why British soldiers were treated so poorly despite the promises made to them for enlisting etc.... as well. Was it because of financial debt Britain had remaining from the French and Indian war? Because they lost? What were the reasons?<br />
-Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Is it at all posible that the Boston Tea Party would have been more or just as effective if the protesters had stolen the tea instead of destroying it? -Jake Guralnik</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-02-01T03:34:20Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Suffolk County Court Records */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines. I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
This document seems to be really strict in its views and expectations of the colonist. How adimently did the colonist really follow these rules and beliefs?--Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Although I felt John Winthrop's sermon to contain many great points and inciteful excerpts related to love and people's relationships with one another, a lot of it felt to me to be using God as a kind of selling point. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he was an extremely religious man, but a lot of it gave me the impression it was coming from a politician using religion to get people to act in a particular way. In the beginning he speaks of the rich and the poor. He explains "no man is more honorable than the other" this is because one is rich or poor because God made them that way for the common good of man, and particular traits were even instilled by God into each two classifications of people(rich - love, mercy, gentleness, temperance, poor- faith, patience, obedience) to further justify the divine providence of their rank. Winthrop continues further to instruct that this community must be out of the ordinary, based on brotherly love, the golden rule, and most importantly to follow the rules set by God. It just seems to me he is using God to justify all of the aspects that would get the people to act in the way he directs, and create this utopian community, one that England would look upon with jealousy. He explains how they are up on a pedestal, with all eyes upon them so and if they "deal falsely" with God, he will draw away his present help from them and the world will see them fail. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
I too found William's account strange. He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then, it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Williams compared religious intolerance like "spriritual rape." It seems interesting because rape is non consensual, and forcing someone to believe something they might not want to. Seems to me that at this time sex was somewhat taboo... So making this statement must have been pretty daring. I mean, even more than it already was. Right? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
It is very interesting comparing John Winthrop’s sermon to Roger Williams writing. Winthrop’s sermon continuously refers to communal love between the elite Christians. Williams writing reveals to the reader how Puritan actions told a very different story. “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians (Indians), then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians…” (Pg 64) Did the Puritans truly make important changes in their lives in New England versus their old lives in England, or was it mostly talk? -Emily King<br />
<br />
This document is an exclent source to understanding the Natives of New England. I like how Williams is mostly unbias about the information. I did notice, though, that Williams did not write this as he was experiencing it, but rather while he was sailing back to England. How reliable would his writings be if he did not write it directly after his experience with the Natives?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Roger Williams implies that a more stable, technological society has more opportunity and room for sin. He states that the Indians had no room for the sins that the Europeans brought with them to the New World. Although the Indians weren't as stable and technologically advanced, would they not still have room for error and sin?-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
The English idea of a civilized culture seems very skewed in this observation of Native Americans by Roger Williams. At one point in the text Williams makes the point that the Native Americans do not even know the sins of gluttony and drunkenness, and do not commit crimes of murder, robbery, or adultry such as the English do. Then he goes on to praise god "who hath so advanced Europe above America". The European superiority complex, and idea that "good English gentlemen" must make it their duty to "civilize the savage" is very apparent here. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I found interesting was the random, or not so random, capitalization of certain words. For example, in the first paragraph the words "Fornication", "Marriage", 'Evill", "Money", "County&Court", and "Sentence" are all put into capital letters. Is this to put extra emphasis on them? Or merely something that they did then? <br />
-Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I liked reading about the accounts of things, such as drinking, profanity, etc., that we see today in our daily lives that were against the law and taken to court in this 1670's Puritan community. Seeing the types of things that were considered such serious offenses to the Puritans as those described in the court records, makes me wonder what other things in this time period were illegal and what were requirements of the people. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought it was somewhat odd that it was wrong for a man to beat his wife. don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should. lol But, i mean only that if the woman is a possession of the man, just as the kids are... it seems he would have been allowed to hit her as well. And i thought it was really weird that the court had 3 people check that girl to see if she was with child. Why wouldn't they just wait to see if a baby came out? lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, Dane is constantly analyzing and questioning his actions. Did Puritans rely on Individual distinctions between right and wrong? If so, did they believe that fear in God would guide these individuals to the right path?...or did they have more formal rules/laws? –Emily King<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, I thought it was interesting that when John's parents discouraged him from going to the colonies, he took out the bible and decided that whatever page he randomly opened to would decide his fate. When the passage he read seemed to be telling him to go to the colonies, his parents all of the sudden we're encouraging him to leave right away. The bible seems to have totally control of the puritans, and yet they seem to twist its context because the passage John reads definitely does not clearly state for him to go to America, in fact it doesn't even seem close. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch. The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying. The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money. He assumed she had taken it away from him. It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found these documents on the testimony aganist Bishop very interesting. I know that the witch hysteria was a very crazy thing, but why did so many people give testimony aganist this woman? Was this a common practice of having many, many people testify aganist the accused, or was this a special case?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I personally love the fact that everything that was presented against Bishop are all things that today would be taken as mere coincidence. The fact that children grew ill and that objects were either misplaced or disappeared were all attributed to this one woman shows the suspicious nature of these people. If my memory serves me correctly, Bishop was also one, if not the first, person to be accused of witchcraft in Salem. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I'm interested in knowing where the ideas of witches started in the first place. Was it an idea that was carried over from England? Also, Bishop pleaded not guilty; if she had pleaded guilty would she have recieved a lesser punishment than execution? -Megan Malecha</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-02-01T00:58:11Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Roger Williams */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines. I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
I too found William's account strange. He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then, it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Williams compared religious intolerance like "spriritual rape." It seems interesting because rape is non consensual, and forcing someone to believe something they might not want to. Seems to me that at this time sex was somewhat taboo... So making this statement must have been pretty daring. I mean, even more than it already was. Right? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch. The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying. The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money. He assumed she had taken it away from him. It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft. Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-30T22:32:42Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and her thoughts on the Castaneda piece and how it described the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how the distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. It is pointed out that Spanish women were always purer held higher up in societies eyes. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure in every way. Basically no matter how corny this sounds, Spanish women are classy and Mexican women are trashy. This is still seen today, even in my mind sometimes you think of Mexican you think lower class. However, when you think Spanish, you see a women wearing bright colors beautiful clothes.I wonder do we think this way because Spain is located in Europe and when Eurpoe comes to mind you think of places like Milan or Paris? --Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I had the same questions about the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary as Ashley. What I didn't understand was why whiter was better? I found it interesting that full-blood Cherokees were sending their children to this extremely expensive school to become whiter. Is it to try to become equals with white people or is it to pull ahead of them? What I really don't understand is why are the Cherokees trying to wipe out their culture. That is what happened when we first settled the Indians became "whiter" and look at where they are now, language has been lost, traditions stories the list goes on. To me it seems like this school was good for the purpose of education but I felt as if it took away culture. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Antonia Castaneda's essay makes some far-reaching claims that are not completely warranted. Castaneda credits the biased work of Bancroft with informing all later popular and scholarly works with specific stereotypes of Spanish women (pg 59). While perhaps not central to Castaneda's essay I don't understand how one, or even a few historical scholars could be solely responsible for passing on biased perceptions. I think Castaneda ignores other ways that negative stereotypes get passed on. The fact that these negative stereotypes persist in persons who are not scholars of history indicates that later scholars might not have adopted the same stereotypes that Bancroft did solely because he did, but because they embraced these stereotypes in their daily lives. ~ Matt Struth</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_3_Questions/Comments328--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-30T22:15:39Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>The one thing that immediately struck me while I began reading the Castaneda piece was the classification between "Spanish" and "Mexican" and how, to me, that distinction seems to still be true, on a certain level, today. Castaneda points out how Spanish women were always purer and more mysterious; romanticized in a sense. The Mexican women on the other hand were impure on pretty much every count. Does anyone else feel that this stereotype between the two ethnicities still holds up today or is that just me? Based on general opinion, I feel as though this major difference still sticks out in people's minds (not saying that this distinction is right in any sense.) - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was extremely impressed by the scale of the Cherokee Seminary school. For it's time, it seemed like an impressive operation for a people so tremendously discriminated against in America, excepting the multiple burnings down of the building! I was, however, struck by the authors constant use of the word "progressive", which to me is usually a positive word, meaning moving toward improved living/way of life and education for the public. The author used it so negatively though, as a way to describe the discriminating, racially-mixed Cherokee girls and their families usually. Looking at her writings from a historians perspective I see how the word might have been used by the people themselves as a justifier of their own belief of superiority, but the author should not have used it herself because it makes it seem as though she is drawing the line herself between the status of tradition verse progression and pure-blood verse mixed-blood.~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
The readings this week largely had to do with how historians have struggled to characterize women by race and gender. Women of other races were frequently overlooked. As Castaneda points out in chapter four, when women were studied, it was either because of their significance in relation to someone important, such as a governor. The experiences of any other women would be generalized to stereotype women of that particular race overall. This is interesting to keep in mind when reading “The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barceló in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe” by Gonzalez, in which he discusses how the life of one woman (Dona Gertrudis Barceló) impacted the image that people held of Spanish-Mexican women. Why is it that the lives and experiences of minority women could see easily and readily be generalized? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting to read “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Mihesuah. The article described the all female seminary for Cherokee girls. When examining the experiences of Cherokee women in an all female setting, it easier to see the impact that race and economics played in their lives. You no longer have the issue of breaking down the study by gender and race, nor do you have the question of which plays a more significant role. In looking at the experiences of the Cherokee women in this school, it is easy to see that segregation occurred even when the playing field seemed to be leveled. The more white blood the females had, the more accepted they were by others. Additionally, it would be more likely that they would be able to marry and be economically and culturally successful. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also thought the reading about the female seminary for the Cherokee girls was very interesting. It seems odd to me that there was such an emphasis placed on the percentage of cherokee vs white blood you had. It was an Indian school but it seems that to be accepted or what the girls felt was preferred was to be as "white" as possible, but yet they still talked about the percent, however small, of Cherokee blood they had. Most of the girls in the pictures to me did not "look" like a typical Cherokee and if the emphasis was on being as "white" as possible why did they even attend the seminary, why not go to a white school. Were they that segregated that even a small amount of Cherokee blood would prevent them from going to a white school, and who would know if you didn't say anything about what percent white you were? ~~Mary Beth C<br />
<br />
While reading "Gender, Race, and Culture: Spanish Mexican Women in the Historiography of Frontier California" and "Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History" by Antonia I. Castaneda, I wondered whether it were true that only Westerners studied the history of Hispanic women until the 1970s or 1980s. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "The Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in Nineteenth-Century Santa Fe" by Deena J. Gonzalez, I found it interesting that during that time it was so easy to step outside the boundaries of the perceptions of the general populace. The case of interesting women like Barcelo is very similar to the inability of the Native Americans to see the ships of Cortez until Cortez's men pointed them out to them.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It is strange that in the "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876" "stone-woman" was considered a problem/disease. From what I understand, having sex through prostitution is not an enjoyable experience.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My favorite reading out of all of these essays was "To Dark to Be Angels" by Devon Mihesuah, because my great grandmother was apparently 1/4 cherokee, so it was like reading apart of her history. But what I found so interesting about this essay was how these cherokee women were trying to live up to a white persons society, or "adapting to society's 'whiteness'."(187) For so many years the European society in America had tried to civilize Indians, and get them out of farming and hunting, and in this reading it was like they gave up their fight of keeping their heritage and decided to try and fit in to white society. Why? There was all of the sudden the whiter you looked the better off you were, and this often left the full blooded cherokee women feeling inferior to white yet still.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Deena Gonzalez's essay on Gertrudis Barcelo describes a very interesting women. She basically went against what all the other women in society were expected to be like. She was rich and most interesting was that she made her saloon the center of the town's social and economic life, as well as military and political people coming to her for advise (255). Wasn't that unheard of in those days? How was it that she was able to lead this life and other women didn't, or did they try? --Michelle Marduesz<br />
<br />
Castaneda's article caused me to think on how the problem with the history of CA and its residents before Anglos is a problem with many areas. What I mean by that is a history that does integrate race, gender, and culture or class as categories of historical analysis (page 71) is a problem are for many places. It just really strikes a bit harder when you read a little of the historiography on some of the problems of the already published and out there history. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I was impressed and slightly confused on the essay by Mihesuah about the female Cherokee seminary. I was impressed because even though the school burned down they rebuilt it and it still exists (at least the ending made it sound that way). I was confused because if the whiter you were the better, why did full-blooded traditionalist Cherokees send their daughters there? Were they trying to get an upperhand on the white man? Even if it meant learning to write and read the language in order to better fight the white man? It had me confused. Also, if it was a Cherokee school, why girls go who were barely even Cherokee?, like the one mentioned on page 186 who was only 1/32 Cherokee. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The essay "Too Dark to be Angels" concludes by stating that the seminary was a progressive success. I can not help but question this outcome based on what I read. I have no doubts that the seminary provided short term advantages to its attendees as it related to social and economic status however, it appears also that the women let petty matters of snobbery and ego undermine the overall mission of the seminary (which I imagine was to uplift the Cherokee nation through education). It seems that by attending this seminary Cherokees were destroying themselves from the inside out. The women learned to feel either superior or inferior and therefore they could not remain united as an ethnic group. Also, the fact that whites were put on such a high pedestal made the Cherokees vulnerable to manipulation in the future. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Bancroft's qoute "a race halfway between the proud Castillian and the lowly root digger." existing "halfway between savage and civilization." on page 59 of Casteneda's essay is reprehensible. It caused me to quesiton the root cause of such racism, and prejudice. What makes someone racist? Is it truly just because the other person looks different? Is it about pre-conceived notions or hearsay, turned hateful stereotypes? Could it be a morally corrupt individual looking for a way to dehumanize a group, in order to justify poor treatment (i.e. stealing Indian land or slavery)? It seems there has to be some underlying motive for racism, besides just the color of one's skin vs. antohers'. - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After doing the readings, "A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862" attracted my attention the most, and I struggled to figure out why. I think this document raises a lot of questions about gender norms during the time period, in a substantially different way than the other documents in Major Problems. It's clear from the other readings that rape and domination of Native Americans was not uncommon. "A Citizen Protests" raises the questions about the response to these acts by average citizens. The author of the letter labels the rapists brutes, who should be punished "in justice to decency, humanity, and civilization." However, its clear the author's morals aren't widely shared, why else would his or her letter to the editor be anonymous? ~ Matt Struth</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T06:06:26Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
<br />
Josiah Jeremy's, "The Floting Island" and John Heckewelder's "The Arrival of the Dutch" have very similar accounts of how the natives encountered the Europeans. First of all, It seems that there is a priest who is a key figure in being one of the first to come to shore. they are the ones who give the natives presents and show signs of peace. I find it ironic that there seems to always be a show of peace and friendship toward the natives, then fighting breaks out. I think the natives of Manhattan got their first look at how crafty the Europeans were when they pulled that trick with the bull hide, cutting it up so they could get more land.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
In King Alfonso's letters, he is constantly pleading to the King of Portugal to keep his filthy merchants out of their country and to keep them from kidnapping anymore people and selling guns. I know that this king was a Christian, but why did he not just take charge of his own country?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In a way, I felt bad for Kind Alfonso his letters. He seems to always remark about the fact that he has been told to ask for the things he needs, and it will be provided for him by King Joao probably to remind King Joao that a deal has been made that he is responsible of honoring. King Alfonso references several times that he must maintain the order of things that was created by King Joao's father, the previous King. I assume the arrangements of the relations between the two kingdoms was founded by the previous Kings of these Kingdoms and now the present, Alfonso and Joao, are trying to maintain order. In a way, I just felt the desperation from King Alfonso. He speaks as though he is subordinate of King Joao, this may be because of his realization that his kingdom is in dire need of his help and all of the efforts of King Alfonso have failed. His people are being taken away for slaves, others are quickly dying of disease, and he is in need of many things to keep the kingdom functioning, such as priests, teachers, doctors, etc. He could not stop the Portuguese in any way, not what they trade, not the people they took as slaves, and as he watched them corrupt his kingdom, he had to turn around and beg for help from the King whose men were causing the damage. I think it would be interesting to have read the letters from King Joao to see his take and the manner he spoke to King Alfonso. Is there any record of his responses or his general outlook on the situation? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Pareja's section about women he asks "Having given birth recently, have you considered eating these things as sinful?" What is his meaning behind this? Is this still about the fish being sinful? The other things he references are things like charcoal, dirt, pottery, fleas and lice. I would not consider fish among these things to be sinful or dirty. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In response to Jessie Bright's question about why we still celebrate Columbus Day:<br />
As confusing as it may sound, I do not believe that the term "Columbus Day" is meant to be taken as literally as most people perceive it to be. I think the broader meaning of Columbus Day is meant to commemorate more so the many positive effects and aftermath of Columbus' great voyage to the West; which would encompass mainly the fact that Columbus' expedition prompted the European’s interest in the “New World.” An effective understanding of this European interest would then lead us to ponder about the significance it had on their culture from there on out and thus how it ultimately affected us Americans today. Therefore, we are not celebrating the man Columbus himself, but rather his famous quest to the West that consequently lead to a new historical age. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Also, I was doing some research and found that other countries actually celebrate Columbus Day as well…except they all call it something totally different, which ties into my last point I made about how we commemorate the constructive effects of Columbus’ voyage instead of Columbus himself or the negative effects. For example, many countries in Latin America celebrate “Dia de la Raza” (Day of the Race); in Costa Rica “Dia de las Culturas” (Day of the Cultures); in Spain “Dia de la Hispanidad,” etc… As you can see, they are all observing the same event, and by the definitions of the holiday titles you can see that they are actually a celebration of new culture and race (which is obviously something important to them and therefore worth celebrating). <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Emily commented that those journal accounts may not be accurate. I am curious about this too. And if the several references in the accounts published in the Johnson Reader are accurate, I am wondering what would have inspired this sort of assumption? We are aware of several Native American creation stories at this point and none would seem to suggest that Columbus had any qualities those people might look for in deities. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
I found the description of the great Montezuma in this account quite interesting. I know in many European countries it was not common to bath everyday, even among the nobility. However, I noticed that it stated that Montzuma did in fact bath everyday, and I was curious if this was a common practice for rulers of the Native American villages? Also in this account, the wonderful gardens of Montezuma were mentioned. I was curious if the herbs and medicinal plants that grew there were shared with others in the villages, or if Montezuma reserved these herbs and medicinal plants solely for himself? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Are the Native Americans of Mexico, referred to in the passage, the Mayans? Also, why do the Indians perform canibalism at their ceremonial banquets? Did they practice canibalism normally or was it only a part of the sacraficing ritual? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Calloway reader made repeated comments about the Native Americans' overall fascination with these foreigners in general and the seemingly petty possessions they brought with them on their journey over, even naming several important territories after European trade goods. I had to wonder - were the native people at the time completely unaware of any peoples/cultures/continents' existence outside of their own? I found this hard to believe, especially considering the tangible evidence I have previously been presented of foreigners constantly making this intercontinental journey throughout the preceding centuries. What was the extent of the Native American world view in the early 1500's?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in "The Arrival of the Dutch", the Native Americans believed that the man that "wore the red clothes" was perceived to be "the great Mannitto (Supreme Being). -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the floating island story, the woman has a dream about an island with tall tress and living beings dressed in rabbit-skin and then the next day a ship arrived with trees and people (who looked like bears). I know dreams played an important role in Native American beliefs, but they weren't psychic. Plus, her dream wasn't a clear interpretation of what happened that day. --Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Powhatan speech to Captain John Smith shows a side of the Indians you don't always see. In every story I've heard it's always the settlers killing the Natives or taking advantage of them and stealing their land. In the introduction to this speech we learn that not only did the settlers rely on the Indians for food, but one chief threatened to take away their food supply if they started a war. --Meg Malecha<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy theory of "The Floating Island", I thought that it was interesting it was a young woman who foretold of the account that would occur between the Native Americans and the Europeans. I found it a little peculiar that it was a young woman who dreamt the account due to the lack of respect and power that most women had in the Native American socities. The unpleasant reaction by the necromancers was not shocking because they felt that due to their status, a dream of such importance should have come through them, those with "power of their magic." This theory was quite interesting and had such a positive, peaceful interpretation of the interaction with the Europeans and Native Americans. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
I think the portion of the reading relating to the Congo was particularly relevant to situations of today. It was interesting to see the inception of imperial rule in this area, and ensuing consequences, when in fact the nation is still dealing with the consequences of its imperial rule. King Afonso talks about how the Portuguese simply use the Congo for their own means, mainly resources. This is still going on in the Congo, mainly with the desire for diamonds. It was very interesting to see the origins of the situation manifesting itself in the letters by the King. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have some trouble with the introduction to Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s account. The intro in Johnson says that Castillo was angered by the false reports of the Conquest that he had been reading, and so decided to write his own, truthful, account. However, Castillo’s account is littered with extravagance and hyperbole. For example, he writes, “As for the horrible noise when the lions and tigers roared, and the jackals and foxes howled, and the serpents hissed, it was so appalling that one seemed to be in hell” (22). While I am sure all of these new creatures and their noises were overwhelming, the extent to which Castillo describes everything actually makes me question his supposed sincerity. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
<br />
Powhatan's "Speech to Captain John Smith" leaves me with multiple questions. I'm confused of who recorded it, was it John Smith? Also, how is it that the speech has suddenly become translated into english? Within the 2 years the colonists have been at Jamestown, there doesn't seem to be a the Indians could have become so fluent in a foreign speech. Especially knowing that by 1609 the population was so low that the exposure to the english language was extremely limited. How were the Indians and colonists able to communitcate so well if their languages differed so dramatically? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 37, it says "The universal name the Monseys have for New York, is "laaphawachking"... They say this name was given in consequence of beads being here distributed among them by the Europeans." Does this imply that before the Europeans came, the Natives are believed not to have had names for places?? That seems mighty ridiculous to me. Maybe someone could clear that up for me? <br />
-Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Also, I found it very ironic that in Powhattan's speech to John Smith he is asking what can be gained by war that cannot be gained by love. <br />
This is ironic because one of the justifications of taking over the natives was that they were a savage warring people. How funny that Powhattan would be the one explaining how useless war is. I assume this was not published until much later? After most of the natives had been killed??? -Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
In reading Johnson you find out that when the Europeans came to eh Kingdom of Congo they brought and started trading guns to the natives. Is this the event that has lead to the mass genocides and "terrorism" in the Congos. You see movies of the Congos with guns, killing, and terrorism around every corner and in my mind i can see the Europeans coming and trading guns as the event that lead to some of all this. In the letter from King Afonso to King Joao III, you see Afonso very distressed and sensing the change that this trading of firearms and other goods has brought to his Kingdom, and look where they are now. - Landon James<br />
<br />
If Columbus said he believed "they (Indians) were a people who would be better freed [from error] and converted to our Holy Faith by love NOT by force" then why was their oppression in the first place? I know we talked about hwo he pretty much had permission to opress and enslave whomever he so pleased, but was their no sense of personal morality, a sense for what's right and what's wrong? For Columbus to write this then go and oppress them makes me ashamed. - Landon James<br />
<br />
Columbus seemed really intent on changing the Native Americans and converting them to Christianity. What did he have to gain by this? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Columbus discovered the New World, NOT the Indies. Spain and the Queen and King had invested money into finding the Indies and spices and immediate payback funds for their investment in Columbus. However, when Columbus did not discover the Indies, or at least a route to them, was Isabella not just a little bit disappointed or upset that her funds did not go towards their original goal. Nowe it may seem like this question is stupid, for Columbus found what might be better than a spice route to the Indies; a new continent and the opportunity to settle. Yet, if I was Isabella I would have liked to see that route to India. Is there any indication that Isabella was disappointed? - Jake Guralnik</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T01:12:32Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Calloway Readings */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T01:04:28Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T00:53:21Z<p>192.65.245.100: /* Waterhouse's Declaration */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf</div>192.65.245.100https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/CommentsWeek 6 Questions/Comments2007-10-04T16:33:43Z<p>192.65.245.100: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the reading by Eve Korkfield titled Judith Sargent Murray: The Story of Margaretta, I thought it was interesting, while tracing her education, that Mr. Vigillius's wife pronounced her to be "a perfect mistress; her knowledge of the English, and French tongues, was fully adequate to her years; and her manner of reading had peculiar charms; her handwriting was neat and easy; she was a good accomptant...and much more. Margaretta was quite the accomplisher! - Katie D.<br />
<br />
Eve Korkfields Judith Sergeant Mary was very interesting in the fact that her parents’ idea of education sounded like a basic training for future sophisticated wives. I am sure young Mary would have no problem procuring a wealth husband with all of her learned refinements.--Cheryl<br />
<br />
Going along with that same reading, I don't quite know what I think or how I feel about the following lines:<br />
<br />
~"I think the propriety of circumscribing the education of a female, within such narrow bounds as are frequently assigned, is at least problematical."<br />
<br />
~"The accomplished, the liberally accomplished female, if she is destined to move in the line of competency, will be regarded as a pleasing and instructive companion." <br />
<br />
~"We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta."<br />
<br />
These lines just really caught my eye and wondered if they caught anyone else's eye. They all, to me, seem to run with the themes/ideas we've discussed in class. -- Vanessa Smiley<br />
<br />
Vanessa, I agree with your comments that these few selections do somewhat contradict what we know about the role education played in the lives of pre-Revolutionary women. However when we fast forward to the post-war period, it seems like the idea of women receiving an education change with regards to "public virtue" and "republican motherhood". Women could receive an education if it a)made them a better companion to their husband or b)helped them to better teach their sons/the next generation of American citizens morals and genteel manners.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
The line "We have been assiduously employed in cultivating the mind of Margaretta" also caught my eye and it ties in perfectly with the one that really stuck out to me, "and when the mind is judiciously balanced, it renders the possessor not only more valuable but also more amiable, and more generally useful." I'm kind of amused that the education of women was merely to make them more useful, and better yet, more useful to men. Their job was, as we learned in the lecture on Tuesday, to be able to teach men how to properly run the country and teach girls how to assist those men in whatever way possible. I can't decipher, though, whether or not this story was meant to be somewhat satirical since it was written by a woman pretending to be a man. I kind of got the feeling she was criticizing the education system. Thoughts? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the Murray reading, I found the following sentence particularly interesting: "No, Mr. Pedant, she was not unfitted for her proper sphere; and your stomach, however critical it may be, never digested finer puddings than those which I, with an uncommon zest, have partook, as knowing they were the composition of her fair hand--- yes, in the receipts of cookery she is thoroughly versed; she is in every respect the complete housewife" (136). After listing all her accomplishments, Murray's narrator, Mr. Vigillius, seems to feel it is necessary to assure the reader that Margaretta possesses the necessary feminine skills as well. This passage almost reads like an advertisement of Margaretta's suitability for marriage. -Ashley H. <br />
<br />
In regards to the Murray reading I would just like to say that I found it rather enjoyable and could imagine while reading it that people during the time in which it was written would also have derived some sort of entertainment from it. That said, I thought it was really interesting what Kelly mentioned, that it was written by a woman through the point of view of a man. Did people of the time know it was written by a woman or did she use a pseudonym? Also I was wondering if she was trying to be satirical as well. Another question, did this happen often, the taking in of orphans to educate them, was it like a trend or something, or was this rare and was it more common to do this with boys or with girls? There is just so much fictional literature about adopting children and educating them I wondered. --Mary P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary. This was written by a woman , appearing as a man. I do believe that this was somewhat obviously sarcastic. But towards who? It could be the female author belittling her own sex to stand up, or it could be the female author belittling and poking fun at the arrogant male sex. I do not think people really knew that the author was a woman. If so, do you really think that this entertainment would be published? How could anyone believe it came from a woman!?- Talya Halpern . <br />
<br />
I find Rowson's biography rather odd. For a woman known as an actress, how did she achieve the respectability to open a popular girls' school in a town as straitlaced as Boston? How did did she manage to publish under her own name and achieve such success? Does it seem to anyone else that she borrowed details from her own life to write with?--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
In the reading from Catherine Scholten, it was interesting to me how during the colonial period pregnant women were commonly thought of as "breeding" and "teeming", though theologians attributed dignity to carrying the "living soul" of a child. -Katie D.<br />
<br />
I agree with Katie D. the vocabulary used to explain a pregnant women is very interesting, as is the way theologians viewed women's pregnancies. I just wonder if this "living soul" ideology was prevelant through the colonies at this time or not because it seems to go against the theological ideas that women were suppose to suffer in childbirth because they were tainted with original sin. I just wonder if they believed women were the cause of sin and evil and therefore suffered in child birth, why would they choose to say then say women were the carriers of a "living soul" and were "blessed among women"? Doesn't this idea seem a little off and contradictory? --Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
In Catherine Scholten's account of the change that took place in childbirth procedures I had a question occur to me. While obviously the new medical science allowed doctors to help reduce the pain and risk of childbirth, why did they not let women train in this new medically accepted field? I understand that men thought that women wouldn't be able to understand all the technical terms and the sciences that the training would occur, but at the same time, women had been delivering the children through midwifery long before men came into the field. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply train the women who already knew a great deal about birthing in the new sciences so that the woman giving birth would still be comfortable and the death rates in birth would go down?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth, while I understand that men thought women perhaps were not as capable to understand the science of it, I found it crazy that they had to do almost everything blindly because women were nervous about the male doctors seeing their privates. Another thing that struck me was that while this showed the intrusion of men in the womens sphere (I believe it proves the mens of that time superiority complex) it also showed some progress. Men saw it as their duty to protect women through child brith and "... women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the "perilous conditions" of childbirth." -- Emily Miller<br />
<br />
<br />
I still find it very odd that women were able to be convinced that men--who had no experience with women's bodies or the childbearing process--were their superiors when it came to childbirth. Furthermore, because midwives first started calling doctors for difficult births, I wonder how that changed doctors' perceptions of childbirth. Did it cause male doctors to think childbirth was more dangerous than it really was, leading to some of the 19th century emphasis on not wearing out a woman's body? Why did the change to male doctors seem to coincide with an increased emphasis on smaller families and reserving energy and resources? I find Scholten's report on NY laws requiring midwives not to discuss their business and women's bodies in front of men (except in emergencies) very interesting. It makes me wonder how much male doctors lost out on, because midwives wouldn't discuss it in front of them. It also makes me wonder how female midwives became desperate and concerned enough about science that they were willing to bring in male doctors, when the feelings against talking about childbearing in front of men were so strong--A. Meyer<br />
<br />
Andrea's comments are really thought provoking. I wonder if even though men pushed women out of midwifery perhaps some women benefited by having men more involved in childbirth. The men would see how painful and dangerous it was first hand and maybe encourage birth control to help women. As midwives' voices were not heard as much as medical doctors. However, there are also obvious issues with women's loss of knowledge about their own bodies and how to deal with pregnancy. -Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
I agree, Andrea. I found myself getting annoyed that women seemed to be so easily convinced that men had such a better knowledge of childbearing and child birth than midwives. It seems to me that women would have placed more trust into the hands of someone who had actually gone through the experience. I think the questions you raise are definitely valid, and I found myself thinking about some of the same things as I was reading.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
I agree with both Andrea and Kaitlyn. However, I wonder how this change came about. How did the doctors convince women that they were better, or more skilled in the ways of childbirth than a midwife who'd been helping deliver children her whole life? Where their pamphlets and articles that were circulated to help make this switch? How was is that these elite women placed so much faith in these doctors who couldn't even look and see what they were doing. By not seeing what they were doing couldn't they do more harm than good? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
I think that what might have aided womens acceptance of the shift to men physicians instead of midwifes may have just been as simple as they were the ones with medical training. Plus they were men and supposedly had more reason than women. Also it wasn't an immediate switch to men, it was more gradual. At first, the men worked with the midwives or were only called in emergencies. Then it was because they were able to ease the pain and had the tools to help pull out the child. The fact that many medical schools devoted at least one professor to solely focus on midwifery speaks to societies view of the necessity of proper training and the male focus of all things medical. --Alex K. <br />
<br />
While I understand that it can be seen that men usurped women's place in the birthing room, I agree with Alex. These men were trained. At this time women doctors were virtually unheard of, as far as I know anyway, but these men had the tools and the training necessary to potentially save both the mother and her child. They were called in cases of emergency, when whatever it was that the midwife was doing just wasnt working. I have never given birth but I would like to think that in that situation I would call whoever I could think of, do anything, that could by some miracle help save my life or the life of my child.--Mary P. <br />
<br />
I think that there was so much guessing and mysticism in the practices of giving birth in both efforts of doctors and midwifes. I would imagine that their training for these professions highlighted different things, which would create a totally different experience for women giving birth. <br />
--Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
Two things really stuck out to me when I was reading about the childbirth differences in the post Revolution era. Since the birthing process itself changed did the after birth process change? Did women have as much time, more, or less time to recooperate? As soon as the baby was born did women take on the role of caring for the woman, nursing, etc. or did the care of the baby continue with the doctor? Another question I had was regard to the change from birth being a pain women had to endure thanks to Eve to something to be uplifted, how did this happen? Was there a shift in religious beliefs or new interpretations of Eve and childbirth that emerged at the time that would lend itself to explaining this shift? I'm not sure of the religious and social context but maybe someone could lend some light on the idea. -- Mary Beth D. <br />
<br />
In the excerpt from Susanna Rowson’s: “Charlotte. A Tale of Truth” she writes about the tragic story of a young girl who leaves her family and friends behind for an Army Lieutenant she falls in love with. In the preface Rowson explains that she wrote the novel to warn parents about what could happen to their daughters as well as for young women who could find themselves in a situation similar to Charlottes. I really enjoyed reading this piece because even though Rowson wrote it in 1794 I found it easy to relate to the dilemma Charlotte was having over wanting to please her parents but at the same time trying to follow her heart. It is interesting to see that women today still feel many of the same pressures Charlotte felt in the 1790s. For instance many women are still concerned about choosing a husband who is accepted by their friends and family and it can split families apart when a woman defies her parents and marries someone who they find unsuitable. Many men today are also careful about respecting the wishes of their future in-laws by asking her father for permission to marry.--Caitlin Quinn<br />
<br />
<br />
In regards to "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth", the preface says it's somewhat based on a true story. Despite its romanticized points, it makes me wonder if it was a common occurrence for men to take women to the colonies against their will. Also, if they did come here and were unhappy, why couldn't they write back to their fathers and tell them they were virtually kidnapped? I know my daddy would fork up any amount to get me back home. Seeing Charlotte's father's undying love for her, I'm sure he would have done the same.- Lisa Wilkerson<br />
<br />
Telling your family wouldn't be an option because of the disgrace associated with running off with a man, whether voluntary or not. Today we think differently but a woman would have been ruined by this situation. - Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
Maybe Charlotte was ashamed of abandoning and having disappointed her family and felt she could not reach out for their help. Or maybe she felt it was her duty to her now husband to obey him or at least stay with him. Also, Rowson writes, "Sometimes, indeed, he (Charlottes husband) would steal out at the close of evening, and pass a few hours with her; and then so much was she attached to him, that all her sorrows were forgotten while blest with his society." So even though was usually miserable, her intense love for him kept pulling her back to him. --Alex<br />
<br />
I also found "Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" interesting but what I found most interesting was the image that was shown of the Army Lieutenant. Susanna Rowson writes his character as a less than wonderful man, after all Charlotte told him she wouldn't go with him because of her duty to her parents but he picked her up and took her anyway, at this point it seemed to be against her will. And once in America he left her alone the majority of the time and in the end instead of dying in the arms of her "love" she died in the arms of her dad (which was still very touching). Was Susanna warning girls against dishonoring her parents or keeping an eye out for men who would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to achieve their goals? - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
To me this story does not seem at all realistic. Would it have affected young women of that time differently? Would they actually have learned a lesson from it or would it have been adored by the parents and ignored by the young ladies, much as it probably would be today. -- Allison Johnson<br />
<br />
In my history of the book seminar, we were required to read Charlotte Temple in its entirety. I really enjoyed reading the book then, and i liked rereading a couple of chapters for this weeks reading. The story itself, as other have suggested revolves around Charolette who is torn between love and duty to both her parents and her supposed lover. What is really interesting about the novel is that there are places where the author, a female author at that, speaks directly to the reader and either explains or apologizes for the actions of the characters or warns the reader away from what she sees as dangerous to young women. What is also very interesting is that this book was the first "bestseller" in the unites states. What does the books subject and popularity tell us about the readers and society during the late 18th century? ---Katelynn V. <br />
<br />
"Charlotte. A Tale of Truth" was a very touching piece. I found it interesting that the idea of not wanting to disappoint her father mattered greatly to Charlotte. As she was dying, all Charlotte wanted was to see her father one last time and receive his blessing. It almost seems to reemphasize the beloved American concept of "Daddy's little girl." --E.Hufford<br />
<br />
That was also how I felt with this piece. But let's not get caught up with this story that I feel has been extremely romanticized to make a point to the people reading it. This was for young women not to go astray, and to obvioulsy make it clear that a father's decision and opinion was extremely important and crucial. - Talya Halpern. <br />
<br />
I was very taken with the story about Charlotte. I feel pretty certain that Rowson wrote this story to discourage young women to give into passions of love. I thought the way she depicted Montraville, fit the descriptions of a seducer to a tee. Charlotte’s act of giving her baby to her father and then dying in his arms was a dramatic way to drive home the message that young women should listen to their parents’ advice. ---Cheryl<br />
<br />
I think another aspect of "Charlotte A Tale of Truth" is that it was probably a response to the fact that girls could now make decisions about who they chose to marry. Their marriages were no longer arranged or forced to as great of an extent as they used to be so I'm led to believe that this piece was possibly a response to the idea that children, especially daughters, should still take their parents' advice when it comes to matters of the heart. Marriage is a big decision and parents only want the best for their children, be that economic gain or just to make sure they're with someone that will truly love them. - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I thought Rowson's piece reflected the different stereotypes attributed to women during this time. There was Charlotte, the helpless rich girl who is indecisive and weak; the promiscuous Mademoiselle, and the wise Madame Du Pont trying to steer Charlotte in the right direction. Furthermore, Rowson didn't believe these characters could change. Mademoiselle was bad in the beginning and bad in the end, Charlotte was always helpless. -F. Cobb<br />
<br />
So while reading Scholten's piece, I decided that had I lived during that time, I strongly doubt I would have had children. Childbirth is hard enough today with the pain and anxiety surrounding it. Add the thought of dying and the need to be spiritually prepared as John Oliver so kindly pointed out in his "A Present for Teeming Women," and there is no doubt many women today would probably have been scared out of childbearing (myself included). -- E. Hufford<br />
<br />
I totally agree. The examples and excerpts from literature given to pregnant women of the day were a bit much. Especially those from A Present for Teeming American Women, like you said. The comparison of a warm chamber to a grave was a little too freaky, but I suppose that was sort of the point.--Kaitlyn G.<br />
<br />
In response to E. Hufford, I was thinking that childbirth would be difficult, but the only certain way to avoid pregancy would be to remain unmarried. With the limited opportunities available to women, I think many women would rather risk childbirth than a poor spinsterhood. What kind of social stigma was attached to women who chose to remain unmarried or those who were unable to have children?-- Ashley H. <br />
<br />
I was a little confused by Murray's piece, "The Story of Margaretta." Apparently Murray wrote the series under the name of Mr. Vigillius. Therefore, she is pretending to be a man writing about the education of a woman, though she really is a woman. Why would she use the pen name? What it because she wanted to be taken seriously? - F. Cobb<br />
<br />
Murray probably thought that using a pen name gave her more credibility. Murray might have assumed that if she wrote as a woman her views would be brushed aside. --Kelly Martin<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly and I would also like to add that there may have been a negative stereotype of women who write during this period. I also found the comments F. Cobb made about the pen name she choose was interesting. For some reason I didn't notice that when I was reading. Maybe Murray wanted the story to be more realistic by claiming the characters were real. -Julie Castanien <br />
<br />
The question I had in my head while reading Scholten's article was, "why didn't women want men in there?" The article mentions prejudice as the cause, which seems ridiculously simple but obvious. Its interesting for me to see how the interpretation of the Bible seemed to follow the presence of male midwifery. Maybe its just the organization of the article, but does suggest that in America, social change precedes and causes a change in religion? Is this a common trend? The very fact that men are actually entering the profession of midwifery seems to be the flat reason for it being accepted. The need for professionals in times of emergencies ultimately gave way to just a general need when people realized that these people knew what they were doing (relatively) and that their tools wouldn't actually harm the child. On a different topic, I found this quote from Murray really interesting: "Her person, the symmetry of her features, the rose and lily of her complexion....these are the endowments of nature --while the artificial accomplishments with which she is invested...confer upon her no real or intrinsic merit." pg 137. Maybe I'm misreading that, but is that say her looks are more 'valuable' than the 'artificial' accomplishments of character? <br />
-Christopher Plummer<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading Rowson's story about Charlotte. I think it is interesting how things that were written about back then can still be things we are dealing with today. Like when she talked about how women liked a man in uniform : "A man of an indifferent appearance, will, when arrayed in a military habit, shew to advantage..."(194) and the fact that even though Charlotte wanted to do the right thing she let her "boyfriend" talk her into something she did not want to. That is something that young women today still deal with. ~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I agree with the opinions posted before on Scholten's article. From our lectures in class, I find it odd that men would want to exert dominance over birth. With the establishment of the concept of motherhood, this reversal seems odd. Perhaps in concerns of medical science, though, a woman could not be allowed to have that knowledge. This idea makes me wonder at what point does one gender role win out above others; what is the most important gendered difference of the period. --Robert Kopp<br />
<br />
In response to F. Cobb's comment about Murray using a man's name in her writings, she probably did that so that her writings would actually get published. Also, at that time, if people saw that something was written by a woman, people, specifically men, would probably not take her or her writings seriously. ~Katherine Stinson~</div>192.65.245.100 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38