McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=192.65.245.47</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=192.65.245.47"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/192.65.245.47"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:57:50Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-25T02:58:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==&lt;br /&gt;
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln&amp;#039;s view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels.  He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion.  I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lincoln states, &amp;quot;And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence.&amp;quot; What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused.  The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control.  How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government?  For example, we can&amp;#039;t just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us.  Also, how did he plan on enforcing that &amp;quot;in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages&amp;quot; if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in &amp;quot;The Gettysburg Address,&amp;quot; Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we&amp;#039;d be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I&amp;#039;m just curious. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, &amp;quot;...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.”  He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage.  Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves.  He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn&amp;#039;t write, including whites. I don&amp;#039;t understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;A Former Slave&amp;#039;s War Aims&amp;quot; was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents.  The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents.  I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army.  I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave&amp;#039;s view that, &amp;quot;As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter&amp;quot;(279).  He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, &amp;quot;there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty&amp;quot;(279).  Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don&amp;#039;t understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they&amp;#039;re either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman&amp;#039;s March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history?  one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat.  Did this turn &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were some interesting points I was curious about.  They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered?  Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women.  So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren&amp;#039;t considered the main targets. -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn&amp;#039;t have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just watched the 70s musical &amp;quot;Hair&amp;quot; last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==&lt;br /&gt;
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general.  It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird.  Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I don&amp;#039;t understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place.  Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, &amp;quot;I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours&amp;quot;. Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers.  My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already.  I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses?  They&amp;#039;ve also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found &amp;quot;That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life...&amp;quot; I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended.  The documents quote &amp;quot;that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue &amp;amp; recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes&amp;quot;.  I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery.  If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back.  If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them.  Didn&amp;#039;t the national government see the problem with these state laws?  Didn&amp;#039;t the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments?  Why didn&amp;#039;t they override these laws? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did these ads actually work?  They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good.  Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to.  The Recorder&amp;#039;s articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones.  This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones.  They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren&amp;#039;t wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them).  How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution.  This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point.  I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population.  This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them.  Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-24T22:55:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==&lt;br /&gt;
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln&amp;#039;s view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels.  He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion.  I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lincoln states, &amp;quot;And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence.&amp;quot; What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused.  The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control.  How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government?  For example, we can&amp;#039;t just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us.  Also, how did he plan on enforcing that &amp;quot;in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages&amp;quot; if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in &amp;quot;The Gettysburg Address,&amp;quot; Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we&amp;#039;d be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I&amp;#039;m just curious. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, &amp;quot;...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn&amp;#039;t write, including whites. I don&amp;#039;t understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;A Former Slave&amp;#039;s War Aims&amp;quot; was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents.  The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents.  I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army.  I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave&amp;#039;s view that, &amp;quot;As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter&amp;quot;(279).  He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, &amp;quot;there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty&amp;quot;(279).  Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don&amp;#039;t understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they&amp;#039;re either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman&amp;#039;s March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history?  one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat.  Did this turn &amp;quot;white&amp;quot; hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn&amp;#039;t have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just watched the 70s musical &amp;quot;Hair&amp;quot; last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I don&amp;#039;t understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place.  Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, &amp;quot;I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours&amp;quot;. Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found &amp;quot;That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life...&amp;quot; I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did these ads actually work?  They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good.  Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to.  The Recorder&amp;#039;s articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones.  This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones.  They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren&amp;#039;t wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them).  How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution.  This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point.  I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population.  This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them.  Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-17T15:35:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ulysses S. Grant&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886.&amp;quot; There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854.&amp;quot; I liked Lincoln&amp;#039;s speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854&amp;quot; he states &amp;quot;my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.&amp;quot;.  Why would he want to do this?  Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa?  Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854&amp;quot; brings up some interesting information about Lincoln&amp;#039;s stance of African Americans I didn&amp;#039;t know about.  When he says, &amp;quot;What next?  Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals?  My own feelings will not admit of this;&amp;quot; it surprised me.  If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them?  Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement.  Or did he?  What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”,  he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing.  Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Douglass&amp;#039; pamphlet, he says &amp;quot;They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free&amp;quot;.  I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Why is this?  I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn&amp;#039;t it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were &amp;quot;recaptured&amp;quot;) comply with the law and try not to &amp;quot;convict&amp;quot; runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this week&amp;#039;s readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise.&amp;quot; They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Jefferson Davis&amp;#039; &amp;quot;Speech before the U.S. Senate&amp;quot; he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery.  His first is that &amp;quot;it is our right&amp;quot;...how is having slaves a right?  How does he get that from the Constitution?  Another one of his reasons says &amp;quot;because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense&amp;quot;.  My question is defense from what?  What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did Jefferson Davis&amp;#039; &amp;quot;Speech before the U.S. Senate&amp;quot; have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy.  And also, I noticed that there are many &amp;quot;...&amp;quot; in the speech; why did they cut down the speech?  Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement?  Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jefferson Davis says &amp;quot;It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist...&amp;quot; How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be &amp;quot;united&amp;quot;. It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for &amp;quot;his people&amp;quot;.  It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free.  However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well.  To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting.  Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live.   Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born.  They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage.  Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean?  How could they afford to move over there?  Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia.  He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the Brown&amp;#039;s killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don&amp;#039;t see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths.  He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves.  He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”.  With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured.  ~Renee Rosser&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-17T15:29:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ulysses S. Grant&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886.&amp;quot; There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854.&amp;quot; I liked Lincoln&amp;#039;s speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854&amp;quot; he states &amp;quot;my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.&amp;quot;.  Why would he want to do this?  Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa?  Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854&amp;quot; brings up some interesting information about Lincoln&amp;#039;s stance of African Americans I didn&amp;#039;t know about.  When he says, &amp;quot;What next?  Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals?  My own feelings will not admit of this;&amp;quot; it surprised me.  If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them?  Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement.  Or did he?  What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”,  he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing.  Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Douglass&amp;#039; pamphlet, he says &amp;quot;They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free&amp;quot;.  I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Why is this?  I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn&amp;#039;t it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were &amp;quot;recaptured&amp;quot;) comply with the law and try not to &amp;quot;convict&amp;quot; runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this week&amp;#039;s readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Jefferson Davis&amp;#039; &amp;quot;Speech before the U.S. Senate&amp;quot; he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery.  His first is that &amp;quot;it is our right&amp;quot;...how is having slaves a right?  How does he get that from the Constitution?  Another one of his reasons says &amp;quot;because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense&amp;quot;.  My question is defense from what?  What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did Jefferson Davis&amp;#039; &amp;quot;Speech before the U.S. Senate&amp;quot; have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy.  And also, I noticed that there are many &amp;quot;...&amp;quot; in the speech; why did they cut down the speech?  Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement?  Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jefferson Davis says &amp;quot;It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist...&amp;quot; How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be &amp;quot;united&amp;quot;. It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for &amp;quot;his people&amp;quot;.  It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free.  However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well.  To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting.  Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live.   Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born.  They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage.  Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean?  How could they afford to move over there?  Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia.  He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the Brown&amp;#039;s killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don&amp;#039;t see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths.  He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves.  He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”.  With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured.  ~Renee Rosser&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-17T05:48:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here.  What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren&amp;#039;t feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s true, I wonder if that has do with the fact that everyone here is in college. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that as well. It shows how ingrained in society and the belief of these women that these were the jobs that they were meant to do. My grandmother actually ended up combining the acceptable work once her children were in high school by not only doing secretarial work, but doing so for the school system. I found it interesting that so many women did fit into the traditional roles, it shows that the women who pushed the confines of society might not have been as numerous as some sources may portray.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the strange thing about all of these papers.  None of the people that we interviewed were activists, apparently.  The majority of them did not believe that a women should work and raise children at the same time, and all of them, apparently, chose to follow typically feminine career tracks, if they worked at all, without any desire to do anything else. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on Jessica&amp;#039;s point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home.  -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading accounts of numerous women&amp;#039;s lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that after reading these accounts it really is obvious how rare it was for women to become professionals.  And when I say that, I&amp;#039;m excluding the teaching profession because that was an occupation at the same level.  There are a number of women in these interviews who taught, or had the intent to teach, but it was rare for a woman to run off and become a nuclear physicist.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college.  That relates a lot to what we&amp;#039;ve been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn&amp;#039;t really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews.  Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children.  In one interview it talked about how married women didn&amp;#039;t work or simply weren&amp;#039;t hired as well as didn&amp;#039;t come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we&amp;#039;ve talked a lot about in this class.  Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn&amp;#039;t then you went off to college.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family.  I liked Jessica&amp;#039;s remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president.  I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn&amp;#039;t everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn&amp;#039;t seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that?  Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Gunnoe is actually my mother, I didn&amp;#039;t want to state it out in the interview itself because I wanted it to be about her.  I do feel my mom led a very interesting life.  I know her mother was nagging all us grand-girls about getting married early and thinks I&amp;#039;m wasting my life with going to college right now.  She doesn&amp;#039;t treat me like a human unless my husband is with me because I&amp;#039;m worthless without him according to her.  However, Mrs. Gunnoe dealt with all that growing up and met my dad and he is just so... not the average guy.  He always helped with housework with mom, he encouraged her schooling, had to encourage her A LOT to even think of driving (that was a HUGE no no where she came from).  Dad really changed mom&amp;#039;s life and showed her that everything didn&amp;#039;t have to be stay home and have babies.  Which in essence is funny because he grew up not too far from where my mom lived in Cyclone.  My mom from when I was little has pushed for both myself and my brother (but more pressure on me... *Sighs*) to get a good education and pick a field of work where I can support myself in case something happens to my husband.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don&amp;#039;t think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s true, the difference between the times of the &amp;quot;Greatest Generation&amp;quot; and our own is fairly remarkable in this regard.  Maybe if UMW had a ROTC, things would be different? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, although it is exactly what we read about in class, it is strange and slightly counter-intuitive to read about women whose sole focus was happily their husbands. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how many women were divorced. We have learned in class that divorce was not common and sometimes even looked down upon yet several of the women interviewed were divorced. I also found it interesting that none of them gave a really solid answer when asked why they got a divorce. Most seemed to just ignore the question all together. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, I have noticed the obvious, the women from wealthy families went to college. Women from poor families did not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Fay Scott- divorced … poor…. Worked in a cigarette factory ... did not go to college. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heidi Brown- German Immigrant married an American. Poor childhood... no college. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Molly woody went to college … wealthy family.. family had servants. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marye Ostwald went to college… wealthy family.. had servants. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that in two of the interviews, the mothers wanted more for their daughters than they had.&lt;br /&gt;
Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that many of the women interviewed either had their mothers want something better for them or even know they wanted something better for their own daughters. I think part of that might be that although they were happy with the way their life turned out- they realized that there were other things they could have done and didn&amp;#039;t want their daughters to be limited based on society&amp;#039;s dictations.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that all these women did what was necessary for their families to survive. I feel that in most cases it is the same today. If the family needs the second income the wife works. Women have always and will always be mothers and wives and will, in most cases, do what the family needs. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, but I think today women tend to focus more on being self-actualized which makes being a mother a slightly different concept.  Today, there is more than a single way for children to be raised.  Then there was only one, the wife stays at home. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see a lot of the same patterns of women growing up and doing some schooling, some higher, most not... They worked for a while and then had children and in the end stayed home with the children.  Some returned to work after the children were out of the nest, some stayed home. There are always breaks in patterns though, like with my mom Mrs. Gunnoe, she stayed home until my brother was almost 2 and went back to work.  She stayed home because of the car accident and I was born... she stayed home until I was about 5... but has worked ever since. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I want to say makes sense in my head, so let&amp;#039;s see if I can spill it out for you all.  What I noticed in these interviews ties in a lot with what some other people said about being happy housewives and mothers.  For most of these women, it seemed to me that independence was not a top priority, and when I say independence, I mean the type that most of us strive for today by going to college, getting jobs (professions) and taking our time finding marriage.  The idea of an MRS degree still floats around, but it&amp;#039;s falling further and further into obscurity these days.  These interviews really placed a &amp;quot;face&amp;quot; I guess you could say with the time period.  I mean, yes, some of these women did go off and get jobs and help fight in the war, but most of them went into the commonly thought of &amp;quot;female positions.&amp;quot;  A lot of what we talked about in class seemed to kind of become more apparent for me while reading these interviews. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think I know what you are getting at Kelly. Like these women did want jobs, education and all but at the end of the day it was also a competition as to who got with the best husband and the best family, house, etc...Girls didn&amp;#039;t only have to focus on school but in looking available and pretty for men.- Emely Amaya.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think what I liked most about reading these interviews was that these women really were the normal women of the century. While our readings for class are pretty well rounded, when writing my paper I found it extremely hard to find experiences in the readings that would relate to my interviewee because she was not that active and was a military wife, not in the military herself and unfortunately there were no readings about the experiences of military wives (though I think that would have been a very interesting read). So I definitely thought these papers and the projects were useful in giving a realistic face to the women of this century. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems that most of the women didn’t have any problems with society in their life. Most women accepted their roles and had no regrets with the paths they chose.  Today, women read these stories and feel that it was not fair with what women were expected to do.  It definitely is based on the time period you were raised. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With jobs, it seems that women liked their jobs, but felt ok to just leave it if it got in the way of taking care of the family. Some women left their jobs to have children then returned when the children were older. Also, some women went back to school to get an education after they had children.  There are still women today that do this. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how many of the women did not seem to identify with the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. It seems that a lot of women were satisfied with their choices of staying home with their children in a more &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; role. I also thought it was interesting that most of the housewives volunteered in some capacity.  My mother volunteered at the schools and through church but she would never consider herself an activist, it seems like some others were the same way. It was really interesting to see that a lot of these women lived similar lives in a lot of ways.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After browsing all the essays one thing that stood out was how good of a sample this seems to be. There were examples of alot of things we talked about in class. There were examples of poor farming families, independent city women, activists, docile housewives, various roles played by women in WWII, differences in how families were affected by the depression, immigrants, and alot more. I did not expect the essays to be so diverse or so broad in their scope. -- Landon Davis &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It appears that alot of the women were poor growing up, most of them worked at some point or another, most of them quit work when they were married, most of them were married (young), and most of them were fairly well educated more went to college than I expected. -- Landon Davis &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that most of them avoided strong language, or at least it was left out of the papers. Again I did not read every word of every essay, but no agressive or controversial lines jumped off the page. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking over the essays, I really noticed how all the women seemed to be so affected by their life experiences. I found it particularly interesting the comments some women made about looking at today&amp;#039;s feminist movement - I think their perspective adds an important historical element that still largely incorporates the pressures and expectations of the past. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from our classes sampling that every women had a fairly different life experience. It was amazing to me how different some of the women&amp;#039;s stories were... some women happily stayed home while other eagerly pursued other options. I feel like our class&amp;#039;s collection of stories is probably very representative of women&amp;#039;s lives in the 20th Century. Not all women were revolutionary, progress, or even feminists. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After browsing through the essays, I am wondering if there is a pattern here between the lives of rural verse urban women... I know  we have learned about the rural vs. urban experience in class... how accurately is that reflected in these essays? - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good pickup Cat.  I noted that the women that had it the most difficult growing up were women living in rural areas, especially those who lived throught the Depression.  I liked the one story about the &amp;quot;huckster&amp;quot; who came around and brought the groceries and household goods right to the rural residences.  I just learned where a word came from!  All that said, my Grandparents were all teenagers during the Depression, and the experience was a drastic one for all of them, both the females and males... perhaps more scarring on many than World War II.  At least during WWII, the possiblity of starving or being constantly unemployed seemed to have lessened. - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I used a pseudonym for my mother.  I thought that she was kind of conservative, until I read the other interviews.  Even the more independent working women... did not appear to feel as if they were working for a movement, they just made the decisions that they made.  I didn&amp;#039;t read every line of each paper, but I don&amp;#039;t recall Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan&amp;#039;s names coming up often... and when they did... the women&amp;#039;s responses were either negative, or guarded, rather than positive. - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite paper was Justin&amp;#039;s about Charlotte Corbett Parker.  Being one of the foot soldiers of desegregation, and having all of the white kids ignoring her, must have been difficult.  However, she went on to become an accomplished woman and doesn&amp;#039;t appear bitter in spite of her difficult encounters with Jim Crow and desegregation.  I think there is a lot we can learn as men and women from the civil rights generation of the Fifties and Sixties.  It takes a strong person to just ignore the hatred being directed at them and channeling that abuse and treatment into a positive life experience... - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got the vibe that a lot of these women did understand the importnace of being strong, independent, working women yet also were aware that they had to stay at home to keep their family together. Emely Amaya.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was Mary Beth&amp;#039;s essay in which when she asked why her interviewee why she stopped working and the the answer was &amp;quot;...because i got married&amp;quot;. Like hello? common sense! That&amp;#039;s what women DO when they get married. - Emely Amaya&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-17T05:18:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here.  What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren&amp;#039;t feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s true, I wonder if that has do with the fact that everyone here is in college. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that as well. It shows how ingrained in society and the belief of these women that these were the jobs that they were meant to do. My grandmother actually ended up combining the acceptable work once her children were in high school by not only doing secretarial work, but doing so for the school system. I found it interesting that so many women did fit into the traditional roles, it shows that the women who pushed the confines of society might not have been as numerous as some sources may portray.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That is the strange thing about all of these papers.  None of the people that we interviewed were activists, apparently.  The majority of them did not believe that a women should work and raise children at the same time, and all of them, apparently, chose to follow typically feminine career tracks, if they worked at all, without any desire to do anything else. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on Jessica&amp;#039;s point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home.  -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading accounts of numerous women&amp;#039;s lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that after reading these accounts it really is obvious how rare it was for women to become professionals.  And when I say that, I&amp;#039;m excluding the teaching profession because that was an occupation at the same level.  There are a number of women in these interviews who taught, or had the intent to teach, but it was rare for a woman to run off and become a nuclear physicist.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college.  That relates a lot to what we&amp;#039;ve been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn&amp;#039;t really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews.  Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children.  In one interview it talked about how married women didn&amp;#039;t work or simply weren&amp;#039;t hired as well as didn&amp;#039;t come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we&amp;#039;ve talked a lot about in this class.  Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn&amp;#039;t then you went off to college.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family.  I liked Jessica&amp;#039;s remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president.  I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn&amp;#039;t everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn&amp;#039;t seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that?  Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Gunnoe is actually my mother, I didn&amp;#039;t want to state it out in the interview itself because I wanted it to be about her.  I do feel my mom led a very interesting life.  I know her mother was nagging all us grand-girls about getting married early and thinks I&amp;#039;m wasting my life with going to college right now.  She doesn&amp;#039;t treat me like a human unless my husband is with me because I&amp;#039;m worthless without him according to her.  However, Mrs. Gunnoe dealt with all that growing up and met my dad and he is just so... not the average guy.  He always helped with housework with mom, he encouraged her schooling, had to encourage her A LOT to even think of driving (that was a HUGE no no where she came from).  Dad really changed mom&amp;#039;s life and showed her that everything didn&amp;#039;t have to be stay home and have babies.  Which in essence is funny because he grew up not too far from where my mom lived in Cyclone.  My mom from when I was little has pushed for both myself and my brother (but more pressure on me... *Sighs*) to get a good education and pick a field of work where I can support myself in case something happens to my husband.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don&amp;#039;t think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s true, the difference between the times of the &amp;quot;Greatest Generation&amp;quot; and our own is fairly remarkable in this regard.  Maybe if UMW had a ROTC, things would be different? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, although it is exactly what we read about in class, it is strange and slightly counter-intuitive to read about women whose sole focus was happily their husbands. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how many women were divorced. We have learned in class that divorce was not common and sometimes even looked down upon yet several of the women interviewed were divorced. I also found it interesting that none of them gave a really solid answer when asked why they got a divorce. Most seemed to just ignore the question all together. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far, I have noticed the obvious, the women from wealthy families went to college. Women from poor families did not. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jean Fay Scott- divorced … poor…. Worked in a cigarette factory ... did not go to college. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Heidi Brown- German Immigrant married an American. Poor childhood... no college. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Molly woody went to college … wealthy family.. family had servants. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marye Ostwald went to college… wealthy family.. had servants. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that in two of the interviews, the mothers wanted more for their daughters than they had.&lt;br /&gt;
Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that many of the women interviewed either had their mothers want something better for them or even know they wanted something better for their own daughters. I think part of that might be that although they were happy with the way their life turned out- they realized that there were other things they could have done and didn&amp;#039;t want their daughters to be limited based on society&amp;#039;s dictations.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that all these women did what was necessary for their families to survive. I feel that in most cases it is the same today. If the family needs the second income the wife works. Women have always and will always be mothers and wives and will, in most cases, do what the family needs. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, but I think today women tend to focus more on being self-actualized which makes being a mother a slightly different concept.  Today, there is more than a single way for children to be raised.  Then there was only one, the wife stays at home. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see a lot of the same patterns of women growing up and doing some schooling, some higher, most not... They worked for a while and then had children and in the end stayed home with the children.  Some returned to work after the children were out of the nest, some stayed home. There are always breaks in patterns though, like with my mom Mrs. Gunnoe, she stayed home until my brother was almost 2 and went back to work.  She stayed home because of the car accident and I was born... she stayed home until I was about 5... but has worked ever since. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I want to say makes sense in my head, so let&amp;#039;s see if I can spill it out for you all.  What I noticed in these interviews ties in a lot with what some other people said about being happy housewives and mothers.  For most of these women, it seemed to me that independence was not a top priority, and when I say independence, I mean the type that most of us strive for today by going to college, getting jobs (professions) and taking our time finding marriage.  The idea of an MRS degree still floats around, but it&amp;#039;s falling further and further into obscurity these days.  These interviews really placed a &amp;quot;face&amp;quot; I guess you could say with the time period.  I mean, yes, some of these women did go off and get jobs and help fight in the war, but most of them went into the commonly thought of &amp;quot;female positions.&amp;quot;  A lot of what we talked about in class seemed to kind of become more apparent for me while reading these interviews. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think what I liked most about reading these interviews was that these women really were the normal women of the century. While our readings for class are pretty well rounded, when writing my paper I found it extremely hard to find experiences in the readings that would relate to my interviewee because she was not that active and was a military wife, not in the military herself and unfortunately there were no readings about the experiences of military wives (though I think that would have been a very interesting read). So I definitely thought these papers and the projects were useful in giving a realistic face to the women of this century. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems that most of the women didn’t have any problems with society in their life. Most women accepted their roles and had no regrets with the paths they chose.  Today, women read these stories and feel that it was not fair with what women were expected to do.  It definitely is based on the time period you were raised. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With jobs, it seems that women liked their jobs, but felt ok to just leave it if it got in the way of taking care of the family. Some women left their jobs to have children then returned when the children were older. Also, some women went back to school to get an education after they had children.  There are still women today that do this. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how many of the women did not seem to identify with the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. It seems that a lot of women were satisfied with their choices of staying home with their children in a more &amp;quot;traditional&amp;quot; role. I also thought it was interesting that most of the housewives volunteered in some capacity.  My mother volunteered at the schools and through church but she would never consider herself an activist, it seems like some others were the same way. It was really interesting to see that a lot of these women lived similar lives in a lot of ways.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After browsing all the essays one thing that stood out was how good of a sample this seems to be. There were examples of alot of things we talked about in class. There were examples of poor farming families, independent city women, activists, docile housewives, various roles played by women in WWII, differences in how families were affected by the depression, immigrants, and alot more. I did not expect the essays to be so diverse or so broad in their scope. -- Landon Davis &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It appears that alot of the women were poor growing up, most of them worked at some point or another, most of them quit work when they were married, most of them were married (young), and most of them were fairly well educated more went to college than I expected. -- Landon Davis &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed that most of them avoided strong language, or at least it was left out of the papers. Again I did not read every word of every essay, but no agressive or controversial lines jumped off the page. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking over the essays, I really noticed how all the women seemed to be so affected by their life experiences. I found it particularly interesting the comments some women made about looking at today&amp;#039;s feminist movement - I think their perspective adds an important historical element that still largely incorporates the pressures and expectations of the past. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from our classes sampling that every women had a fairly different life experience. It was amazing to me how different some of the women&amp;#039;s stories were... some women happily stayed home while other eagerly pursued other options. I feel like our class&amp;#039;s collection of stories is probably very representative of women&amp;#039;s lives in the 20th Century. Not all women were revolutionary, progress, or even feminists. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After browsing through the essays, I am wondering if there is a pattern here between the lives of rural verse urban women... I know  we have learned about the rural vs. urban experience in class... how accurately is that reflected in these essays? - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good pickup Cat.  I noted that the women that had it the most difficult growing up were women living in rural areas, especially those who lived throught the Depression.  I liked the one story about the &amp;quot;huckster&amp;quot; who came around and brought the groceries and household goods right to the rural residences.  I just learned where a word came from!  All that said, my Grandparents were all teenagers during the Depression, and the experience was a drastic one for all of them, both the females and males... perhaps more scarring on many than World War II.  At least during WWII, the possiblity of starving or being constantly unemployed seemed to have lessened. - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I used a pseudonym for my mother.  I thought that she was kind of conservative, until I read the other interviews.  Even the more independent working women... did not appear to feel as if they were working for a movement, they just made the decisions that they made.  I didn&amp;#039;t read every line of each paper, but I don&amp;#039;t recall Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan&amp;#039;s names coming up often... and when they did... the women&amp;#039;s responses were either negative, or guarded, rather than positive. - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite paper was Justin&amp;#039;s about Charlotte Corbett Parker.  Being one of the foot soldiers of desegregation, and having all of the white kids ignoring her, must have been difficult.  However, she went on to become an accomplished woman and doesn&amp;#039;t appear bitter in spite of her difficult encounters with Jim Crow and desegregation.  I think there is a lot we can learn as men and women from the civil rights generation of the Fifties and Sixties.  It takes a strong person to just ignore the hatred being directed at them and channeling that abuse and treatment into a positive life experience... - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got the vibe that a lot of these women did understand the importnace of being strong, independent, working women yet also were aware that they had to stay at home to keep their family together. Emely&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-16T22:28:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ulysses S. Grant&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886.&amp;quot; There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854.&amp;quot; I liked Lincoln&amp;#039;s speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;a &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854&amp;quot; he states &amp;quot;my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.&amp;quot;.  Why would he want to do this?  Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa?  Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Douglass&amp;#039; pamphlet, he says &amp;quot;They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free&amp;quot;.  I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be &amp;quot;innocent until proven guilty&amp;quot;.  Why is this?  I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn&amp;#039;t it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were &amp;quot;recaptured&amp;quot;) comply with the law and try not to &amp;quot;convict&amp;quot; runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this week&amp;#039;s readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Jefferson Davis&amp;#039; &amp;quot;Speech before the U.S. Senate&amp;quot; he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery.  His first is that &amp;quot;it is our right&amp;quot;...how is having slaves a right?  How does he get that from the Constitution?  Another one of his reasons says &amp;quot;because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense&amp;quot;.  My question is defense from what?  What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for &amp;quot;his people&amp;quot;.  It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free.  However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well.  To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting.  Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live.   Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born.  They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage.  Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean?  How could they afford to move over there?  Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia.  He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the Brown&amp;#039;s killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don&amp;#039;t see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-16T16:38:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ulysses S. Grant&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886.&amp;quot; There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Abraham Lincoln&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854.&amp;quot; I liked Lincoln&amp;#039;s speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-11T04:14:33Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn&amp;#039;t run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn&amp;#039;t until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn&amp;#039;t act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn&amp;#039;t living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway.  Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations.  I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society.  Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frederick Douglass&amp;#039;s Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding.  However, there was one that stood out, &amp;quot;If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers.  It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use.&amp;quot; (pg.11)  This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse.  As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses.  With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black &amp;quot;culture&amp;quot;? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said &amp;quot;Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world&amp;quot;. This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass&amp;#039; point of view. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said &amp;quot;Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me.&amp;quot; It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can&amp;#039;t imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Frederick Douglass knows, as a slave, he is not considered a person, he is considered property, then why does he use the Constitution to fight for his rights?  He talks about the differences between people and objects and then argues that he has the right to land and property because of this.--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very confused when reading Douglass&amp;#039; accounts of slaves tellings truths and lies about their masters.  I do not understand how, if their master treats them so cruelly, they stand up and &amp;quot;quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other&amp;quot;.  They&amp;#039;ve seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer&amp;#039;s had whipped slaves raw, and persons of the house could whip a slave at any time, for virtually any reason.  As there was a lot of traveling between plantations done by slaves, wouldn&amp;#039;t they hear of &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect?  How can they &amp;quot;mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately&amp;quot;, yet believe that their master is the best one?  Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn&amp;#039;t fight for their masters.  Granted, they wouldn&amp;#039;t talk terribly about them, yet wouldn&amp;#039;t they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Douglas reaches the point that he can remember dates, he goes to live with Thomas Auld. Auld and his family pretty much starve their slaves and they resort to begging and stealing from the neighbors. Treatment and care of slaves was a big thing considering the fact that even the slaves knew they were being mistreated to other slaveholder standards. I wonder why they never set rules for slavery if they were so passionate about treatment of slaves even if they wouldn&amp;#039;t flat out abolish it. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one part of the article it says &amp;quot;On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation.&amp;quot;  The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals?  Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend?  If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality?  Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals?  I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar&amp;#039;s account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It&amp;#039;s funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this I began to wonder if to some people, church was not simply entertainment.  Certainly it was quite dramatic but it was also a way for blacks and females to freely enter the public sphere.  How many were really faithful?  And how did this contribute to the cultural background of America, it was much like the traveling circuses and shows in my opinion.--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, &amp;quot;At first they were taken with an inward throbbing of heart; then with weeping and trembling: from that to crying out, in apparent agony of soul; falling down and swooning away till every appearance of animal life was suspended, and the person appeared to be in a trance&amp;quot;.  In class, it was mentioned that usually the sinners were sent to stand in front of the podium.  Could they have been faking these reactions, just to make people believe that they had converted?  It&amp;#039;s kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances.  I don&amp;#039;t doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations.  You don&amp;#039;t see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is.  Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis.  This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington&amp;#039;s presidency/farewell address to Jackson&amp;#039;s that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, &amp;quot;...from within, among yourselves.&amp;quot; Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington&amp;#039;s era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech.  But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed.  The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also?  And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education.  Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were Sarah Grimké&amp;#039;s letters actually available to women?  Were women allowed to and able to read these?  What good would they really do if her main audience didn&amp;#039;t even have access to them?  I&amp;#039;m sure men didn&amp;#039;t really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn&amp;#039;t matter. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn&amp;#039;t explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don&amp;#039;t see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Renee&amp;#039;s question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn&amp;#039;t be happy with what I recieved. You&amp;#039;d think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands&amp;#039; rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke&amp;#039;s statement about the &amp;quot;moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated.&amp;quot; From my understanding a white woman&amp;#039;s treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man&amp;#039;s. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then.  Cooking and other &amp;quot;domestic&amp;quot; lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to &amp;quot;behave&amp;quot; and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it&amp;#039;s kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there&amp;#039;s someone speaking against their beliefs, they&amp;#039;re inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy&amp;#039;s actions is that he doesn&amp;#039;t take any of the warnings seriously.  Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there&amp;#039;s an extent to which it applies.  He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice.  Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances?  And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-11T03:51:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn&amp;#039;t run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn&amp;#039;t until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn&amp;#039;t act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn&amp;#039;t living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway.  Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations.  I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society.  Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frederick Douglass&amp;#039;s Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding.  However, there was one that stood out, &amp;quot;If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers.  It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use.&amp;quot; (pg.11)  This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse.  As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses.  With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black &amp;quot;culture&amp;quot;? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said &amp;quot;Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world&amp;quot;. This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass&amp;#039; point of view. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said &amp;quot;Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me.&amp;quot; It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can&amp;#039;t imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Frederick Douglass knows, as a slave, he is not considered a person, he is considered property, then why does he use the Constitution to fight for his rights?  He talks about the differences between people and objects and then argues that he has the right to land and property because of this.--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am very confused when reading Douglass&amp;#039; accounts of slaves tellings truths and lies about their masters.  I do not understand how, if their master treats them so cruelly, they stand up and &amp;quot;quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other&amp;quot;.  They&amp;#039;ve seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer&amp;#039;s had whipped slaves raw, and persons of the house could whip a slave at any time, for virtually any reason.  As there was a lot of traveling between plantations done by slaves, wouldn&amp;#039;t they hear of &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect?  How can they &amp;quot;mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately&amp;quot;, yet believe that their master is the best one?  Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn&amp;#039;t fight for their masters.  Granted, they wouldn&amp;#039;t talk terribly about them, yet wouldn&amp;#039;t they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one part of the article it says &amp;quot;On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation.&amp;quot;  The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals?  Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend?  If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality?  Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals?  I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar&amp;#039;s account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It&amp;#039;s funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this I began to wonder if to some people, church was not simply entertainment.  Certainly it was quite dramatic but it was also a way for blacks and females to freely enter the public sphere.  How many were really faithful?  And how did this contribute to the cultural background of America, it was much like the traveling circuses and shows in my opinion.--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, &amp;quot;At first they were taken with an inward throbbing of heart; then with weeping and trembling: from that to crying out, in apparent agony of soul; falling down and swooning away till every appearance of animal life was suspended, and the person appeared to be in a trance&amp;quot;.  In class, it was mentioned that usually the sinners were sent to stand in front of the podium.  Could they have been faking these reactions, just to make people believe that they had converted?  It&amp;#039;s kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances.  I don&amp;#039;t doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations.  You don&amp;#039;t see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is.  Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis.  This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington&amp;#039;s presidency/farewell address to Jackson&amp;#039;s that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, &amp;quot;...from within, among yourselves.&amp;quot; Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington&amp;#039;s era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech.  But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed.  The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also?  And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education.  Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were Sarah Grimké&amp;#039;s letters actually available to women?  Were women allowed to and able to read these?  What good would they really do if her main audience didn&amp;#039;t even have access to them?  I&amp;#039;m sure men didn&amp;#039;t really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn&amp;#039;t matter. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn&amp;#039;t explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don&amp;#039;t see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Renee&amp;#039;s question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn&amp;#039;t be happy with what I recieved. You&amp;#039;d think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands&amp;#039; rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke&amp;#039;s statement about the &amp;quot;moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated.&amp;quot; From my understanding a white woman&amp;#039;s treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man&amp;#039;s. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then.  Cooking and other &amp;quot;domestic&amp;quot; lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to &amp;quot;behave&amp;quot; and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it&amp;#039;s kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there&amp;#039;s someone speaking against their beliefs, they&amp;#039;re inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy&amp;#039;s actions is that he doesn&amp;#039;t take any of the warnings seriously.  Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there&amp;#039;s an extent to which it applies.  He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice.  Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances?  And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-11T00:32:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn&amp;#039;t run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn&amp;#039;t until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn&amp;#039;t act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn&amp;#039;t living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway.  Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations.  I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society.  Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frederick Douglass&amp;#039;s Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding.  However, there was one that stood out, &amp;quot;If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers.  It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use.&amp;quot; (pg.11)  This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse.  As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses.  With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black &amp;quot;culture&amp;quot;? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said &amp;quot;Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world&amp;quot;. This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass&amp;#039; point of view. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said &amp;quot;Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me.&amp;quot; It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can&amp;#039;t imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one part of the article it says &amp;quot;On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation.&amp;quot;  The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals?  Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend?  If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality?  Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals?  I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar&amp;#039;s account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It&amp;#039;s funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is.  Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis.  This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington&amp;#039;s presidency/farewell address to Jackson&amp;#039;s that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, &amp;quot;...from within, among yourselves.&amp;quot; Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington&amp;#039;s era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education.  Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were Sarah Grimké&amp;#039;s letters actually available to women?  Were women allowed to and able to read these?  What good would they really do if her main audience didn&amp;#039;t even have access to them?  I&amp;#039;m sure men didn&amp;#039;t really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn&amp;#039;t matter. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn&amp;#039;t explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don&amp;#039;t see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Renee&amp;#039;s question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn&amp;#039;t be happy with what I recieved. You&amp;#039;d think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands&amp;#039; rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it&amp;#039;s kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there&amp;#039;s someone speaking against their beliefs, they&amp;#039;re inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-11T00:27:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn&amp;#039;t run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn&amp;#039;t until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn&amp;#039;t act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn&amp;#039;t living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway.  Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations.  I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society.  Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frederick Douglass&amp;#039;s Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding.  However, there was one that stood out, &amp;quot;If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers.  It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use.&amp;quot; (pg.11)  This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse.  As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses.  With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black &amp;quot;culture&amp;quot;? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said &amp;quot;Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world&amp;quot;. This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass&amp;#039; point of view. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said &amp;quot;Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me.&amp;quot; It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can&amp;#039;t imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one part of the article it says &amp;quot;On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation.&amp;quot;  The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals?  Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend?  If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality?  Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals?  I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar&amp;#039;s account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It&amp;#039;s funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is.  Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis.  This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington&amp;#039;s presidency/farewell address to Jackson&amp;#039;s that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, &amp;quot;...from within, among yourselves.&amp;quot; Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington&amp;#039;s era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education.  Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were Sarah Grimké&amp;#039;s letters actually available to women?  Were women allowed to and able to read these?  What good would they really do if her main audience didn&amp;#039;t even have access to them?  I&amp;#039;m sure men didn&amp;#039;t really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn&amp;#039;t matter. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn&amp;#039;t explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don&amp;#039;t see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Renee&amp;#039;s question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn&amp;#039;t be happy with what I recieved. You&amp;#039;d think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands&amp;#039; rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there &amp;quot;sphere&amp;quot; of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it&amp;#039;s kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there&amp;#039;s someone speaking against their beliefs, they&amp;#039;re inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T05:25:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery.  He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead.  I wonder how he treated his kids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner&amp;#039;s extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn&amp;#039;t he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to focus on the psychology behind this passage.  Nat Turner was not incredibly educated-he had studied the Bible, but it doesn&amp;#039;t sound like he had been introduced into outside reason.  It sounds like he reads until he finds something he can twist into backing his cause, but he does not seem to be influenced himself by ideas and knowledge.  He had not been taught as well to rely on reason, so he relied on passion.  Because of the wounds he suffered (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)his passion was more likely to be violent, acting out of hurt.  He does not have a lot of grounding in education, so his reasoning can go anywhere and seem to make sense to him and anyone who is willing to buy into it.  In this case, not educating slaves hurt the masters.  A more educated slave would have been more gentle.  Frederick Douglass spoke about when he gave up on his education and was reduced to a beast.  He was unfeeling and hardened.  When he decided to embrace knowledge again and thinking, he softened. --Gracie Ofslager&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were &amp;quot;entrusted&amp;quot; to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and &amp;quot;proper kindness&amp;quot; but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. &amp;quot;It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied...&amp;quot; how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T05:16:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery.  He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead.  I wonder how he treated his kids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner&amp;#039;s extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn&amp;#039;t he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were &amp;quot;entrusted&amp;quot; to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and &amp;quot;proper kindness&amp;quot; but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. &amp;quot;It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied...&amp;quot; how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T05:15:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner&amp;#039;s extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn&amp;#039;t he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were &amp;quot;entrusted&amp;quot; to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and &amp;quot;proper kindness&amp;quot; but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. &amp;quot;It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied...&amp;quot; how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T05:13:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner&amp;#039;s extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were &amp;quot;entrusted&amp;quot; to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and &amp;quot;proper kindness&amp;quot; but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. &amp;quot;It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied...&amp;quot; how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T05:00:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were &amp;quot;entrusted&amp;quot; to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and &amp;quot;proper kindness&amp;quot; but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. &amp;quot;It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied...&amp;quot; how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-04T04:52:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; to be contradictory.  The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don&amp;#039;t really match up.  He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness.  Does he not see this?  Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return.  Did all slave owners feel this way?  Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow states, &amp;quot;The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised,&amp;quot; (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says &amp;quot;I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent.&amp;quot; He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow&amp;#039;s impression? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm.  Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation?  And would Bennet Barrow be considered a &amp;quot;nicer&amp;quot; master during his time?  I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason.  Also, why is the word &amp;quot;Pass&amp;quot; capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal, &amp;quot;Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious&amp;quot; seems to contradict Southern morals.  Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn&amp;#039;t want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation.  However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says &amp;quot;any man&amp;quot; and not just &amp;quot;a northern man&amp;quot;.  I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery?  How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be &amp;quot;injurious&amp;quot;?  Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s journal was not the consideration of children.  After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master?  Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves.  He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.”  Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security.  But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control.  Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think.  In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important.  But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that.  I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves).   ~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting.  However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, &amp;quot;No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation&amp;quot; (244).  While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations?  If so, how did they meet these women?  I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that &amp;quot;[negro&amp;#039;s] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment.&amp;quot; This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, &amp;quot;you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you.&amp;quot; The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren&amp;#039;t to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i&amp;#039;m pretty sure didn&amp;#039;t work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nat Turner – from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Confessions of Nat Turner&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1831 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before.  I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane.  Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article?  Is he seen as someone who is insane today?  If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then.  Why did people follow him once he said this?  Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, &amp;quot;withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed  purpose of serving the Spirit more fully,&amp;quot; He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Laura&amp;#039;s question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples.  Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times.  Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner&amp;#039;s actions made&lt;br /&gt;
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men &amp;quot;editing&amp;quot; slaves&amp;#039; stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today.  But reading his &amp;quot;confessions&amp;quot; made me wonder just what drives people to do so.  Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn&amp;#039;t treated him the way they did when he was a child?  Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated?  In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous.  The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner&amp;#039;s Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: &amp;quot;Seek ye the kingdom of heaven...&amp;quot; he was strucked by it that he &amp;quot;reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject.&amp;quot; Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one&amp;#039;s energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage was quite interesting.  When Nat Turner said, &amp;quot;And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand&amp;quot; (250).  This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a &amp;#039;new day of judgment&amp;#039; for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing.  This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves.  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten.  Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently?  He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does Hammond mean when he says &amp;quot;Slavery in the abstract&amp;quot;?  I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him.  Why does he say, &amp;quot;I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any,&amp;quot; yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn&amp;#039;t care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account.  I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place.  However, to say that slaves were in an &amp;quot;Eden&amp;quot; and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling.  I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period.  Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the &amp;quot;old south&amp;quot; view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it?  Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Letter to an English Abolitionist.&amp;quot; First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;all men are born equal&amp;quot; statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant &amp;quot;all WHITE men&amp;quot;? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that &amp;quot;we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest.&amp;quot; I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn&amp;#039;t Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also?  Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose.  I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve never understood how slaveholders could say that they don&amp;#039;t think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist.  In the beginning of Hammond&amp;#039;s letter he states, &amp;quot;If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not.&amp;quot;  But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders &amp;quot;cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor.  I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to &amp;quot;house&amp;quot;, feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages.  Also, the &amp;quot;houses&amp;quot; that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops.  As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor?  Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves.  Also, as a &amp;quot;good slave&amp;quot; cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the line Hammond used, &amp;quot;There are few universal truths.&amp;quot;  This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery.  Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, &amp;quot;slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice.&amp;quot; -Mary Johnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Law Olmsted, &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot;, 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position.  This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.”  What is he referring to here:  their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing?  -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers.  When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society.  What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery.  The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south.  They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still don&amp;#039;t&amp;#039; really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren&amp;#039;t these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn&amp;#039;t they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; i was surprised by the white farmer&amp;#039;s attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn&amp;#039;t have slaves, wanted slaves and weren&amp;#039;t happy about having to do what they considered &amp;quot;slave work&amp;quot;. This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won&amp;#039;t go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, &amp;quot;How do you get your work done?&amp;quot; and Olmsted replies, &amp;quot;There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do.&amp;quot; and the farmer replies with, &amp;quot;Oh, and you have them for slaves?&amp;quot; Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Cotton Kingdom&amp;quot; the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that &amp;quot;the are a great cuss to this country&amp;quot;, yet before it seemed that he did&amp;#039;nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don&amp;#039;t matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece?  Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans.  He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed.  Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were.  It’s like they were two totally separate countries.  Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south?  If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost?  In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)?  I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time?   &lt;br /&gt;
~Megan Tisdelle~&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-03T07:49:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Debate topics or comparative questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the article &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;perfect&amp;#039;&amp;#039; manicured family?&lt;br /&gt;
-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;one can&amp;#039;t go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.&amp;#039; I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s dream possible. --Julie Robert&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article too.  It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids.  It showed how women were torn between work and the family.  For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job.  It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It&amp;#039;s a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from Betty Jeanne Boggs’ piece that staying at home with the kids was still absolutely seen as the women’s job. The pressure she felt to provide for the baby and not burden her husband (and not expect him to help her) is ridiculous. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting because of the role the husband played in raising the kids. It seems to contradict everything we have read about. The mother was the one with the job while the husband was in school and raising the kids. It was also interesting to see the mother&amp;#039;s very torn emotions about her role in this backwards family. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with everyone else, I also enjoyed this article because it showed the conflict that Betty Jeanne Boggs clearly felt between her job and her family. I think that many women today still feel this pressure. It makes me wonder how much has truly changed since the 50s and 60s. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting as well because it is so anti-sterotypical of that time.  You normally don&amp;#039;t hear that the husband helped with the kids. I think that was extremely progressive for that time period.  It was also interesting because she seemed so torn about wanting to work because she liked her job and wanting to be home for the children and have a better relationship with them.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that in today&amp;#039;s society Boggs would have no problem having a family as well as having a fruitful career. It seems as if she couldn&amp;#039;t imagine remaining at work because of how she perceived her relationship with her first son. I feel like her struggle to bond with her child would not be present today. There were such high expectations after the war to be the ultimate parent and to create the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; children for the future. Boggs had the relationships of other mothers and sons of the time period (and the ideal) to compare herself to. Today it seems as if parenting dynamics have adapted and are more like what Boggs and her husband had in the 1950&amp;#039;s. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m glad that Boggs was able balance her career and family for a long time. She got really lucky, getting a husband who allowed her to do this considering the time they live in. By the time she has had her second child and decides to be more attentive of her family I feel that she has had enough work experience to be able to say she was one of the few women who were privelaged enough to be a married woman AND be able to have a job. Boggs, as a mother, however does run into the whole issue about the estranged relationship that she and her child had becaues of this job and it being a possible problem. By the time she has her second child, she decides to be more involved in it&amp;#039;s life. I feel that the whole essay as a whole has a strong &amp;quot;women should have jobs!&amp;quot; attitude but towards the very end all of a sudden it turns to &amp;quot;mothers should stay at home to raise their children&amp;quot; attitude. At least she can say that because she has tried both so has evidence to back her up.- Emely A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wilma Mankiller, &amp;quot;Indian Relocation&amp;quot; - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved.  The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren&amp;#039;t).  You have to remember at this time the government wasn&amp;#039;t too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the most interesting thing about this reading was that it showed how powerful propaganda was and still can be. Here was a family who was by all accounts happy, the children and wife seemed satisfied. They may have lived an archaic life by other standards, but they had never known anything different. Yet the BIA convinced the husband that by moving halfway across the country he could be like the idealized middle class family on the front of a brochure. The same was true with the WWII and post-WWII propaganda we studied in class, there the government seemed to have the ability to turn (most)of the publics&amp;#039; desire to have women work on and off by changing the message on a poster. Sometimes playing on a person&amp;#039;s hopes, dreams, and desire to fit in can be far more powerful than any weapon. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the New Deal era had created a program/bill that affected native americans work, lives, and education-some for better and some for worse (if you account for the negatives of westernization). I think that it was a cultural ideology that we had  always convinced ourselves, that Native American&amp;#039;s were lesser and uncivilized, but could be helped under our white influence and control. Whether, or not the programs, relocations, etc. were meant to be altruistic in any part, so many negative effects resulted from white dominance over native American peoples since the beginning of settlement and, as seen with this piece, well into the 20th century. ~~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn&amp;#039;t feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today&amp;#039;s society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo.  Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn&amp;#039;t lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about.  I would have been scared out of my mind too.  There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth and Michelle mentioned in their posts how alone Joanna Rubin was in her private ordeal.  Abortion is not just a physical ordeal.  Rubin says that she was okay with her decision in aborting a child, but this is the type of life event that she is less likely to share and will probably conceal.   At the time, abortion was illegal in the states and carried a stigma that would have probably alienated her and prevented her seeking emotional support from professionals and other women. Abortion doesn&amp;#039;t just take a fetus away, it creates a void and replaces it with guilt and shame.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn&amp;#039;t see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It&amp;#039;s not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion  in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get &amp;quot;drinks&amp;quot; with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can tell from Joanna Rubin’s story that abortion was very difficult in the 1960s. I know that since abortions were illegal and therefore probably undocumented… are there any statistics on how many abortions were conducted during this time period? Also, I know that women that were pregnant and didn’t want to be always felt trapped, but wasn’t abortion always an option… even the “backroom” dangerous kind? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s story of her unplanned pregnancy really struck me and I spoke to the norms surrounding sexuality during this time period. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting that in a way she tries to explain her relationship with Michael as being very intense and intellectual. I also think it&amp;#039;s interesting that she says &amp;quot;I wasn&amp;#039;t particularly promiscuous. I liked Michael as a person, but I was ready to stop seeing him except that I got pregnant.&amp;quot; It almost seemed like she was trying to rationalize her relationship with him by saying that it was intellectual, then by saying that she was not promiscuous. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay offered me a different perspective of sexuallty back in the 50s. Obviously I already assumed that people were having pre-marital sex. The part that struck me however, was how easily Rubin states that she had no feelings for the guy who impregnanted her. I would&amp;#039;ve expected a more conservative account of it, such as her saying she loved him at some point or at least liked him a lot. - Emely A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ethel Barol Taylor, &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying &amp;quot;Take your children off milk,&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s and the 1950&amp;#039;s in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980&amp;#039;s.  Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting because harmful pesticides is a problem still dealt with today. I was surprised to see that she was the driving force behind getting changes made. I was also surprised to see how many people seemed to take her word over all the heads of the pesticide companies especially since it dealt with science and that was still seen as a man&amp;#039;s field. It was interesting to see how popular her book became and how willing she was to put herself in the spotlight at a time when women were supposed to be in the home. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kendall, Rachel Carson seemed to really be one step ahead of the curve when it came to environmental science.  The way she defended herself and her argument blew my mind.  You could tell she was well educated and that she knew what she was talking about.  She really backed up her argument and made a valid case, and I feel like that&amp;#039;s a pretty big step for women.  She, in my opinion, proved that educated women deserve respect and made a case, whether she meant to or not, that educated women were a force to be reckoned with.  She really caused the American population to stop and take a look around because her argument lasted a lifetime.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa Randall Church - &amp;quot;Parents, Architects of Peace&amp;quot; 1946 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I&amp;#039;m wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It&amp;#039;s very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth&amp;#039;s inquiry, I don&amp;#039;t believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950&amp;#039;s saw more of a return to the &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today&amp;#039;s society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn&amp;#039;t teach them the discipline  that children need to learn. I found this connection to today&amp;#039;s world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally disagree with the view that child day care for under pre-school aged children is &amp;quot;a bad idea&amp;quot;. I think that the only people it might affect negatively are the parents and in a, let&amp;#039;s call it &amp;quot;standard,&amp;quot; situation, the mother especially. Putting a young child in a system where they interact with other children not only builds their social skills from the get-go, it keeps them from developing attachment issues with over-protective parents, and finally, it builds their immune system by being around other gross babies and toddlers. The affects on a working mother can be negative, despite the good (having time to work and help financially support her family). Take my family for instance. My mother always said she regretted putting her first three children in day care so young (emotionally-she would have liked to stay closer to us in these special, fleeting years), but there were no perceivable effects on us developmentally. With her fourth child, however, she was able to stay home until the child was in elementary school (my little sister is clingy to her parents to this day). ~Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity.  It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society&amp;#039;s ideals have permanently lowered an individual&amp;#039;s self-esteem.  I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pauli Murray, 1947  ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article.  I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance.  How strange is that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Pauli Murray’s piece on what she calls the “Jane Crow” Laws very interesting. It really pointed out all the ways the African American women was viewed below everyone else, both in gender and race. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What really interested me about this piece was how Murray raised the point that her white friends said &amp;quot;that they suffer just as much from &amp;#039;Jane Crow&amp;#039; as I do.&amp;quot;  I understand that women of all races were put down, especially after the war effort, so as to return to the middle class domestic ideal.  But were white women really that oblivious to the fact that black women were fourth class citizens and had an even harder time?  I know it sounds like a stupid question but it still blows my mind that white women never recognized how much &amp;quot;better off&amp;quot; they were than black women. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article in MP, &amp;quot;Nonconformist Joyce Johnson...&amp;quot; was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn&amp;#039;t matter, as long as you didn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;escort&amp;quot; invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That advertising executive is the creepiest person I have ever read about, seen in a movie, or met in person. Are there records of these type of abortion liasons - people who knew doctors, and who young girls knew to call to set up a meeting? I imagine this guy could make alot of money either getting paid directly by the girls or taking a kickback from the doctor, or maybe he just liked it in some weird disgusting way. I would have opted for the trip to puerto rico if i was an unmarried pregnant woman in the 1950s. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was almost scary to me.  I couldn&amp;#039;t imagine going thru something like this. The Doctor sounded awful- he acted like he hated what he was doing and didn&amp;#039;t really want to do it but yet the money he made apparently made up it ok for him in end. I agree with Landon that the ad exec was the creepiest person ever - even going so far as to hit on the girl he had just taken to get an abortion. That is just insane. I felt so bad for her having to get home by herself and the doctor telling her not to contact him unless something goes wrong! How would she ever get back to him if something went wrong? I wonder how many of these &amp;quot;back room&amp;quot; abortions did go wrong, I am sure probably alot did especially if the girl was really poor and could not afford to get a good doctor.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter from black reader to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in 1957 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality.  “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This letter was interesting to me because it showed how a middle of the road black lesbian woman felt about being publicly gay. She compared the experience to being black saying something to the affect that black people used to be told to dress and behave in a way that was socially acceptable to white people, but now she didnt flinch when she saw an black person acting differently. Now she was urging lesbians to act socially accpetable so straight people would accept them, because otherwise a &amp;quot;butch&amp;quot; stereotype would shut down the means of communication which I think she saw as the road to acceptance. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Friedan, &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading I believe that the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; is some kind of depression.  I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life.  They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing.  They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn&amp;#039;t even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women.  Betty Jeanne Bogg&amp;#039;s reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much.  She states that several times through out her reading.  She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she &amp;quot;really enjoyed that job.&amp;quot; (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz&amp;#039;s article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that &amp;quot;wages gave women a feeling of independence.&amp;quot; (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time.  Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name.&amp;quot; --Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually felt a little dumb with this week&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970.&amp;quot;  They mentioned &amp;#039;therapeutic abortions&amp;#039; 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) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vicki Ruiz, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Star Struck&amp;#039;: Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s piece on whole was very surprising. I thought she was very specific and very honest about her experiences. She mentioned details such as &amp;quot;..that smelled of smoke and soiled clothing...&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the room looked like a room in which only the very poor would ever wait.&amp;quot; I can&amp;#039;t help but feel sorry for her in the guilt she must be left with in order to remain independent. I also noticed her ability to see a therapist and wondered how common this was at the time? I know that usually one must have a signficant amount of money for a therapist and I wondered how she afforded the treatment and not the abortion. I also wondered her age and thought it would be quite relevant to the nature of her experiences. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-03T07:45:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Debate topics or comparative questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the article &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;perfect&amp;#039;&amp;#039; manicured family?&lt;br /&gt;
-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;#039;one can&amp;#039;t go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.&amp;#039; I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s dream possible. --Julie Robert&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article too.  It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids.  It showed how women were torn between work and the family.  For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job.  It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It&amp;#039;s a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from Betty Jeanne Boggs’ piece that staying at home with the kids was still absolutely seen as the women’s job. The pressure she felt to provide for the baby and not burden her husband (and not expect him to help her) is ridiculous. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting because of the role the husband played in raising the kids. It seems to contradict everything we have read about. The mother was the one with the job while the husband was in school and raising the kids. It was also interesting to see the mother&amp;#039;s very torn emotions about her role in this backwards family. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with everyone else, I also enjoyed this article because it showed the conflict that Betty Jeanne Boggs clearly felt between her job and her family. I think that many women today still feel this pressure. It makes me wonder how much has truly changed since the 50s and 60s. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting as well because it is so anti-sterotypical of that time.  You normally don&amp;#039;t hear that the husband helped with the kids. I think that was extremely progressive for that time period.  It was also interesting because she seemed so torn about wanting to work because she liked her job and wanting to be home for the children and have a better relationship with them.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that in today&amp;#039;s society Boggs would have no problem having a family as well as having a fruitful career. It seems as if she couldn&amp;#039;t imagine remaining at work because of how she perceived her relationship with her first son. I feel like her struggle to bond with her child would not be present today. There were such high expectations after the war to be the ultimate parent and to create the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; children for the future. Boggs had the relationships of other mothers and sons of the time period (and the ideal) to compare herself to. Today it seems as if parenting dynamics have adapted and are more like what Boggs and her husband had in the 1950&amp;#039;s. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m glad that Boggs was able balance her career and family for a long time. She got really lucky, getting a husband who allowed her to do this considering the time they live in. By the time she has had her second child and decides to be more attentive of her family I feel that she has had enough work experience to be able to say she was one of the few women who were privelaged enough to be a married woman AND be able to have a job. Boggs, as a mother, however does run into the whole issue about the estranged relationship that she and her child had becaues of this job and it being a possible problem. By the time she has her second child, she decides to be more involved in it&amp;#039;s life. I feel that the whole essay as a whole has a strong &amp;quot;women should have jobs!&amp;quot; attitude but towards the very end all of a sudden it turns to &amp;quot;mothers should stay at home to raise their children&amp;quot; attitude. At least she can say that because she has tried both so has evidence to back her up.- Emely A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wilma Mankiller, &amp;quot;Indian Relocation&amp;quot; - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved.  The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren&amp;#039;t).  You have to remember at this time the government wasn&amp;#039;t too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the most interesting thing about this reading was that it showed how powerful propaganda was and still can be. Here was a family who was by all accounts happy, the children and wife seemed satisfied. They may have lived an archaic life by other standards, but they had never known anything different. Yet the BIA convinced the husband that by moving halfway across the country he could be like the idealized middle class family on the front of a brochure. The same was true with the WWII and post-WWII propaganda we studied in class, there the government seemed to have the ability to turn (most)of the publics&amp;#039; desire to have women work on and off by changing the message on a poster. Sometimes playing on a person&amp;#039;s hopes, dreams, and desire to fit in can be far more powerful than any weapon. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that the New Deal era had created a program/bill that affected native americans work, lives, and education-some for better and some for worse (if you account for the negatives of westernization). I think that it was a cultural ideology that we had  always convinced ourselves, that Native American&amp;#039;s were lesser and uncivilized, but could be helped under our white influence and control. Whether, or not the programs, relocations, etc. were meant to be altruistic in any part, so many negative effects resulted from white dominance over native American peoples since the beginning of settlement and, as seen with this piece, well into the 20th century. ~~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn&amp;#039;t feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today&amp;#039;s society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo.  Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn&amp;#039;t lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about.  I would have been scared out of my mind too.  There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth and Michelle mentioned in their posts how alone Joanna Rubin was in her private ordeal.  Abortion is not just a physical ordeal.  Rubin says that she was okay with her decision in aborting a child, but this is the type of life event that she is less likely to share and will probably conceal.   At the time, abortion was illegal in the states and carried a stigma that would have probably alienated her and prevented her seeking emotional support from professionals and other women. Abortion doesn&amp;#039;t just take a fetus away, it creates a void and replaces it with guilt and shame.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn&amp;#039;t see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It&amp;#039;s not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion  in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get &amp;quot;drinks&amp;quot; with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can tell from Joanna Rubin’s story that abortion was very difficult in the 1960s. I know that since abortions were illegal and therefore probably undocumented… are there any statistics on how many abortions were conducted during this time period? Also, I know that women that were pregnant and didn’t want to be always felt trapped, but wasn’t abortion always an option… even the “backroom” dangerous kind? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s story of her unplanned pregnancy really struck me and I spoke to the norms surrounding sexuality during this time period. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting that in a way she tries to explain her relationship with Michael as being very intense and intellectual. I also think it&amp;#039;s interesting that she says &amp;quot;I wasn&amp;#039;t particularly promiscuous. I liked Michael as a person, but I was ready to stop seeing him except that I got pregnant.&amp;quot; It almost seemed like she was trying to rationalize her relationship with him by saying that it was intellectual, then by saying that she was not promiscuous. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ethel Barol Taylor, &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying &amp;quot;Take your children off milk,&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s and the 1950&amp;#039;s in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980&amp;#039;s.  Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting because harmful pesticides is a problem still dealt with today. I was surprised to see that she was the driving force behind getting changes made. I was also surprised to see how many people seemed to take her word over all the heads of the pesticide companies especially since it dealt with science and that was still seen as a man&amp;#039;s field. It was interesting to see how popular her book became and how willing she was to put herself in the spotlight at a time when women were supposed to be in the home. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kendall, Rachel Carson seemed to really be one step ahead of the curve when it came to environmental science.  The way she defended herself and her argument blew my mind.  You could tell she was well educated and that she knew what she was talking about.  She really backed up her argument and made a valid case, and I feel like that&amp;#039;s a pretty big step for women.  She, in my opinion, proved that educated women deserve respect and made a case, whether she meant to or not, that educated women were a force to be reckoned with.  She really caused the American population to stop and take a look around because her argument lasted a lifetime.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa Randall Church - &amp;quot;Parents, Architects of Peace&amp;quot; 1946 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I&amp;#039;m wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It&amp;#039;s very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth&amp;#039;s inquiry, I don&amp;#039;t believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950&amp;#039;s saw more of a return to the &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today&amp;#039;s society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn&amp;#039;t teach them the discipline  that children need to learn. I found this connection to today&amp;#039;s world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally disagree with the view that child day care for under pre-school aged children is &amp;quot;a bad idea&amp;quot;. I think that the only people it might affect negatively are the parents and in a, let&amp;#039;s call it &amp;quot;standard,&amp;quot; situation, the mother especially. Putting a young child in a system where they interact with other children not only builds their social skills from the get-go, it keeps them from developing attachment issues with over-protective parents, and finally, it builds their immune system by being around other gross babies and toddlers. The affects on a working mother can be negative, despite the good (having time to work and help financially support her family). Take my family for instance. My mother always said she regretted putting her first three children in day care so young (emotionally-she would have liked to stay closer to us in these special, fleeting years), but there were no perceivable effects on us developmentally. With her fourth child, however, she was able to stay home until the child was in elementary school (my little sister is clingy to her parents to this day). ~Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity.  It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society&amp;#039;s ideals have permanently lowered an individual&amp;#039;s self-esteem.  I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pauli Murray, 1947  ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article.  I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance.  How strange is that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Pauli Murray’s piece on what she calls the “Jane Crow” Laws very interesting. It really pointed out all the ways the African American women was viewed below everyone else, both in gender and race. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What really interested me about this piece was how Murray raised the point that her white friends said &amp;quot;that they suffer just as much from &amp;#039;Jane Crow&amp;#039; as I do.&amp;quot;  I understand that women of all races were put down, especially after the war effort, so as to return to the middle class domestic ideal.  But were white women really that oblivious to the fact that black women were fourth class citizens and had an even harder time?  I know it sounds like a stupid question but it still blows my mind that white women never recognized how much &amp;quot;better off&amp;quot; they were than black women. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article in MP, &amp;quot;Nonconformist Joyce Johnson...&amp;quot; was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn&amp;#039;t matter, as long as you didn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;escort&amp;quot; invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That advertising executive is the creepiest person I have ever read about, seen in a movie, or met in person. Are there records of these type of abortion liasons - people who knew doctors, and who young girls knew to call to set up a meeting? I imagine this guy could make alot of money either getting paid directly by the girls or taking a kickback from the doctor, or maybe he just liked it in some weird disgusting way. I would have opted for the trip to puerto rico if i was an unmarried pregnant woman in the 1950s. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was almost scary to me.  I couldn&amp;#039;t imagine going thru something like this. The Doctor sounded awful- he acted like he hated what he was doing and didn&amp;#039;t really want to do it but yet the money he made apparently made up it ok for him in end. I agree with Landon that the ad exec was the creepiest person ever - even going so far as to hit on the girl he had just taken to get an abortion. That is just insane. I felt so bad for her having to get home by herself and the doctor telling her not to contact him unless something goes wrong! How would she ever get back to him if something went wrong? I wonder how many of these &amp;quot;back room&amp;quot; abortions did go wrong, I am sure probably alot did especially if the girl was really poor and could not afford to get a good doctor.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter from black reader to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in 1957 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality.  “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This letter was interesting to me because it showed how a middle of the road black lesbian woman felt about being publicly gay. She compared the experience to being black saying something to the affect that black people used to be told to dress and behave in a way that was socially acceptable to white people, but now she didnt flinch when she saw an black person acting differently. Now she was urging lesbians to act socially accpetable so straight people would accept them, because otherwise a &amp;quot;butch&amp;quot; stereotype would shut down the means of communication which I think she saw as the road to acceptance. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Friedan, &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading I believe that the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; is some kind of depression.  I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life.  They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing.  They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn&amp;#039;t even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women.  Betty Jeanne Bogg&amp;#039;s reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much.  She states that several times through out her reading.  She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she &amp;quot;really enjoyed that job.&amp;quot; (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz&amp;#039;s article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that &amp;quot;wages gave women a feeling of independence.&amp;quot; (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time.  Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name.&amp;quot; --Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually felt a little dumb with this week&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970.&amp;quot;  They mentioned &amp;#039;therapeutic abortions&amp;#039; 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) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vicki Ruiz, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Star Struck&amp;#039;: Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s piece on whole was very surprising. I thought she was very specific and very honest about her experiences. She mentioned details such as &amp;quot;..that smelled of smoke and soiled clothing...&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the room looked like a room in which only the very poor would ever wait.&amp;quot; I can&amp;#039;t help but feel sorry for her in the guilt she must be left with in order to remain independent. I also noticed her ability to see a therapist and wondered how common this was at the time? I know that usually one must have a signficant amount of money for a therapist and I wondered how she afforded the treatment and not the abortion. I also wondered her age and thought it would be quite relevant to the nature of her experiences. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-31T23:39:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-31T23:38:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal&amp;quot; he states, &amp;quot;The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them...&amp;quot; If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond&amp;#039;s Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bennet Barrow&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Highland Plantation Journal.&amp;quot; Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn&amp;#039;t sure by the reading if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T23:27:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellow&amp;#039;s document the quote, &amp;quot;Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind,&amp;quot; (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances.    ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America&amp;quot;, its interesting how they call New England the &amp;quot;common mother&amp;quot; just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the &amp;quot;American Dream&amp;quot; in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Henry bellow says, &amp;quot;We are not prepared to allow that wealth is more valued in America than elsewhere, but in other countries the successful pursuit of it is necessarily confied to a few, while here it is open to all.&amp;quot; I found this comment interesting, because when I read it, I understand it to mean that Bellow&amp;#039;s wants an elite, a monarch to serve. As if he believes in the dominant controlling group that all of the commoners work to please. -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found.  He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold.  Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush?  Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families.  I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who &amp;quot;went west&amp;quot;.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; there is mention of the &amp;quot;golden dream&amp;quot;.  What exactly was the golden dream?  Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from?  Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor.  Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary&amp;quot;, he says that one man states(about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention&amp;quot;, What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn&amp;#039;t even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Colton&amp;#039;s diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In addition to Lauren Hick&amp;#039;s question/comment: &amp;quot;In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary,&amp;quot; he says that one man states (about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention.&amp;quot; What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?&amp;quot; I also was curious as to when the term &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word &amp;quot;Janke,&amp;quot; which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between &amp;quot;Beverly Hillbillies&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s a Mad, Mad, Mad World&amp;quot; than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn&amp;#039;t want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the &amp;quot;built a cage and went back for your bird&amp;quot; part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that &amp;quot;we call our country a happy country&amp;quot; but then later says &amp;quot;it is said that we are not a happy people&amp;quot;; isn&amp;#039;t this a contradiction?  Which one is it?  It can&amp;#039;t be both; either they are happy or they aren&amp;#039;t. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage.  First off, their &amp;quot;small&amp;quot; talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today.  &amp;quot;A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies...&amp;quot; is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse.  And also, how did we make a new meaning out of &amp;quot;crapped&amp;quot; that once meant &amp;quot;planted with crops?&amp;quot; Just a thought... -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn&amp;#039;t have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women&amp;#039;s rights. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights.  When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point.  It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848.  I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women&amp;#039;s role in society, but why the specific year?  Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women&amp;#039;s rights? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don&amp;#039;t view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating &amp;quot;grievances&amp;quot;, listing what the women wanted. We&amp;#039;ve talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn&amp;#039;t care or paid much attention. Given the history women&amp;#039;s rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren&amp;#039;t finished fighting for women&amp;#039;s rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative.  It&amp;#039;s weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Davie Crockett&amp;#039;s document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem &amp;#039;masculine&amp;#039;? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don&amp;#039;t understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason.  If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn&amp;#039;t the bear population become quickly extinct?  There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival.  How did other people find food besides farming?  Especially their protein?  It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel &amp;quot;as rich as a Jew.&amp;quot; Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year.  I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails.  I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears.  Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term &amp;quot;man&amp;#039;s best friend&amp;quot; -Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated.  I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable?  I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors?  Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the &amp;quot;invincible man&amp;quot;?  Quincey Garcia&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T23:21:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellow&amp;#039;s document the quote, &amp;quot;Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind,&amp;quot; (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances.    ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America&amp;quot;, its interesting how they call New England the &amp;quot;common mother&amp;quot; just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the &amp;quot;American Dream&amp;quot; in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found.  He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold.  Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush?  Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families.  I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who &amp;quot;went west&amp;quot;.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; there is mention of the &amp;quot;golden dream&amp;quot;.  What exactly was the golden dream?  Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from?  Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor.  Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary&amp;quot;, he says that one man states(about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention&amp;quot;, What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn&amp;#039;t even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Colton&amp;#039;s diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In addition to Lauren Hick&amp;#039;s question/comment: &amp;quot;In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary,&amp;quot; he says that one man states (about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention.&amp;quot; What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?&amp;quot; I also was curious as to when the term &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word &amp;quot;Janke,&amp;quot; which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between &amp;quot;Beverly Hillbillies&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s a Mad, Mad, Mad World&amp;quot; than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn&amp;#039;t want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the &amp;quot;built a cage and went back for your bird&amp;quot; part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that &amp;quot;we call our country a happy country&amp;quot; but then later says &amp;quot;it is said that we are not a happy people&amp;quot;; isn&amp;#039;t this a contradiction?  Which one is it?  It can&amp;#039;t be both; either they are happy or they aren&amp;#039;t. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage.  First off, their &amp;quot;small&amp;quot; talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today.  &amp;quot;A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies...&amp;quot; is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse.  And also, how did we make a new meaning out of &amp;quot;crapped&amp;quot; that once meant &amp;quot;planted with crops?&amp;quot; Just a thought... -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn&amp;#039;t have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women&amp;#039;s rights. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights.  When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point.  It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848.  I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women&amp;#039;s role in society, but why the specific year?  Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women&amp;#039;s rights? -Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don&amp;#039;t view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative.  It&amp;#039;s weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Davie Crockett&amp;#039;s document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem &amp;#039;masculine&amp;#039;? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don&amp;#039;t understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason.  If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn&amp;#039;t the bear population become quickly extinct?  There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival.  How did other people find food besides farming?  Especially their protein?  It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel &amp;quot;as rich as a Jew.&amp;quot; Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year.  I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails.  I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears.  Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term &amp;quot;man&amp;#039;s best friend&amp;quot; -Dani Jones&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T21:04:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellow&amp;#039;s document the quote, &amp;quot;Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind,&amp;quot; (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances.    ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America&amp;quot;, its interesting how they call New England the &amp;quot;common mother&amp;quot; just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found.  He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold.  Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush?  Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families.  I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who &amp;quot;went west&amp;quot;.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; there is mention of the &amp;quot;golden dream&amp;quot;.  What exactly was the golden dream?  Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from?  Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor.  Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary&amp;quot;, he says that one man states(about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention&amp;quot;, What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn&amp;#039;t even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Colton&amp;#039;s diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In addition to Lauren Hick&amp;#039;s question/comment: &amp;quot;In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary,&amp;quot; he says that one man states (about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention.&amp;quot; What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?&amp;quot; I also was curious as to when the term &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word &amp;quot;Janke,&amp;quot; which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the &amp;quot;built a cage and went back for your bird&amp;quot; part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that &amp;quot;we call our country a happy country&amp;quot; but then later says &amp;quot;it is said that we are not a happy people&amp;quot;; isn&amp;#039;t this a contradiction?  Which one is it?  It can&amp;#039;t be both; either they are happy or they aren&amp;#039;t. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn&amp;#039;t have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women&amp;#039;s rights. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights.  When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point.  It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative.  It&amp;#039;s weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Davie Crockett&amp;#039;s document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem &amp;#039;masculine&amp;#039;? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don&amp;#039;t understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason.  If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn&amp;#039;t the bear population become quickly extinct?  There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival.  How did other people find food besides farming?  Especially their protein?  It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel &amp;quot;as rich as a Jew.&amp;quot; Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year.  I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails.  I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears.  Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T14:25:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;David Crockett Hunts a Bear in Western Tennessee:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative.  It&amp;#039;s weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Davie Crockett&amp;#039;s document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem &amp;#039;masculine&amp;#039;? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don&amp;#039;t understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Crockett&amp;#039;s narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellow&amp;#039;s document the quote, &amp;quot;Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind,&amp;quot; (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances.    ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason.  If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn&amp;#039;t the bear population become quickly extinct?  There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival.  How did other people find food besides farming?  Especially their protein?  It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found.  He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold.  Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush?  Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families.  I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who &amp;quot;went west&amp;quot;.  - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel &amp;quot;as rich as a Jew.&amp;quot; Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in Eliza Farnham&amp;#039;s conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the &amp;quot;built a cage and went back for your bird&amp;quot; part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that &amp;quot;we call our country a happy country&amp;quot; but then later says &amp;quot;it is said that we are not a happy people&amp;quot;; isn&amp;#039;t this a contradiction?  Which one is it?  It can&amp;#039;t be both; either they are happy or they aren&amp;#039;t. -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Gold Fever&amp;quot; there is mention of the &amp;quot;golden dream&amp;quot;.  What exactly was the golden dream?  Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from?  Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn&amp;#039;t have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women&amp;#039;s rights. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the narrative of David Crockett, Crockett seems to stop everything to go hunt hundreds of bears as mentioned before.  The narrative also mentions how he stops to help a neighbor in need with hunting his own bear.  Was this kind of help normal or is it part of the Crockett legacy?  Did neighbors help each other or fend for themselves? -Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights.  When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point.  It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year.  I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails.  I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears.  Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor.  Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both?  ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America&amp;quot;, its interesting how they call New England the &amp;quot;common mother&amp;quot; just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Walter Colton&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;California Gold Rush Diary&amp;quot;, he says that one man states(about gold) &amp;quot;they were some Yankee invention&amp;quot;, What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn&amp;#039;t even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T06:40:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history &amp;quot;Rosie the Riveter&amp;quot; by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term &amp;quot;united patriotism&amp;quot; but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like &amp;quot;women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause.&amp;quot; ---- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debate Topic:  In the preview to the Rosie the Riveter Articles in MAW, some historians argue that World War II was not a huge advance or watershed moment for women, because social and cultural expectations (women would go back into the home after the war, they were &amp;quot;temporary help&amp;quot;) did not change significantly.  Do you agree or disagree?  &lt;br /&gt;
Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs.  I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day.  I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn&amp;#039;t like the job, she left it, and she wouldn&amp;#039;t put up with a job that she didn&amp;#039;t like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says &amp;quot;Most of the men was gone, and they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse.&amp;quot; This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article.  Leading up to World War II, women of color were arguably the most discriminated against people because of race and gender.  Yet this woman found opportunity, and an overall positive experience from the War.  Love the quote at the end about &amp;quot;Hitler getting them out of the white folks&amp;#039; kitchens.&amp;quot;  Sad, but definitely some grains of truth to be found in that statement.  Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings.  Didn&amp;#039;t the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do?  It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Marion Stegman&amp;#039;s letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVED Marion&amp;#039;s letters!  The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing.  She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military.  I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though.  Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren&amp;#039;t meant to be romanticized.  They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have.  Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm.  But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base.  The statement, &amp;quot;The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;girl&amp;#039;&amp;#039; taxiing  by in a B.T.!&amp;quot; I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were.  Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line &amp;quot;I can do what I&amp;#039;m told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don&amp;#039;t have to.&amp;quot; I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really Loved Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women&amp;#039;s roles progressed. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enjoyed the letters here as well.  Despite the fact that at the end, she didn&amp;#039;t have the best choice in the world, to be a puppet in the Army chained to a typewriter, the fact that she had a choice to do that, marry her boyfriend, or perhaps do something else displays how significantly the world of opportunity seemed to open up for women during the War.  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed reading the letters.  I think it is fascinating to see how her attitude changes from the first letter where she is so happy to be flying to the last letter where she realizes that she does not have a real future flying. It is interesting the way she talks about her friends being killed in a crash in 1943. I can just imagine the conversations she must have had with her mother about the dangers of flying by the way she ends the letter, like she is justifying the risk she is taking by flying. ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman.  Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis&amp;#039;s amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage.  The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother.  &amp;quot;In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father.&amp;quot;  She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money.  Her husband&amp;#039;s attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family.  They can&amp;#039;t afford meat on the table, but he owns a car.  He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake.  Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone&amp;#039;s mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn&amp;#039;t well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn&amp;#039;t say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won&amp;#039;t have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elizabeth.  When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing.  Not to say this wasn&amp;#039;t at all upsetting or hard to read, it&amp;#039;s just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable.  You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be.  When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent.  The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence.  &amp;quot;What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?&amp;quot;  It wasn&amp;#039;t fair the way these people were treated and I&amp;#039;m just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs.  She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father.  Sone feels more like a criminal.  She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this part of the autobiography was both inspiring and moving and did a lot to emphasize the feeling of entering a Japanese internment camp. I liked that the family tried to make the best of it at the camp, though they had no idea what they were supposed to do. There was definitely a feeling of total bewilderment at being taken to some remote area and told to live in an &amp;quot;oversized chicken house.&amp;quot; The final part, where Monica discusses her confusion, was the part that showed how confused the Japanese were. &amp;quot;I remembered the wire fence encircling us, and a knot of anger tightened in my breast. What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal? If there were accusations to be made, why hadn&amp;#039;t I been given a fair trial?&amp;quot; She expresses how much anger and confusion these people felt as their own country put them in a prison. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting diary.  I would love to have access to more of Monica&amp;#039;s diary.  Good 485 topic here for somebody.  The Japanese Internment during the Second World War is one of the most shameful government policies of the 20th Century.  The scars of many Japanese-Americans probably never healed.  Has the government ever officially apologized for the internment?  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this one fascinating.  I too was expecting something depressing about how the relocations were awful for the Japanese Americans.  I was really surprised at Sone&amp;#039;s mother and the way she found something positive in everything, like the dandelions growing thru the floor. That must have been such an awful thing to have been here for 25 years and then be locked in a camp just because of your heritage even if you were born here. It was interesting to read about how crowded it was when they ate. How did our government justify putting the Japanese Americans in these camps when part of what we were fighting for in Europe was to liberate the Jews from the concentration camps? I know the American camps weren&amp;#039;t exterminating people but stil they were holding them indefinately in cramped quarters and there were never any charges brought against them other than the fact that they were Japanese descendants.  It just amazes me that this could take place in the United States! ~~ Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone should read the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson. It is about a lot of things, but largely focuses around a nisei girl&amp;#039;s experience from the 1930s to the 1950s, including internment. It is also just a darned good book! But as far as the reading goes, what I really found interesting was the author&amp;#039;s assertion that in spite of the emotional trauma suffered by all the interned Japanese people in the American west, young, second generation Japanese women gained many opportunities, especially in terms of careers, as a result of the war and internment. Whether the general westernization of these women is looked as a good thing, it is clear that the second generation&amp;#039;s ideals, goals, and roles hugely contrasted with those of their mothers&amp;#039;. ~~ Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; and the rest of the reading is interesting.  She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience.  Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above.  She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they&amp;#039;ll never feel that connected to a town again.  Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end?  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me at least, my first impression of her recollections are that they seem like those of a spoiled and indulged child.  Anyone else get the same vibe? - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Matsumoto&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Japanese American Women during World War II&amp;quot; reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school.  The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest.  Did this happen often?  How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned?  Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OMG Ashley was it &amp;quot;Farewell to Manzanar&amp;quot;???? Because these stories reminded me of that book too! - Emely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  This sounds all to familiar.  When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I&amp;#039;ve often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us?  I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I thought Matsumoto&amp;#039;s point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural &amp;quot;education&amp;quot; and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Nisei after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background.  I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well.  What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal.  Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child.  She doesn&amp;#039;t project a sense of hopelessness.  Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jeanne Wakatsuki is being raised in America and therefore has American dreams and ideas, however her family has traditional Japanese ideas for her. It must have been difficult for young immigrants.  Really, what were they supposed to do?  There families came to America for a better life for there family but wanted to keep there traditions. It does not work that way. The kids are being pulled in both directions. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading this thing I&amp;#039;m thinking &amp;quot;this girl has been fixated by something that she doesn&amp;#039;t even really know about ( the Confirmation) but wants it because it&amp;#039;s a lot more appealing or &amp;#039;American&amp;#039;&amp;quot;. When I was younger I was guilty of wanting to do more &amp;quot;American&amp;quot; things to fit in better with the kids at school, denied that I knew how to speak Spanish along with other silly things, so I can see where she is coming from but it still annoyed me. A bigger issue with her, however, I think is that she has that added burden that her people are being ostrasized by the country they live in and part of her, as an American, doesn&amp;#039;t want to be part of it. - Emely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too found the photos very interesting.  I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population.  Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled?  None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship.  I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the photos strived to capture average people in their daily activies rather than workers in action. I don&amp;#039;t think that Bubley was trying persuade any ideal or stereotype but rather was quickly capturing groups of people and showing how different the work force had become during WWII. I thought that the photo of the women on the stairs waiting for the boarding house bathroom did show the hours of work the women had put in and the exhaustion they were facing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The picture of Esther Bubley is hot. It&amp;#039;s VERY different from the photographs of women we&amp;#039;ve seen so far. First of all, she&amp;#039;s wearing pants, second of all just the way she&amp;#039;s posing and the clothes she&amp;#039;s wearing and just her whole demeanor screams &amp;quot;I can do anything a man can!&amp;quot; I&amp;#039;m also glad that the women who took over the industries were able to wear pants, made work a lot safer but of course it took other women to realize this. - Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always been fascinated with older photography. You can read so much into the lives of women back then by their clothing, there mannerisms, and what they are doing.--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this letter to the president.  I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort.  Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot.  Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that &amp;quot;Many women thoroughly enjoy working &amp;amp; getting away from the home.&amp;quot;(373) I&amp;#039;m sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn&amp;#039;t like their jobs, for whatever reason.  Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war.  How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn&amp;#039;t have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;click,&amp;quot; and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today&amp;#039;s society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women still continue to struggle with the &amp;quot;double duty&amp;quot; of working outside of the home and housework. Norma Yerger&amp;#039;s expectations of a clean house were too high. She said she spends two hours each evening cleaning, if she did not try to meet the middle class standards of a clean house she could have spent that time with her family.   Amanda&amp;#039;s postings always make me smile--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did the WACs&amp;#039;s performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T06:33:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history &amp;quot;Rosie the Riveter&amp;quot; by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term &amp;quot;united patriotism&amp;quot; but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like &amp;quot;women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause.&amp;quot; ---- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debate Topic:  In the preview to the Rosie the Riveter Articles in MAW, some historians argue that World War II was not a huge advance or watershed moment for women, because social and cultural expectations (women would go back into the home after the war, they were &amp;quot;temporary help&amp;quot;) did not change significantly.  Do you agree or disagree?  &lt;br /&gt;
Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs.  I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day.  I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn&amp;#039;t like the job, she left it, and she wouldn&amp;#039;t put up with a job that she didn&amp;#039;t like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says &amp;quot;Most of the men was gone, and they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse.&amp;quot; This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article.  Leading up to World War II, women of color were arguably the most discriminated against people because of race and gender.  Yet this woman found opportunity, and an overall positive experience from the War.  Love the quote at the end about &amp;quot;Hitler getting them out of the white folks&amp;#039; kitchens.&amp;quot;  Sad, but definitely some grains of truth to be found in that statement.  Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings.  Didn&amp;#039;t the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do?  It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Marion Stegman&amp;#039;s letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVED Marion&amp;#039;s letters!  The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing.  She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military.  I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though.  Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren&amp;#039;t meant to be romanticized.  They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have.  Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm.  But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base.  The statement, &amp;quot;The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;girl&amp;#039;&amp;#039; taxiing  by in a B.T.!&amp;quot; I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were.  Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line &amp;quot;I can do what I&amp;#039;m told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don&amp;#039;t have to.&amp;quot; I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really Loved Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women&amp;#039;s roles progressed. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enjoyed the letters here as well.  Despite the fact that at the end, she didn&amp;#039;t have the best choice in the world, to be a puppet in the Army chained to a typewriter, the fact that she had a choice to do that, marry her boyfriend, or perhaps do something else displays how significantly the world of opportunity seemed to open up for women during the War.  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed reading the letters.  I think it is fascinating to see how her attitude changes from the first letter where she is so happy to be flying to the last letter where she realizes that she does not have a real future flying. It is interesting the way she talks about her friends being killed in a crash in 1943. I can just imagine the conversations she must have had with her mother about the dangers of flying by the way she ends the letter, like she is justifying the risk she is taking by flying. ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman.  Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis&amp;#039;s amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage.  The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother.  &amp;quot;In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father.&amp;quot;  She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money.  Her husband&amp;#039;s attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family.  They can&amp;#039;t afford meat on the table, but he owns a car.  He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake.  Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone&amp;#039;s mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn&amp;#039;t well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn&amp;#039;t say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won&amp;#039;t have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elizabeth.  When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing.  Not to say this wasn&amp;#039;t at all upsetting or hard to read, it&amp;#039;s just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable.  You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be.  When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent.  The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence.  &amp;quot;What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?&amp;quot;  It wasn&amp;#039;t fair the way these people were treated and I&amp;#039;m just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs.  She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father.  Sone feels more like a criminal.  She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this part of the autobiography was both inspiring and moving and did a lot to emphasize the feeling of entering a Japanese internment camp. I liked that the family tried to make the best of it at the camp, though they had no idea what they were supposed to do. There was definitely a feeling of total bewilderment at being taken to some remote area and told to live in an &amp;quot;oversized chicken house.&amp;quot; The final part, where Monica discusses her confusion, was the part that showed how confused the Japanese were. &amp;quot;I remembered the wire fence encircling us, and a knot of anger tightened in my breast. What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal? If there were accusations to be made, why hadn&amp;#039;t I been given a fair trial?&amp;quot; She expresses how much anger and confusion these people felt as their own country put them in a prison. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting diary.  I would love to have access to more of Monica&amp;#039;s diary.  Good 485 topic here for somebody.  The Japanese Internment during the Second World War is one of the most shameful government policies of the 20th Century.  The scars of many Japanese-Americans probably never healed.  Has the government ever officially apologized for the internment?  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this one fascinating.  I too was expecting something depressing about how the relocations were awful for the Japanese Americans.  I was really surprised at Sone&amp;#039;s mother and the way she found something positive in everything, like the dandelions growing thru the floor. That must have been such an awful thing to have been here for 25 years and then be locked in a camp just because of your heritage even if you were born here. It was interesting to read about how crowded it was when they ate. How did our government justify putting the Japanese Americans in these camps when part of what we were fighting for in Europe was to liberate the Jews from the concentration camps? I know the American camps weren&amp;#039;t exterminating people but stil they were holding them indefinately in cramped quarters and there were never any charges brought against them other than the fact that they were Japanese descendants.  It just amazes me that this could take place in the United States! ~~ Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone should read the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson. It is about a lot of things, but largely focuses around a nisei girl&amp;#039;s experience from the 1930s to the 1950s, including internment. It is also just a darned good book! But as far as the reading goes, what I really found interesting was the author&amp;#039;s assertion that in spite of the emotional trauma suffered by all the interned Japanese people in the American west, young, second generation Japanese women gained many opportunities, especially in terms of careers, as a result of the war and internment. Whether the general westernization of these women is looked as a good thing, it is clear that the second generation&amp;#039;s ideals, goals, and roles hugely contrasted with those of their mothers&amp;#039;. ~~ Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; and the rest of the reading is interesting.  She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience.  Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above.  She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they&amp;#039;ll never feel that connected to a town again.  Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end?  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me at least, my first impression of her recollections are that they seem like those of a spoiled and indulged child.  Anyone else get the same vibe? - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Matsumoto&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Japanese American Women during World War II&amp;quot; reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school.  The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest.  Did this happen often?  How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned?  Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OMG Ashley was it &amp;quot;Farewell to Manzanar&amp;quot;???? Because these stories reminded me of that book too! - Emely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  This sounds all to familiar.  When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I&amp;#039;ve often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us?  I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I thought Matsumoto&amp;#039;s point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural &amp;quot;education&amp;quot; and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Nisei after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background.  I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well.  What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal.  Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child.  She doesn&amp;#039;t project a sense of hopelessness.  Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jeanne Wakatsuki is being raised in America and therefore has American dreams and ideas, however her family has traditional Japanese ideas for her. It must have been difficult for young immigrants.  Really, what were they supposed to do?  There families came to America for a better life for there family but wanted to keep there traditions. It does not work that way. The kids are being pulled in both directions. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too found the photos very interesting.  I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population.  Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled?  None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship.  I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the photos strived to capture average people in their daily activies rather than workers in action. I don&amp;#039;t think that Bubley was trying persuade any ideal or stereotype but rather was quickly capturing groups of people and showing how different the work force had become during WWII. I thought that the photo of the women on the stairs waiting for the boarding house bathroom did show the hours of work the women had put in and the exhaustion they were facing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The picture of Esther Bubley is hot. It&amp;#039;s VERY different from the photographs of women we&amp;#039;ve seen so far. First of all, she&amp;#039;s wearing pants, second of all just the way she&amp;#039;s posing and the clothes she&amp;#039;s wearing and just her whole demeanor screams &amp;quot;I can do anything a man can!&amp;quot; I&amp;#039;m also glad that the women who took over the industries were able to wear pants, made work a lot safer but of course it took other women to realize this. - Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always been fascinated with older photography. You can read so much into the lives of women back then by their clothing, there mannerisms, and what they are doing.--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this letter to the president.  I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort.  Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot.  Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that &amp;quot;Many women thoroughly enjoy working &amp;amp; getting away from the home.&amp;quot;(373) I&amp;#039;m sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn&amp;#039;t like their jobs, for whatever reason.  Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war.  How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn&amp;#039;t have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;click,&amp;quot; and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today&amp;#039;s society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women still continue to struggle with the &amp;quot;double duty&amp;quot; of working outside of the home and housework. Norma Yerger&amp;#039;s expectations of a clean house were too high. She said she spends two hours each evening cleaning, if she did not try to meet the middle class standards of a clean house she could have spent that time with her family.   Amanda&amp;#039;s postings always make me smile--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did the WACs&amp;#039;s performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-27T06:27:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history &amp;quot;Rosie the Riveter&amp;quot; by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term &amp;quot;united patriotism&amp;quot; but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like &amp;quot;women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause.&amp;quot; ---- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debate Topic:  In the preview to the Rosie the Riveter Articles in MAW, some historians argue that World War II was not a huge advance or watershed moment for women, because social and cultural expectations (women would go back into the home after the war, they were &amp;quot;temporary help&amp;quot;) did not change significantly.  Do you agree or disagree?  &lt;br /&gt;
Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs.  I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day.  I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn&amp;#039;t like the job, she left it, and she wouldn&amp;#039;t put up with a job that she didn&amp;#039;t like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says &amp;quot;Most of the men was gone, and they weren&amp;#039;t hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse.&amp;quot; This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article.  Leading up to World War II, women of color were arguably the most discriminated against people because of race and gender.  Yet this woman found opportunity, and an overall positive experience from the War.  Love the quote at the end about &amp;quot;Hitler getting them out of the white folks&amp;#039; kitchens.&amp;quot;  Sad, but definitely some grains of truth to be found in that statement.  Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in &amp;quot;Women in the Armed Forces&amp;quot; are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings.  Didn&amp;#039;t the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do?  It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of Marion Stegman&amp;#039;s letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVED Marion&amp;#039;s letters!  The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing.  She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military.  I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though.  Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren&amp;#039;t meant to be romanticized.  They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have.  Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm.  But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base.  The statement, &amp;quot;The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;girl&amp;#039;&amp;#039; taxiing  by in a B.T.!&amp;quot; I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were.  Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line &amp;quot;I can do what I&amp;#039;m told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don&amp;#039;t have to.&amp;quot; I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really Loved Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought Marion Stegeman&amp;#039;s letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women&amp;#039;s roles progressed. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Enjoyed the letters here as well.  Despite the fact that at the end, she didn&amp;#039;t have the best choice in the world, to be a puppet in the Army chained to a typewriter, the fact that she had a choice to do that, marry her boyfriend, or perhaps do something else displays how significantly the world of opportunity seemed to open up for women during the War.  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed reading the letters.  I think it is fascinating to see how her attitude changes from the first letter where she is so happy to be flying to the last letter where she realizes that she does not have a real future flying. It is interesting the way she talks about her friends being killed in a crash in 1943. I can just imagine the conversations she must have had with her mother about the dangers of flying by the way she ends the letter, like she is justifying the risk she is taking by flying. ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman.  Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis&amp;#039;s amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage.  The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother.  &amp;quot;In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father.&amp;quot;  She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money.  Her husband&amp;#039;s attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family.  They can&amp;#039;t afford meat on the table, but he owns a car.  He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake.  Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone&amp;#039;s mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn&amp;#039;t well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn&amp;#039;t say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won&amp;#039;t have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elizabeth.  When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing.  Not to say this wasn&amp;#039;t at all upsetting or hard to read, it&amp;#039;s just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable.  You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be.  When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent.  The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence.  &amp;quot;What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?&amp;quot;  It wasn&amp;#039;t fair the way these people were treated and I&amp;#039;m just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs.  She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father.  Sone feels more like a criminal.  She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this part of the autobiography was both inspiring and moving and did a lot to emphasize the feeling of entering a Japanese internment camp. I liked that the family tried to make the best of it at the camp, though they had no idea what they were supposed to do. There was definitely a feeling of total bewilderment at being taken to some remote area and told to live in an &amp;quot;oversized chicken house.&amp;quot; The final part, where Monica discusses her confusion, was the part that showed how confused the Japanese were. &amp;quot;I remembered the wire fence encircling us, and a knot of anger tightened in my breast. What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal? If there were accusations to be made, why hadn&amp;#039;t I been given a fair trial?&amp;quot; She expresses how much anger and confusion these people felt as their own country put them in a prison. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting diary.  I would love to have access to more of Monica&amp;#039;s diary.  Good 485 topic here for somebody.  The Japanese Internment during the Second World War is one of the most shameful government policies of the 20th Century.  The scars of many Japanese-Americans probably never healed.  Has the government ever officially apologized for the internment?  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this one fascinating.  I too was expecting something depressing about how the relocations were awful for the Japanese Americans.  I was really surprised at Sone&amp;#039;s mother and the way she found something positive in everything, like the dandelions growing thru the floor. That must have been such an awful thing to have been here for 25 years and then be locked in a camp just because of your heritage even if you were born here. It was interesting to read about how crowded it was when they ate. How did our government justify putting the Japanese Americans in these camps when part of what we were fighting for in Europe was to liberate the Jews from the concentration camps? I know the American camps weren&amp;#039;t exterminating people but stil they were holding them indefinately in cramped quarters and there were never any charges brought against them other than the fact that they were Japanese descendants.  It just amazes me that this could take place in the United States! ~~ Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone should read the novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson. It is about a lot of things, but largely focuses around a nisei girl&amp;#039;s experience from the 1930s to the 1950s, including internment. It is also just a darned good book! But as far as the reading goes, what I really found interesting was the author&amp;#039;s assertion that in spite of the emotional trauma suffered by all the interned Japanese people in the American west, young, second generation Japanese women gained many opportunities, especially in terms of careers, as a result of the war and internment. Whether the general westernization of these women is looked as a good thing, it is clear that the second generation&amp;#039;s ideals, goals, and roles hugely contrasted with those of their mothers&amp;#039;. ~~ Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; and the rest of the reading is interesting.  She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience.  Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above.  She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they&amp;#039;ll never feel that connected to a town again.  Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end?  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read &amp;quot;Women of Wartime Los Alamos&amp;quot; by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me at least, my first impression of her recollections are that they seem like those of a spoiled and indulged child.  Anyone else get the same vibe? - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==&lt;br /&gt;
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Matsumoto&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Japanese American Women during World War II&amp;quot; reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school.  The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest.  Did this happen often?  How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned?  Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  This sounds all to familiar.  When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I&amp;#039;ve often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us?  I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I thought Matsumoto&amp;#039;s point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural &amp;quot;education&amp;quot; and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Nisei after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background.  I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well.  What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal.  Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child.  She doesn&amp;#039;t project a sense of hopelessness.  Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jeanne Wakatsuki is being raised in America and therefore has American dreams and ideas, however her family has traditional Japanese ideas for her. It must have been difficult for young immigrants.  Really, what were they supposed to do?  There families came to America for a better life for there family but wanted to keep there traditions. It does not work that way. The kids are being pulled in both directions. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too found the photos very interesting.  I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population.  Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled?  None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship.  I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the photos strived to capture average people in their daily activies rather than workers in action. I don&amp;#039;t think that Bubley was trying persuade any ideal or stereotype but rather was quickly capturing groups of people and showing how different the work force had become during WWII. I thought that the photo of the women on the stairs waiting for the boarding house bathroom did show the hours of work the women had put in and the exhaustion they were facing. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The picture of Esther Bubley is hot. It&amp;#039;s VERY different from the photographs of women we&amp;#039;ve seen so far. First of all, she&amp;#039;s wearing pants, second of all just the way she&amp;#039;s posing and the clothes she&amp;#039;s wearing and just her whole demeanor screams &amp;quot;I can do anything a man can!&amp;quot; I&amp;#039;m also glad that the women who took over the industries were able to wear pants, made work a lot safer but of course it took other women to realize this. - Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have always been fascinated with older photography. You can read so much into the lives of women back then by their clothing, there mannerisms, and what they are doing.--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this letter to the president.  I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort.  Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot.  Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that &amp;quot;Many women thoroughly enjoy working &amp;amp; getting away from the home.&amp;quot;(373) I&amp;#039;m sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn&amp;#039;t like their jobs, for whatever reason.  Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war.  How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn&amp;#039;t have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;click,&amp;quot; and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today&amp;#039;s society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women still continue to struggle with the &amp;quot;double duty&amp;quot; of working outside of the home and housework. Norma Yerger&amp;#039;s expectations of a clean house were too high. She said she spends two hours each evening cleaning, if she did not try to meet the middle class standards of a clean house she could have spent that time with her family.   Amanda&amp;#039;s postings always make me smile--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did the WACs&amp;#039;s performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-14T04:28:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Benjamin Rush, &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,&amp;quot; 1786 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; -- I thought Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t this influence education today?--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s all fine and well he didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question I had when reading Rush&amp;#039;s speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn&amp;#039;t what he says create more prejudices?  He tells them what he doesn&amp;#039;t want the country&amp;#039;s youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786&amp;quot; really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn&amp;#039;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education&amp;#039;&amp;#039;....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 &amp;quot;man is naturally an ungovernable animal&amp;quot;? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s thoughts is that he supported educating women.  He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the &amp;#039;usual branches of female education&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;progressive nature.&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;  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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awakened&amp;quot;, &amp;quot; 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&amp;quot;  His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that in Allen&amp;#039;s document, he mentioned &amp;quot;continental money&amp;quot;(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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Madison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Federalist #10&amp;quot; left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded.  He says, &amp;quot;...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other,&amp;quot; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
-Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“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~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;male&amp;quot; who was writing this article at this time?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found the document &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;t give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the &amp;quot;pro abolition of slavery&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the &amp;quot;Forward and progressive ones&amp;quot;.  However, even in the foreword it says &amp;quot;Jefferson&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things.  Is Jefferson&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In William Manning&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Key of Libbety, 1798&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;nor none have too far to travel&amp;quot;.  The western farmers were extremely spread out.  How did the easterner&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic&amp;quot;? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manning&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men&amp;#039;s education. She questions,&amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Molly Wallace&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speakers of the document &amp;quot;Education for Young Women&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace&amp;#039;s valedictory address and Priscilla Mason&amp;#039;s address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Mary Dewee&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From &amp;quot;Journal, 1788-1789&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;requirement&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, Dewees&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn&amp;#039;t the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always loved George Washington&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;s affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Farewell Address to the People of the United States&amp;quot; -- Given at the end of Washington&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;t really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Education for Young Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education?   Quincey Garcia&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-14T04:26:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Benjamin Rush, &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,&amp;quot; 1786 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Benjamin Rush, &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,&amp;quot; 1786 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; -- I thought Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t this influence education today?--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s all fine and well he didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another question I had when reading Rush&amp;#039;s speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn&amp;#039;t what he says create more prejudices?  He tells them what he doesn&amp;#039;t want the country&amp;#039;s youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786&amp;quot; really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn&amp;#039;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, &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY.&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education&amp;#039;&amp;#039;....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 &amp;quot;man is naturally an ungovernable animal&amp;quot;? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s thoughts is that he supported educating women.  He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the &amp;#039;usual branches of female education&amp;#039; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;progressive nature.&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;  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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;awakened&amp;quot;, &amp;quot; 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&amp;quot;  His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Madison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Federalist #10&amp;quot; left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded.  He says, &amp;quot;...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other,&amp;quot; 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?&lt;br /&gt;
-Ally Campo&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“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~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;male&amp;quot; who was writing this article at this time?  Quincey Garcia&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found the document &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;t give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the &amp;quot;pro abolition of slavery&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the &amp;quot;Forward and progressive ones&amp;quot;.  However, even in the foreword it says &amp;quot;Jefferson&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things.  Is Jefferson&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In William Manning&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Key of Libbety, 1798&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;nor none have too far to travel&amp;quot;.  The western farmers were extremely spread out.  How did the easterner&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic&amp;quot;? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Manning&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men&amp;#039;s education. She questions,&amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Molly Wallace&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speakers of the document &amp;quot;Education for Young Women&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace&amp;#039;s valedictory address and Priscilla Mason&amp;#039;s address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Mary Dewee&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From &amp;quot;Journal, 1788-1789&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;requirement&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Second, Dewees&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always loved George Washington&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;s affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Farewell Address to the People of the United States&amp;quot; -- Given at the end of Washington&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;t really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Education for Young Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education?   Quincey Garcia&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-13T20:36:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found the document &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;t give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always loved George Washington&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;s affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can&amp;#039;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, which are the predecessors to the modern day Republican Party. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s Republicans, modern day Democrats. 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Mary Dewee&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In William Manning&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Key of Libbety, 1798&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;nor none have too far to travel&amp;quot;.  The western farmers were extremely spread out.  How did the easterner&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic&amp;quot;? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From &amp;quot;Journal, 1788-1789&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;requirement&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education&amp;#039;&amp;#039;....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 &amp;quot;man is naturally an ungovernable animal&amp;quot;? Was this a common belief? Second, Dewees&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speakers of the document &amp;quot;Education for Young Women&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; -- I thought Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Farewell Address to the People of the United States&amp;quot; -- Given at the end of Washington&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t this influence education today?--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men&amp;#039;s education. She questions,&amp;quot;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&amp;quot; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-13T20:26:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found the document &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;t give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always loved George Washington&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796&amp;#039;&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;s affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can&amp;#039;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, which are the predecessors to the modern day Republican Party. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson&amp;#039;s Republicans, modern day Democrats. 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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Richard Allen&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Mary Dewee&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In William Manning&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Key of Libbety, 1798&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;nor none have too far to travel&amp;quot;.  The western farmers were extremely spread out.  How did the easterner&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic&amp;quot;? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From &amp;quot;Journal, 1788-1789&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;requirement&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education&amp;#039;&amp;#039;....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 &amp;quot;man is naturally an ungovernable animal&amp;quot;? Was this a common belief? Second, Dewees&amp;#039; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speakers of the document &amp;quot;Education for Young Women&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; -- I thought Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Farewell Address to the People of the United States&amp;quot; -- Given at the end of Washington&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t this influence education today?--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-26T07:10:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mothers’ Letters to the Children’s Bureau, 1915-1932 [1921, 1925, 1932] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Anxious Mothers write the Children’s Bureau&amp;quot; deals with the health problems related to women and infants. People concerned wrote to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, which was formed until 1912. Before this, and even after this, was there anything for people to turn to on more of a local level? In addition, the first letter points out that the doctor was not available while the woman was giving birth, and the last letter points out the deficiencies in the profession. Was it more common or more reliable to see a midwife during this time? &lt;br /&gt;
--Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the readings for this week. I thought it was interesting to read all the letters from the mothers to the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. The horror that one mother went throught just because she had a doctor who was not fully qualified and her desire for some sort of governmental check on all doctors to prevent such a terrible experience from happening again. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine about the letters to the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. They were all so interesting, the one about the mother who was worried about marking her baby was my favorite.  Even though you hear of all the myths today that women worry about it was strange to hear this one. I have heard where craving certain food can help determine the sex of the baby but I had never heard that not eating a food that you are craving and then touching your face would mark the baby in someway. Where did these myths start? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in the same boat as Christine and Kellye, I really enjoyed the reading from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau.  The talk of malpractice and myths was rather interesting, just what women had to go through with pregnancy and to get a doctor who isn&amp;#039;t all that great with child birth.  Also the myths that were there were just amazing, like the one Kelley mentioned where a not eating the food your longing for will mark or harm the child in some way.  How do these myths start anyways?  and why do women believe them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau&amp;quot; I was shocked about how women would already have children but are still asking for pamphlets.I can understand they want the newest information, but Mrs. W.M. has three healthy boys, and is due to have another child. However she wants to know about caring for your baby. I found it interesting that these women were giving birth w/o a Dr. present, and then in the second letter, the Dr. is a quack. The second letter brought up a vaild point that these children are everyones futures. What I don&amp;#039;t understand is then why are there not good Doctors and why women that live 8 miles away, why don&amp;#039;t they try to take residence somewhere closer to them?-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed reading the letters in &amp;quot;Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau.&amp;quot; I thought that it was really interesting that these women seemed to be fairly pro-active in seeking advice on child-rearing and health concerns for their children. It was also pretty amusing reading about the woman afraid that not giving in to her cravings would leave marks on her cravings. I wonder what the response would to that question in context with the time period. I also wonder how much things have changed since then. I know that we have a lot of medical advances, but I also hear of a lot of old wives tales surrounding childbirth. Also, I come from a fairly rural area and I can see how not living close to a good doctor could still be a problem in some areas. And to respond to Amanda&amp;#039;s question about why they didn&amp;#039;t move closer to a doctor, I think that it would depend on a lot of factors. Particularly, if the family lives in a rural area on a farm or something, it might be difficult to move the family. That&amp;#039;s just one example that I could think of, and I&amp;#039;m sure that there are a dozen more. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting stuff.  Puts the early 20th century into context from a healthcare standpoint.  I believe the average life expectancy in 1900 was about 45 to 47 years of age.  It has advanced 30 years during the past century.  Motherhood and childbirth, especially in rural areas, was obviously much more like a 19th century experience than what we come to regard as a &amp;quot;normal experience&amp;quot; today.  Certainly no textbooks such as &amp;quot;What to Expect When You Are Expecting,&amp;quot; available to these ladies.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, Harper’s piece on “Generational Conflicts” – 1927 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting to look at the women’s movement and how it evolved in different generations. Bromely begins by looking at the term “feminism” and how some people thought that this meant a young woman who had a job and who is no longer “old fashioned.” She looks at generational gaps between women in their twenties and women in their forties. If you were to make this breakdown today, how would women’s opinions on feminism differ? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessica. I found the dissecting of the word &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; extremely interesting, especially as explained by generational differences. It seems like today the same dispute over the connotations of feminism exist, yet I think generational gaps no longer account for this difference... so what does? - Cat Debelius &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; extremely interesting because it seemed like many of the reasons that the women of the 1920s didn&amp;#039;t want to be associated with the term &amp;#039;feminist&amp;#039; are the same reasons that many people today don&amp;#039;t want to be. These reasons include the desire to not be seen as man haters, the idea that they wouldn&amp;#039;t live for only her husband or her job but rather would balance the two arenas, and had a desire to still wear feminine clothes which the older generation who called themselves feminists did not want to do.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  Feminists--New Style of &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley seemed to be considerably naive.  Was it really possible for a women to have a successful career during the 1920&amp;#039;s and 1930&amp;#039;s that could provide economic freedom?  Was it as easy as these new feminists presented it to be?---Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justin makes an excellent point.  I&amp;#039;m all in favor of the &amp;quot;modern woman.&amp;quot;  However, you must be careful what you wish for.  A lot of women I know (including my wife) who try to balance a career, a family, etc. during childbearing years are STRESSED OUT.  Women should make their own choices, however, there is nothing wrong with choosing ONE or the other option, or going back to work after kids are raised.  Societal expectations of the mother as the primary caregiver/homemaker makes the situation of a woman+career+family much tougher than that of a man with the same situation.  Phil Novalski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the first time in this class I saw a glimpse of what I would consider the modern woman. In Dorothy Bromley&amp;#039;s writing she describes the 3rd generation feminists and how they didn&amp;#039;t hate men, how they were concerned with being fashionable, and how they were more concerend with economic independence than with reform. Before this reading all the women we have studied or read about either seemed to submissive to resemble any females I  consider to be contemporary, or they were far more radical and militant than the average woman in America today. -----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other article I really like was &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley. It is the first time we see the formation of a modern woman. I also thought her description of the different generations of women was interesting. I was surprised she didn&amp;#039;t talk about flappers. Today they are the most recognized women of the 1920s. I would have thought she would have at least mentioned them in her article. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as I love being able to see a correlation between the 3rd Generation girls in &amp;quot;Feminist - New Style&amp;quot; and the modern American woman, it bothers me how unappreciative those girls seemed to be about all that had been accomplished, especially with the 2nd generation.  True, feminist had a bit of a negative connotation because of how radical most of the suffragists were and it still has that &amp;quot;man-hating&amp;quot; connotation today, but what those women accomplished took a heck of a lot of work and energy.  It just makes me wonder, are women today just as unappreciative of what other women had to suffer and fight for to give us the luxuries we have today? I certainly hope not.  I do, however, like the last line, &amp;quot;If this be treason gentlemen, make the most of it.&amp;quot;  I did like this article a lot, and I like how Dorothe Dunbar Bromley emphasized how women should take control of their lives.  But it just kind of bugged me how much she ragged on the 1st and 2nd generation women. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also very interested in reading teh &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; by Dorothy Bromley.  I found myself agreeing with alot that she says. I think that the feminists of the 1970&amp;#039;s had the same kind of reputation of being antagonizers of men or as being man haters like the feminist-new style of the 20&amp;#039;s thought the older feminists were.  I remember growing up in the 70&amp;#039;s and being adamant that I did not want to be known as a feminist when I grew up! I still hate that term because of the negative image I have from the Femi-nazis of the 70&amp;#039;s but I guess my beliefs are very much &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot;. How did the feminist-new style turn into the femi-nazis of the 70&amp;#039;s? Is it just a normal &amp;quot;cycle&amp;quot; of generations and the old &amp;quot;history repeats itself&amp;quot; argument or did something specific happen to cause the feminist to revert to the more militant end of the spectrum again?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Dorothy Bromley&amp;#039;s essay she talks about the new modern women, and how they are an individual and independent. However she says, &amp;quot;And in this era of simplified housekeeping they see their oportunity..&amp;quot; (128) What does she mean by simplyfied housekeeping? Does she mean simplyfied because of new technology in cleaning appliances and products or something else? Also with this new oportunity of free time women are going to do something they enjoy, so what do they do in their new free time?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle, - I found the &amp;quot;simplified housekeeping&amp;quot; remark kind of funny as well. I guess they didn&amp;#039;t have to use the rainbarrel to wash clothes in anymore? I think its a poignant piece. Feminists have always had to labor under the constrict of trying to achieve progress, while not appearing to be too militant at the same time. That&amp;#039;s a tough balancing act. I remember growing up in the 70&amp;#039;s and 80&amp;#039;s and feminism did get a stigma attached. I&amp;#039;m not sure it was a problem with the message from people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, it was people&amp;#039;s interpretation of how the message was delivered. Conflict politics, like those sometimes practiced by Steinem and other activists, never makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Phil Novalski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda.  I do not understand why there were not many doctors around.  If women were having a child I would think there would be a way to have contact with a doctor.  Not many women traveled when they were heavily pregnant.  Did women back then believe that having children without a doctor would be ok?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women of the KKK, the Klan Kreed, Constitution, 1927 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about the KKK. I had no idea in 1925 there were between 3 and 4 million American members involved. Also to read there were 500,000 women in a a &amp;quot;Women of the KKK&amp;quot; scares me. What drew all these individuals into this organization? Why so many women in 1925 and fewer in the later years? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Rose I found the article &amp;quot;Women of the Ku Klux Klan&amp;quot; interesting. While I was not that surprised on how many women were involved in it, especially seeing how much dislike the Southern states had towards blacks, and I remembered learning that Jews were becoming to be targets of the KKK I didn&amp;#039;t remember that the Catholics were also targets. Although I didn&amp;#039;t remember this, seeing how the majority, if not all of the members, were white protestants it does kind of make sense. Though what I found most interesting was the fact that section 2 of the Constitution of and laws of the WKKK stated that the group would be military in character, and I would have thought these women would want to avoid that categorization since it was not very lady-like.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Women of the Ku Klux Klan&amp;quot; document was really interesting.  I was very surprised with the detailed constitution of the organization.  Even though this was one way for women to become involved in politics it impressed me to the extent that the constitution went.  It included the organization&amp;#039;s objectives &amp;amp; purposes, membership and offenses &amp;amp; penalties. The type of offenses listed really surprised me, it never would have occurred to me to list &amp;quot;disrespect of virtuous womanhood.&amp;quot; I would have thought that that offense would have been a given, but at the same time it is left up to individual interpretation of what would be considered disrespect. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did find it interesting that women were involved in the Klu Klux Klan.  Women were not as strict as men were with racism.  Based on the situations women can be what they want to be.  By working hard you can achieve what you want based on beliefs.  If  you can succeed then you’ll be successful. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew that there was a Women of the KKK, but I did not have any type of understanding of how many members and their Kreed.  I found just the in depth of the Kreed amazing.  It covered membership, objections, offenses and punishments.  I found it interesting that there was a donation of $10 required... unless your husband was in the original KKK.  Does the WKKK or the KKK still exist today? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.kkk.bz/  Oh yes, they&amp;#039;re still here.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that I found rather comical when reading the intro to the WKKK was that they made a point to say one perk of the WKKK was every member in good standing got a free white robe and helmet. The fact that, that is the perk that is listed is ridiculous, I can imagine a women being like &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t know all of what we stand for but we get a free outfit.&amp;quot; Also what I really liked was how this horrible organization was seen as, by the women involved, &amp;quot;a splendid opportunity for friendship and solidarity .... Just a celebration... a way of growing up.&amp;quot; This just baffles me because these women  are part of an horrible organization almost as an excuse to make friends and have fun and celebrate growing up. I know it was accepted during the time period but are these women that naive and ridiculous? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked as well when I read about the WKKK.  It just amazes me that more and more people were getting better educations but still people fell back on the &amp;quot;I am better than you&amp;quot; mentality.  It amazes me that in their kreed they refer to having good morals and reputations and how patriotic they thought they were.  I don&amp;#039;t get how &amp;quot;White Supremecy&amp;quot; equals patriotism especially considering some of the things that the KKK would do.  I know that my grandparents grew up in the 30&amp;#039;s and they never supported these groups because my grandma always said violence against anyone was wrong but they had the same mentality towards different religions and blacks as these racial groups did.  How did they reconcile the being a good Christian and believing in Jesus Christ like their Kreed says but then treat others the way they did?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The WKKK article was very interesting because I had no idea that there was a KKK for women alone. I knew that the ones who had husbands in the KKK supported them, but that they actually had their own group, wow.  Under the Constitution and Laws part of the article it says the &amp;quot;Order shall ever be military in character...&amp;quot; (136) How militaristic and ritualistic were they?  Did they often commit violent act againt those they oppesed like the usual burning of a cross or throwing bricks through peoples windows?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The KKK in the Twenties was another outporing of &amp;quot;Nativist&amp;quot; sentiment in response to many Catholics and Jews spreading throughout the large cities.  This &amp;quot;Nativist&amp;quot; movement recycles itself every couple of generations, and it is repeating itself this very moment in Prince William County and across the country.  Even though the &amp;quot;Real Natives&amp;quot; of America have been relegated to small reservations, people will continually look upon immigrants trying to find a better life as &amp;quot;intruders&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;illegals&amp;quot; rather than children of God. - Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt, 1920, to League of Women Voters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;New Voters&amp;quot; by Carrie Chapman Catt, I found it notable that Catt thought of political change as only possible through political parties.  This view differs from, what I guess is a more idealistic, view that the parties can be affected by grass roots movements.  I guess her view of politics must have been shaped by her experiences fighting for women&amp;#039;s suffrage. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;New Voters.&amp;quot;  She made an excellent point that now that women had the right to vote, they needed to do something with it.  Since they were now seen on an &amp;quot;equal&amp;quot; platform with men when it came to casting votes, why not move yourself up higher in the political realm?  That had been one of my questions actually, what were women going to fight for now that they had the right to vote?  And was there something to fight for?  Well, obviously, in Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s opinion there was.  It just makes me wonder if they would have been more successful had Catt been able to be a bigger part of this &amp;quot;new movement.&amp;quot;  She made the comment, &amp;quot;Younger and fresher women must do that work, and because I cannot advise and cannot follow, I only point to the fact that the battle is there...&amp;quot; and I just feel that with all she did for the suffrage movement, this next battle would have been fought better with her at the forefront.  And, just for kicks, I liked the comment, &amp;quot;Women must not be content until they are as independent within the party as men are, which isn&amp;#039;t saying much.&amp;quot;  She&amp;#039;s so funny.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If you really want women&amp;#039;s vote to count, make your way there.&amp;quot;(p.122) This inspiring phrase from Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s speech was the crux of the newly ratified 19th amendment. Now that women had the vote, how were they going to use it? She tells them to go out and get involved. It reminds me of all the campaigns to get out the vote that we have today. Catt understands that just having the power to vote is not enough; the real power lies in how it&amp;#039;s used. I also found it interesting that she wants them to get involved in political parties in order to make the most impact. It almost seems like going backwards becaue now they&amp;#039;re back to working within the male controlled sphere. It goes back to contradicting the narrow-minded male perception that women would all vote the same on issues. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very practical address by Catt.  You have to be inside the system in order to have real power.  In those days, it meant gaining access to the &amp;quot;smoke-filled&amp;quot; rooms where the party machinery made decisions that affected people&amp;#039;s everday lives.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Doris Stevens [pro] and Dr. Alice Hamilton [anti] debate the ERA, 1924 in the Forum. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the debate about an Equal Rights Amendment to be fairly interesting.  Of the two debates, I, with my modern understanding of things, believe that the argument in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment was a way to achieve gender equality.  Having to wait for equality and legislate for women separately seems to play into gender stereotypes instead of defusing them which should ultimately be the purpose of whatever course of action that should be undertaken. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One of the most divisive issues for political women in the immediate post-suffrage years was the Equal Rights Amendment...&amp;quot;  One argument focuses on equality in control of children, property, earnings, etc., and the other places emphasis on equality within the workplace.  When you look at each woman, you can see a relationship with their life experience and their opinion on ERA.  Doris Stevens, who argued for equality of children, property and earnings, was a teacher and social worker before becoming a member of NAWSA.  Alice Hamilton was a physician concerned with worker health issues. If the opposing female groups could have negotiated and addressed women&amp;#039;s rights in unison, do you think women&amp;#039;s suffrage and equality could have been realized sooner?--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the debate very interesting as well as a challenging topic to side one way on. In a perfect world I would side with Stevens and the National Women&amp;#039;s Party in terms of equality for both sexes. Although at that point in history it is easy to see how many women wouldn&amp;#039;t want to be held to those standards in the work place. I think that Hamilton&amp;#039;s arguement was best made when she looked to Holland. Instead of &amp;quot;taking privilege away from the women&amp;quot; (126) the privileges were given to the men. The debate brings up a very important point: where is the line that separates women and men and how do you draw that line while maintaining equality? -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Doris Stevens essay, she makes the point of realization that just because women have the right to vote now, does not mean that they will have eaqual rights still in other things.  This is only the first step, because women are still seen as lesser than men.  Did men or women or both think that now that women have the right to vote that it will make them happy and go away?  Because equal voting did not solve the problem of equal rights all around.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting reading and comparing the arguments presented in Doris Stevens&amp;#039; and Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s essays. What I found particularly interesting was that each group seemed to have the best interests of women at their core. Stevens was promoting the equality of women and men, and Hamilton promoted protection of women. However, I think that the closing statement in Hamilton&amp;#039;s essay demonstrates how women as well as men needed a lot of convincing to promote the idea that they are equals. She says, &amp;quot;I must, as a practical person, familiar with the great, inarticulate body of working women, reiterate my belief that they are largely helpless, that they ahve very special needs which unaided they cannot attain, and that it would be a crime for the country to pass legislation which would not only make it impossible to better their lot in the near future but would even deprive them of hte small measure of protection they now enjoy.&amp;quot; (p.126). It&amp;#039;s also interesting that she thinks that passing an equal rights legislation would make it impossible for women to better their lot, whereas Stevens thinks that equal rights is the key to improvement. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a modern woman, I felt that I had to immediately side with Doris Stevens. Of course women should be equal to men in every respect, especially in the workplace (even though they still aren&amp;#039;t in terms of equal pay.) But it wasn&amp;#039;t hard to understand Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument. What the NWP was proposing was taking away the power of being women from women. It made me think about whether equality is always the right answer. While removing the issue of gender, Hamilton argues that you make women helpless in the world of men. Women are measured to the same standard as men. It seems like the question is, without considering a women as a group with separate goals from men, will they be lost in the workplace? Is that why women still don&amp;#039;t have some of the same opportunities in professions or pay today? -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument may be hard for the ladies in this class to completely understand, however, put into the context of not wanting to lose what had already been gained, her conservative position was somewhat understandable.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nella Larsen’s Passing, 1929 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Passing&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it was very upsetting to read about Clare&amp;#039;s double life. It&amp;#039;s hard to imagine growing up in a society that valued &amp;quot;pure blood&amp;quot; so strongly that you would deny your ancestry in order to be a part of a soceity that would shun you if they knew the truth. I thought it was an interesting situation to think &amp;quot;if I was in Irene&amp;#039;s shoes in the 1920&amp;#039;s, what would I do?&amp;quot; -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was passing a common practice? It seems that passing would not only be infeasible but also extremely uncomfortable. I cannot imagine the pressure and strain of trying to live your life while having to lie to everyone around you and deserting your family. Do these sacrifices speak to the huge difference in standards of living between white and black Americans in this time period? Were conditions so bad for the black/mixed race people that they were willing to make this huge sacrifice and pretend to be someone else? Or was this just a few opportunistic greedy girls trying to get ahead one way or another? Also did any men successfully try and do this? -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have the same question as Landon, how common was &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot;?  It doesn&amp;#039;t seem like something anyone would want to do because I feel like living a double life would be such a hassle.  At the same time, though, it was amazing to read Clare&amp;#039;s statement about how much easier white people had it.  &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;d be surprised, &amp;#039;Rene, how much easier that is with white people than with us.&amp;quot;  But her explanations why seemed kind of naive in my opinion.  Saying that it was either because of how many more white people there were or because they were secure enough with themselves doesn&amp;#039;t seem like a satisfying answer.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nella Larson’s story about the girl that “passed” as white got me wondering… what happened to someone if they were found out?  - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With women having the ability to vote, I think it would have been interesting to track votes by gender and if a wife&amp;#039;s vote was the same or opposite as her husband. Did females double the number of votes or was their a clear difference between what women found as important issues vs. the men? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Alice Hamilton’s essay against laws that apply to only both sexes very interesting and actually pretty persuasive. It would be risky to assume that if the law was equal that society would be. Were the proponents of this legislation willing to face the time period when society hadn’t caught up to the law. – Cat Debelius&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-26T06:04:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Mothers’ Letters to the Children’s Bureau, 1915-1932 [1921, 1925, 1932] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Anxious Mothers write the Children’s Bureau&amp;quot; deals with the health problems related to women and infants. People concerned wrote to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, which was formed until 1912. Before this, and even after this, was there anything for people to turn to on more of a local level? In addition, the first letter points out that the doctor was not available while the woman was giving birth, and the last letter points out the deficiencies in the profession. Was it more common or more reliable to see a midwife during this time? &lt;br /&gt;
--Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the readings for this week. I thought it was interesting to read all the letters from the mothers to the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. The horror that one mother went throught just because she had a doctor who was not fully qualified and her desire for some sort of governmental check on all doctors to prevent such a terrible experience from happening again. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine about the letters to the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. They were all so interesting, the one about the mother who was worried about marking her baby was my favorite.  Even though you hear of all the myths today that women worry about it was strange to hear this one. I have heard where craving certain food can help determine the sex of the baby but I had never heard that not eating a food that you are craving and then touching your face would mark the baby in someway. Where did these myths start? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in the same boat as Christine and Kellye, I really enjoyed the reading from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau.  The talk of malpractice and myths was rather interesting, just what women had to go through with pregnancy and to get a doctor who isn&amp;#039;t all that great with child birth.  Also the myths that were there were just amazing, like the one Kelley mentioned where a not eating the food your longing for will mark or harm the child in some way.  How do these myths start anyways?  and why do women believe them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau&amp;quot; I was shocked about how women would already have children but are still asking for pamphlets.I can understand they want the newest information, but Mrs. W.M. has three healthy boys, and is due to have another child. However she wants to know about caring for your baby. I found it interesting that these women were giving birth w/o a Dr. present, and then in the second letter, the Dr. is a quack. The second letter brought up a vaild point that these children are everyones futures. What I don&amp;#039;t understand is then why are there not good Doctors and why women that live 8 miles away, why don&amp;#039;t they try to take residence somewhere closer to them?-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed reading the letters in &amp;quot;Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau.&amp;quot; I thought that it was really interesting that these women seemed to be fairly pro-active in seeking advice on child-rearing and health concerns for their children. It was also pretty amusing reading about the woman afraid that not giving in to her cravings would leave marks on her cravings. I wonder what the response would to that question in context with the time period. I also wonder how much things have changed since then. I know that we have a lot of medical advances, but I also hear of a lot of old wives tales surrounding childbirth. Also, I come from a fairly rural area and I can see how not living close to a good doctor could still be a problem in some areas. And to respond to Amanda&amp;#039;s question about why they didn&amp;#039;t move closer to a doctor, I think that it would depend on a lot of factors. Particularly, if the family lives in a rural area on a farm or something, it might be difficult to move the family. That&amp;#039;s just one example that I could think of, and I&amp;#039;m sure that there are a dozen more. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting stuff.  Puts the early 20th century into context from a healthcare standpoint.  I believe the average life expectancy in 1900 was about 45 to 47 years of age.  It has advanced 30 years during the past century.  Motherhood and childbirth, especially in rural areas, was obviously much more like a 19th century experience than what we come to regard as a &amp;quot;normal experience&amp;quot; today.  Certainly no textbooks such as &amp;quot;What to Expect When You Are Expecting,&amp;quot; available to these ladies.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, Harper’s piece on “Generational Conflicts” – 1927 ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting to look at the women’s movement and how it evolved in different generations. Bromely begins by looking at the term “feminism” and how some people thought that this meant a young woman who had a job and who is no longer “old fashioned.” She looks at generational gaps between women in their twenties and women in their forties. If you were to make this breakdown today, how would women’s opinions on feminism differ? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jessica. I found the dissecting of the word &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot; extremely interesting, especially as explained by generational differences. It seems like today the same dispute over the connotations of feminism exist, yet I think generational gaps no longer account for this difference... so what does? - Cat Debelius &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; extremely interesting because it seemed like many of the reasons that the women of the 1920s didn&amp;#039;t want to be associated with the term &amp;#039;feminist&amp;#039; are the same reasons that many people today don&amp;#039;t want to be. These reasons include the desire to not be seen as man haters, the idea that they wouldn&amp;#039;t live for only her husband or her job but rather would balance the two arenas, and had a desire to still wear feminine clothes which the older generation who called themselves feminists did not want to do.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  Feminists--New Style of &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley seemed to be considerably naive.  Was it really possible for a women to have a successful career during the 1920&amp;#039;s and 1930&amp;#039;s that could provide economic freedom?  Was it as easy as these new feminists presented it to be?---Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justin makes an excellent point.  I&amp;#039;m all in favor of the &amp;quot;modern woman.&amp;quot;  However, you must be careful what you wish for.  A lot of women I know (including my wife) who try to balance a career, a family, etc. during childbearing years are STRESSED OUT.  Women should make their own choices, however, there is nothing wrong with choosing ONE or the other option, or going back to work after kids are raised.  Societal expectations of the mother as the primary caregiver/homemaker makes the situation of a woman+career+family much tougher than that of a man with the same situation.  Phil Novalski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the first time in this class I saw a glimpse of what I would consider the modern woman. In Dorothy Bromley&amp;#039;s writing she describes the 3rd generation feminists and how they didn&amp;#039;t hate men, how they were concerned with being fashionable, and how they were more concerend with economic independence than with reform. Before this reading all the women we have studied or read about either seemed to submissive to resemble any females I  consider to be contemporary, or they were far more radical and militant than the average woman in America today. -----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other article I really like was &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley. It is the first time we see the formation of a modern woman. I also thought her description of the different generations of women was interesting. I was surprised she didn&amp;#039;t talk about flappers. Today they are the most recognized women of the 1920s. I would have thought she would have at least mentioned them in her article. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as I love being able to see a correlation between the 3rd Generation girls in &amp;quot;Feminist - New Style&amp;quot; and the modern American woman, it bothers me how unappreciative those girls seemed to be about all that had been accomplished, especially with the 2nd generation.  True, feminist had a bit of a negative connotation because of how radical most of the suffragists were and it still has that &amp;quot;man-hating&amp;quot; connotation today, but what those women accomplished took a heck of a lot of work and energy.  It just makes me wonder, are women today just as unappreciative of what other women had to suffer and fight for to give us the luxuries we have today? I certainly hope not.  I do, however, like the last line, &amp;quot;If this be treason gentlemen, make the most of it.&amp;quot;  I did like this article a lot, and I like how Dorothe Dunbar Bromley emphasized how women should take control of their lives.  But it just kind of bugged me how much she ragged on the 1st and 2nd generation women. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also very interested in reading teh &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; by Dorothy Bromley.  I found myself agreeing with alot that she says. I think that the feminists of the 1970&amp;#039;s had the same kind of reputation of being antagonizers of men or as being man haters like the feminist-new style of the 20&amp;#039;s thought the older feminists were.  I remember growing up in the 70&amp;#039;s and being adamant that I did not want to be known as a feminist when I grew up! I still hate that term because of the negative image I have from the Femi-nazis of the 70&amp;#039;s but I guess my beliefs are very much &amp;quot;feminist&amp;quot;. How did the feminist-new style turn into the femi-nazis of the 70&amp;#039;s? Is it just a normal &amp;quot;cycle&amp;quot; of generations and the old &amp;quot;history repeats itself&amp;quot; argument or did something specific happen to cause the feminist to revert to the more militant end of the spectrum again?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Dorothy Bromley&amp;#039;s essay she talks about the new modern women, and how they are an individual and independent. However she says, &amp;quot;And in this era of simplified housekeeping they see their oportunity..&amp;quot; (128) What does she mean by simplyfied housekeeping? Does she mean simplyfied because of new technology in cleaning appliances and products or something else? Also with this new oportunity of free time women are going to do something they enjoy, so what do they do in their new free time?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle, - I found the &amp;quot;simplified housekeeping&amp;quot; remark kind of funny as well. I guess they didn&amp;#039;t have to use the rainbarrel to wash clothes in anymore? I think its a poignant piece. Feminists have always had to labor under the constrict of trying to achieve progress, while not appearing to be too militant at the same time. That&amp;#039;s a tough balancing act. I remember growing up in the 70&amp;#039;s and 80&amp;#039;s and feminism did get a stigma attached. I&amp;#039;m not sure it was a problem with the message from people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, it was people&amp;#039;s interpretation of how the message was delivered. Conflict politics, like those sometimes practiced by Steinem and other activists, never makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Phil Novalski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda.  I do not understand why there were not many doctors around.  If women were having a child I would think there would be a way to have contact with a doctor.  Not many women traveled when they were heavily pregnant.  Did women back then believe that having children without a doctor would be ok?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women of the KKK, the Klan Kreed, Constitution, 1927 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about the KKK. I had no idea in 1925 there were between 3 and 4 million American members involved. Also to read there were 500,000 women in a a &amp;quot;Women of the KKK&amp;quot; scares me. What drew all these individuals into this organization? Why so many women in 1925 and fewer in the later years? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Rose I found the article &amp;quot;Women of the Ku Klux Klan&amp;quot; interesting. While I was not that surprised on how many women were involved in it, especially seeing how much dislike the Southern states had towards blacks, and I remembered learning that Jews were becoming to be targets of the KKK I didn&amp;#039;t remember that the Catholics were also targets. Although I didn&amp;#039;t remember this, seeing how the majority, if not all of the members, were white protestants it does kind of make sense. Though what I found most interesting was the fact that section 2 of the Constitution of and laws of the WKKK stated that the group would be military in character, and I would have thought these women would want to avoid that categorization since it was not very lady-like.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Women of the Ku Klux Klan&amp;quot; document was really interesting.  I was very surprised with the detailed constitution of the organization.  Even though this was one way for women to become involved in politics it impressed me to the extent that the constitution went.  It included the organization&amp;#039;s objectives &amp;amp; purposes, membership and offenses &amp;amp; penalties. The type of offenses listed really surprised me, it never would have occurred to me to list &amp;quot;disrespect of virtuous womanhood.&amp;quot; I would have thought that that offense would have been a given, but at the same time it is left up to individual interpretation of what would be considered disrespect. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew that there was a Women of the KKK, but I did not have any type of understanding of how many members and their Kreed.  I found just the in depth of the Kreed amazing.  It covered membership, objections, offenses and punishments.  I found it interesting that there was a donation of $10 required... unless your husband was in the original KKK.  Does the WKKK or the KKK still exist today? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.kkk.bz/  Oh yes, they&amp;#039;re still here.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that I found rather comical when reading the intro to the WKKK was that they made a point to say one perk of the WKKK was every member in good standing got a free white robe and helmet. The fact that, that is the perk that is listed is ridiculous, I can imagine a women being like &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t know all of what we stand for but we get a free outfit.&amp;quot; Also what I really liked was how this horrible organization was seen as, by the women involved, &amp;quot;a splendid opportunity for friendship and solidarity .... Just a celebration... a way of growing up.&amp;quot; This just baffles me because these women  are part of an horrible organization almost as an excuse to make friends and have fun and celebrate growing up. I know it was accepted during the time period but are these women that naive and ridiculous? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked as well when I read about the WKKK.  It just amazes me that more and more people were getting better educations but still people fell back on the &amp;quot;I am better than you&amp;quot; mentality.  It amazes me that in their kreed they refer to having good morals and reputations and how patriotic they thought they were.  I don&amp;#039;t get how &amp;quot;White Supremecy&amp;quot; equals patriotism especially considering some of the things that the KKK would do.  I know that my grandparents grew up in the 30&amp;#039;s and they never supported these groups because my grandma always said violence against anyone was wrong but they had the same mentality towards different religions and blacks as these racial groups did.  How did they reconcile the being a good Christian and believing in Jesus Christ like their Kreed says but then treat others the way they did?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The WKKK article was very interesting because I had no idea that there was a KKK for women alone. I knew that the ones who had husbands in the KKK supported them, but that they actually had their own group, wow.  Under the Constitution and Laws part of the article it says the &amp;quot;Order shall ever be military in character...&amp;quot; (136) How militaristic and ritualistic were they?  Did they often commit violent act againt those they oppesed like the usual burning of a cross or throwing bricks through peoples windows?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The KKK in the Twenties was another outporing of &amp;quot;Nativist&amp;quot; sentiment in response to many Catholics and Jews spreading throughout the large cities.  This &amp;quot;Nativist&amp;quot; movement recycles itself every couple of generations, and it is repeating itself this very moment in Prince William County and across the country.  Even though the &amp;quot;Real Natives&amp;quot; of America have been relegated to small reservations, people will continually look upon immigrants trying to find a better life as &amp;quot;intruders&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;illegals&amp;quot; rather than children of God. - Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt, 1920, to League of Women Voters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;New Voters&amp;quot; by Carrie Chapman Catt, I found it notable that Catt thought of political change as only possible through political parties.  This view differs from, what I guess is a more idealistic, view that the parties can be affected by grass roots movements.  I guess her view of politics must have been shaped by her experiences fighting for women&amp;#039;s suffrage. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;New Voters.&amp;quot;  She made an excellent point that now that women had the right to vote, they needed to do something with it.  Since they were now seen on an &amp;quot;equal&amp;quot; platform with men when it came to casting votes, why not move yourself up higher in the political realm?  That had been one of my questions actually, what were women going to fight for now that they had the right to vote?  And was there something to fight for?  Well, obviously, in Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s opinion there was.  It just makes me wonder if they would have been more successful had Catt been able to be a bigger part of this &amp;quot;new movement.&amp;quot;  She made the comment, &amp;quot;Younger and fresher women must do that work, and because I cannot advise and cannot follow, I only point to the fact that the battle is there...&amp;quot; and I just feel that with all she did for the suffrage movement, this next battle would have been fought better with her at the forefront.  And, just for kicks, I liked the comment, &amp;quot;Women must not be content until they are as independent within the party as men are, which isn&amp;#039;t saying much.&amp;quot;  She&amp;#039;s so funny.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;If you really want women&amp;#039;s vote to count, make your way there.&amp;quot;(p.122) This inspiring phrase from Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s speech was the crux of the newly ratified 19th amendment. Now that women had the vote, how were they going to use it? She tells them to go out and get involved. It reminds me of all the campaigns to get out the vote that we have today. Catt understands that just having the power to vote is not enough; the real power lies in how it&amp;#039;s used. I also found it interesting that she wants them to get involved in political parties in order to make the most impact. It almost seems like going backwards becaue now they&amp;#039;re back to working within the male controlled sphere. It goes back to contradicting the narrow-minded male perception that women would all vote the same on issues. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very practical address by Catt.  You have to be inside the system in order to have real power.  In those days, it meant gaining access to the &amp;quot;smoke-filled&amp;quot; rooms where the party machinery made decisions that affected people&amp;#039;s everday lives.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Doris Stevens [pro] and Dr. Alice Hamilton [anti] debate the ERA, 1924 in the Forum. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the debate about an Equal Rights Amendment to be fairly interesting.  Of the two debates, I, with my modern understanding of things, believe that the argument in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment was a way to achieve gender equality.  Having to wait for equality and legislate for women separately seems to play into gender stereotypes instead of defusing them which should ultimately be the purpose of whatever course of action that should be undertaken. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One of the most divisive issues for political women in the immediate post-suffrage years was the Equal Rights Amendment...&amp;quot;  One argument focuses on equality in control of children, property, earnings, etc., and the other places emphasis on equality within the workplace.  When you look at each woman, you can see a relationship with their life experience and their opinion on ERA.  Doris Stevens, who argued for equality of children, property and earnings, was a teacher and social worker before becoming a member of NAWSA.  Alice Hamilton was a physician concerned with worker health issues. If the opposing female groups could have negotiated and addressed women&amp;#039;s rights in unison, do you think women&amp;#039;s suffrage and equality could have been realized sooner?--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the debate very interesting as well as a challenging topic to side one way on. In a perfect world I would side with Stevens and the National Women&amp;#039;s Party in terms of equality for both sexes. Although at that point in history it is easy to see how many women wouldn&amp;#039;t want to be held to those standards in the work place. I think that Hamilton&amp;#039;s arguement was best made when she looked to Holland. Instead of &amp;quot;taking privilege away from the women&amp;quot; (126) the privileges were given to the men. The debate brings up a very important point: where is the line that separates women and men and how do you draw that line while maintaining equality? -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Doris Stevens essay, she makes the point of realization that just because women have the right to vote now, does not mean that they will have eaqual rights still in other things.  This is only the first step, because women are still seen as lesser than men.  Did men or women or both think that now that women have the right to vote that it will make them happy and go away?  Because equal voting did not solve the problem of equal rights all around.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting reading and comparing the arguments presented in Doris Stevens&amp;#039; and Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s essays. What I found particularly interesting was that each group seemed to have the best interests of women at their core. Stevens was promoting the equality of women and men, and Hamilton promoted protection of women. However, I think that the closing statement in Hamilton&amp;#039;s essay demonstrates how women as well as men needed a lot of convincing to promote the idea that they are equals. She says, &amp;quot;I must, as a practical person, familiar with the great, inarticulate body of working women, reiterate my belief that they are largely helpless, that they ahve very special needs which unaided they cannot attain, and that it would be a crime for the country to pass legislation which would not only make it impossible to better their lot in the near future but would even deprive them of hte small measure of protection they now enjoy.&amp;quot; (p.126). It&amp;#039;s also interesting that she thinks that passing an equal rights legislation would make it impossible for women to better their lot, whereas Stevens thinks that equal rights is the key to improvement. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a modern woman, I felt that I had to immediately side with Doris Stevens. Of course women should be equal to men in every respect, especially in the workplace (even though they still aren&amp;#039;t in terms of equal pay.) But it wasn&amp;#039;t hard to understand Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument. What the NWP was proposing was taking away the power of being women from women. It made me think about whether equality is always the right answer. While removing the issue of gender, Hamilton argues that you make women helpless in the world of men. Women are measured to the same standard as men. It seems like the question is, without considering a women as a group with separate goals from men, will they be lost in the workplace? Is that why women still don&amp;#039;t have some of the same opportunities in professions or pay today? -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument may be hard for the ladies in this class to completely understand, however, put into the context of not wanting to lose what had already been gained, her conservative position was somewhat understandable.  Phil Novalski.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Nella Larsen’s Passing, 1929 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Passing&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it was very upsetting to read about Clare&amp;#039;s double life. It&amp;#039;s hard to imagine growing up in a society that valued &amp;quot;pure blood&amp;quot; so strongly that you would deny your ancestry in order to be a part of a soceity that would shun you if they knew the truth. I thought it was an interesting situation to think &amp;quot;if I was in Irene&amp;#039;s shoes in the 1920&amp;#039;s, what would I do?&amp;quot; -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was passing a common practice? It seems that passing would not only be infeasible but also extremely uncomfortable. I cannot imagine the pressure and strain of trying to live your life while having to lie to everyone around you and deserting your family. Do these sacrifices speak to the huge difference in standards of living between white and black Americans in this time period? Were conditions so bad for the black/mixed race people that they were willing to make this huge sacrifice and pretend to be someone else? Or was this just a few opportunistic greedy girls trying to get ahead one way or another? Also did any men successfully try and do this? -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have the same question as Landon, how common was &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot;?  It doesn&amp;#039;t seem like something anyone would want to do because I feel like living a double life would be such a hassle.  At the same time, though, it was amazing to read Clare&amp;#039;s statement about how much easier white people had it.  &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;d be surprised, &amp;#039;Rene, how much easier that is with white people than with us.&amp;quot;  But her explanations why seemed kind of naive in my opinion.  Saying that it was either because of how many more white people there were or because they were secure enough with themselves doesn&amp;#039;t seem like a satisfying answer.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nella Larson’s story about the girl that “passed” as white got me wondering… what happened to someone if they were found out?  - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With women having the ability to vote, I think it would have been interesting to track votes by gender and if a wife&amp;#039;s vote was the same or opposite as her husband. Did females double the number of votes or was their a clear difference between what women found as important issues vs. the men? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Alice Hamilton’s essay against laws that apply to only both sexes very interesting and actually pretty persuasive. It would be risky to assume that if the law was equal that society would be. Were the proponents of this legislation willing to face the time period when society hadn’t caught up to the law. – Cat Debelius&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-22T01:12:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;La Barre&amp;#039;s Failed Bluff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre&amp;#039;s Army)&amp;quot; Why didn&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Boston Massacre Oration&amp;quot;-- 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Memoir&amp;quot;-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes&amp;#039; account sort of &amp;quot;debunked&amp;quot; everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;to do no damage to the ship or rigging,&amp;quot; but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little &amp;quot;temper tantrum&amp;quot; so long as they didn&amp;#039;t damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Memoir&amp;quot; I agree with Meganne when she said that she was dissappionted in the fact that there was no &amp;quot;fighting&amp;quot;, I too thought the British fought back more. I also was wondering if when Hewes and the other colonists dressed up in &amp;quot;costumes of an indian&amp;quot;, 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of &amp;quot;all men being originally equals&amp;quot; seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine&amp;#039;s Common Sense he states that, &amp;quot;..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...&amp;quot; Doesn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Origin &amp;amp; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn&amp;#039;t support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cheda &amp;quot;Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain,&amp;quot; At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as &amp;quot;Giving eight beavers.&amp;quot; What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In George Hewes&amp;#039; memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom&amp;#039;s punishment isn&amp;#039;t severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Boston King&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;s servant and then after serving him, he went to other masters. -Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading &amp;quot;A Loyalist Judges&amp;#039;s Catalog of Rebellious Crowds&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a small detail and it probably doesn&amp;#039;t really make a huge difference to the article but in &amp;quot;Peter Oliver Origin &amp;amp; Progress of the American Revolution&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;t miss them?  Is this a detail that was added later on when the article was published? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t taken seriously by those who participated in them?  Wouldn&amp;#039;t they know that what they were about to do would ultimately alter the course of history?  -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;american&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To try to answer part of Dani&amp;#039;s question about the use of &amp;quot;Americans&amp;quot;, 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 &amp;quot;colonial rights had to be defended&amp;quot;, so maybe this was the beginning of Washington&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In George Hewes &amp;quot;Memoir&amp;quot;, 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In George Washington&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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?&lt;br /&gt;
 –Emily King&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-21T23:54:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;La Barre&amp;#039;s Failed Bluff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre&amp;#039;s Army)&amp;quot; Why didn&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Boston Massacre Oration&amp;quot;-- 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Memoir&amp;quot;-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes&amp;#039; account sort of &amp;quot;debunked&amp;quot; everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;to do no damage to the ship or rigging,&amp;quot; but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little &amp;quot;temper tantrum&amp;quot; so long as they didn&amp;#039;t damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of &amp;quot;all men being originally equals&amp;quot; seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine&amp;#039;s Common Sense he states that, &amp;quot;..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...&amp;quot; Doesn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Origin &amp;amp; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn&amp;#039;t support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cheda &amp;quot;Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain,&amp;quot; At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as &amp;quot;Giving eight beavers.&amp;quot; What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hewes&amp;#039; memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom&amp;#039;s punishment isn&amp;#039;t severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading &amp;quot;A Loyalist Judges&amp;#039;s Catalog of Rebellious Crowds&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a small detail and it probably doesn&amp;#039;t really make a huge difference to the article but in &amp;quot;Peter Oliver Origin &amp;amp; Progress of the American Revolution&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;t miss them?  Is this a detail that was added later on when the article was published? -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;t taken seriously by those who participated in them?  Wouldn&amp;#039;t they know that what they were about to do would ultimately alter the course of history?  -Jenna Shevlin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;american&amp;quot; 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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-21T23:40:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;La Barre&amp;#039;s Failed Bluff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre&amp;#039;s Army)&amp;quot; Why didn&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Boston Massacre Oration&amp;quot;-- 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Memoir&amp;quot;-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes&amp;#039; account sort of &amp;quot;debunked&amp;quot; everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn&amp;#039;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 &amp;quot;to do no damage to the ship or rigging,&amp;quot; but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little &amp;quot;temper tantrum&amp;quot; so long as they didn&amp;#039;t damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of &amp;quot;all men being originally equals&amp;quot; seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine&amp;#039;s Common Sense he states that, &amp;quot;..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...&amp;quot; Doesn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Origin &amp;amp; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;t make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn&amp;#039;t support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Shoemaker&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Cheda &amp;quot;Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain,&amp;quot; At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as &amp;quot;Giving eight beavers.&amp;quot; What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Hewes&amp;#039; memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom&amp;#039;s punishment isn&amp;#039;t severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading &amp;quot;A Loyalist Judges&amp;#039;s Catalog of Rebellious Crowds&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-15T00:10:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that Arthur got away with crimes so easily until his last. I would’ve thought that there would have been zero tolerance and punishment would have been harsh and immediate, especially for a slave. Was this because the crimes were against other blacks and it would have been far different if the victims had been white?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did it take so long for something to be done about everything this man was doing? And its interesting that nothing truly seemed to be done until this man raped a white woman.- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This may be a pretty stupid question but what is a Pistole Reward and why did only the advertisements in the VA paper say it? Were these ads really that effective? - Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson’s “A Scottish immigrant writes new from America”, Thomson claims that in North America, colonists are far from lazy, the climate is healthy, there is no fear of attack by Indians, no taxes, and religious liberty. His descriptions and comparisons to Europe make it apparent that a sense of American pride is developing. Was this the widespread feeling in America? What did Europeans think America was like?- Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; piece extremely interesting. It appears that women were able to hold property and I was wondering how common this was, especially due to the fact that in the past women commonly did not hold much property in their name. How common was it for women, especially Indians to write out wills? When did this practice start? Through reading the exerts from Calloway and Johnson it is so blatantly obvious that the Europeans used their religion as a means to justify their horrific treatments of Indians. They exploited Indians and their culture in order to advance their own prosperity. --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Calloway states it was their best chance for survival and to become protected servants of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware&amp;#039;s complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego&amp;#039;s diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 &amp;quot;Some people interpret Canasatego&amp;#039;s words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois.&amp;quot; Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-15T00:06:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that Arthur got away with crimes so easily until his last. I would’ve thought that there would have been zero tolerance and punishment would have been harsh and immediate, especially for a slave. Was this because the crimes were against other blacks and it would have been far different if the victims had been white?  -Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did it take so long for something to be done about everything this man was doing? And its interesting that nothing truly seemed to be done until this man raped a white woman.- Dani Jones&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson’s “A Scottish immigrant writes new from America”, Thomson claims that in North America, colonists are far from lazy, the climate is healthy, there is no fear of attack by Indians, no taxes, and religious liberty. His descriptions and comparisons to Europe make it apparent that a sense of American pride is developing. Was this the widespread feeling in America? What did Europeans think America was like?- Emily King&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; piece extremely interesting. It appears that women were able to hold property and I was wondering how common this was, especially due to the fact that in the past women commonly did not hold much property in their name. How common was it for women, especially Indians to write out wills? When did this practice start? Through reading the exerts from Calloway and Johnson it is so blatantly obvious that the Europeans used their religion as a means to justify their horrific treatments of Indians. They exploited Indians and their culture in order to advance their own prosperity. --Lindsay Bothwell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Calloway states it was their best chance for survival and to become protected servants of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware&amp;#039;s complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego&amp;#039;s diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 &amp;quot;Some people interpret Canasatego&amp;#039;s words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois.&amp;quot; Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-14T21:46:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Other Calloway */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Calloway states it was their best chance for survival and to become protected servants of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware&amp;#039;s complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego&amp;#039;s diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 &amp;quot;Some people interpret Canasatego&amp;#039;s words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois.&amp;quot; Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-14T21:45:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Other Calloway */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Callowway states it was their best chance for survival and to become supposed vassals of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware&amp;#039;s complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego&amp;#039;s diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 &amp;quot;Some people interpret Canasatego&amp;#039;s words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois.&amp;quot; Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-14T21:44:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Other Calloway */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Callowway states it was their best chance for survival and to become supposed vassals of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware&amp;#039;s complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego&amp;#039;s diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 &amp;quot;Some people interpret Canasatego&amp;#039;s words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois.&amp;quot; Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-14T21:22:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Other Calloway */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading.  First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time?  It&amp;#039;s mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time.  Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time.  I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership?  Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness.  Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur&amp;#039;s life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters?  - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson, reading &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot;, I also had questions.  With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn&amp;#039;t people have realized that it was the same person?  Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection?  It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I also was wondering about the community&amp;#039;s actions towards this man. Wouldn&amp;#039;t they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn&amp;#039;t even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren&amp;#039;t exactly positive? - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a thief and rapist&amp;quot; Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them.  For example, he&amp;#039;s whipped for stealing rum and clothes.  Didn&amp;#039;t people see that whipping slaves wasn&amp;#039;t severe enough as punishment?  It didn&amp;#039;t work; it didn&amp;#039;t keep him from committing more crimes.  Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment?  And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?&lt;br /&gt;
--Megan Malecha&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Confessions of a Thief and Rapist&amp;quot; I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we&amp;#039;ve been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one&amp;#039;s slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Confession of a Thief and a Rapist&amp;quot;--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did.  In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town.  Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did?  Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1757 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to &amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Advice&amp;quot; I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense.  Don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his &amp;quot;wit and wisdom&amp;quot; that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times.  Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything &amp;quot;may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot; (83)?  What&amp;#039;s the point of Franklin&amp;#039;s wisdom if you don&amp;#039;t have the &amp;quot;Blessing of Heaven&amp;quot;?  Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanac.  This frustrated me. - Landon James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Poor Richard&amp;#039;s Almanack&amp;quot;--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today&amp;#039;s society, I found Father Abraham&amp;#039;s speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can&amp;#039;t do anything because they&amp;#039;re being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;VA and SC Gazette&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 1737-1745 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in &amp;quot;Johnson&amp;#039;s Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;, I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards?Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in &amp;quot;confessions of a theif and rapist&amp;quot;?- Taylor Warner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading &amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot; I came across several times mention of &amp;quot;what the law allows&amp;quot; mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person&amp;#039;s slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband&amp;#039;s affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Advertisements for Runaway Slaves&amp;quot;--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves&amp;#039; shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials.  Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time?  In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway.  Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Johnson&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Scottish immigrant writes new from America&amp;quot; i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the &amp;quot;New World&amp;quot; but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn&amp;#039;t mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Alexander Thomson&amp;#039;s Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn&amp;#039;t mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn&amp;#039;t mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson&amp;#039;s letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Samson Occom&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards.  This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living.  Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example?  A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity.  Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture?  – Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Samson Occom&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Short Narrative of my life&amp;quot;, he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Calloway ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway, &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman.  She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written.  Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99).  Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’?  - Rory Reese&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account &amp;quot;Will&amp;quot; in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Callowway states it was their best chance for survival and to become supposed vassals of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-01-31T03:59:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Arabella Sermon ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Melissa Brokaw&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the sections of &amp;quot;A Model of Christian Charity&amp;quot; that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: &amp;quot;Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you&amp;quot;... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of &amp;quot;the golden rule&amp;quot; of &amp;quot;do unto others as you would have them do unto you.&amp;quot; This is something that I&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Roger Williams ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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, &amp;quot;Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American&amp;#039;s and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roger William&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffolk County Court Records ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by &amp;quot;the shape of the prisoner&amp;quot; i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the &amp;quot;ghost&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;gone a matter of three rods&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;grind her grist&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;divers months&amp;quot;. It&amp;#039;s interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....&amp;quot; and also the Free Exercise Clause, &amp;quot;...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&amp;quot; Which would make a significant amount of the so called &amp;quot;criminals&amp;quot; of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams&amp;#039; exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Suffolk County Court Records&amp;quot; one of the cases talked about &amp;quot;Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;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&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-01-31T03:47:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Arabella Sermon ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Melissa Brokaw&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the sections of &amp;quot;A Model of Christian Charity&amp;quot; that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: &amp;quot;Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you&amp;quot;... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of &amp;quot;the golden rule&amp;quot; of &amp;quot;do unto others as you would have them do unto you.&amp;quot; This is something that I&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Roger Williams ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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, &amp;quot;Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American&amp;#039;s and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roger William&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffolk County Court Records ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by &amp;quot;the shape of the prisoner&amp;quot; i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the &amp;quot;ghost&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;gone a matter of three rods&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;grind her grist&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;divers months&amp;quot;. It&amp;#039;s interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....&amp;quot; and also the Free Exercise Clause, &amp;quot;...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&amp;quot; Which would make a significant amount of the so called &amp;quot;criminals&amp;quot; of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams&amp;#039; exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Suffolk County Court Records&amp;quot; one of the cases talked about &amp;quot;Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-01-31T03:46:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Arabella Sermon ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Melissa Brokaw&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the sections of &amp;quot;A Model of Christian Charity&amp;quot; that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: &amp;quot;Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you&amp;quot;... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of &amp;quot;the golden rule&amp;quot; of &amp;quot;do unto others as you would have them do unto you.&amp;quot; This is something that I&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Roger Williams ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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, &amp;quot;Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American&amp;#039;s and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn&amp;#039;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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roger William&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffolk County Court Records ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by &amp;quot;the shape of the prisoner&amp;quot; i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the &amp;quot;ghost&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;gone a matter of three rods&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;grind her grist&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;divers months&amp;quot;. It&amp;#039;s interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....&amp;quot; and also the Free Exercise Clause, &amp;quot;...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&amp;quot; Which would make a significant amount of the so called &amp;quot;criminals&amp;quot; of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams&amp;#039; exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Suffolk County Court Records&amp;quot; one of the cases talked about &amp;quot;Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child...&amp;quot; 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&amp;#039;s expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>HIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-01-31T00:50:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: /* Suffolk County Court Records */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Arabella Sermon ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Melissa Brokaw&amp;#039;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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Roger Williams ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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, &amp;quot;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...&amp;quot; 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, &amp;quot;Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies...&amp;quot; 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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Roger William&amp;#039;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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suffolk County Court Records ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by &amp;quot;the shape of the prisoner&amp;quot; i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the &amp;quot;ghost&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;gone a matter of three rods&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;grind her grist&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;divers months&amp;quot;. It&amp;#039;s interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....&amp;quot; and also the Free Exercise Clause, &amp;quot;...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.&amp;quot; Which would make a significant amount of the so called &amp;quot;criminals&amp;quot; of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams&amp;#039; exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2007-11-28T22:58:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I enjoyed reading the account of Louisa May Alcott in Woloch when she was describing her period of nursing in the hospital. I knew that the conditions were bad but reading that account really made it clearer what they had to deal with, such as the lack of ventilation, which of course would not have helped the wounded and sick heal.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found Alcott&amp;#039;s journal interesting because she seems to be a woman looking for opportunity. She writes of &amp;quot;pent up energy&amp;quot;  and a want of &amp;quot;new experiences.&amp;quot; She seemed to have personal hopes the exceed what was allowed for women in the doctrine of separate spheres. Alcott took advantage of the war to gain new experiences.--Kelly Martin &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alcott&amp;#039;s journal seems to shed light on who these women nurses actually were. I typically find myself going along with the static ideas we may have about what they thought and felt, but this really shows their character behind the facade of who they are, as well as give insight as to what they were going through, why they were, and what kept them going. &amp;quot;Though often homesick, heartsick, and worn out, I like it, find real pleasure in comforting, tending, and cheering these poor souls who seem to love me...&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Up at six, dress by gaslight, run through my ward and throw up windows... poke the fire, add blankets, joke, coax, and command.&amp;quot; She also shows the affection nurses grew to have for their patients, at one point calling them her &amp;quot;big babies&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;my boys&amp;quot; which I thought was cute and funny. -- Vanessa Smiley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alcott&amp;#039;s piece also shows how a certain type of women were attracted to the nursing profession: young, single, and adventurous.  -- F. Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having long been an admirer of Louisa May Alcott&amp;#039;s writings I was thrilled and facinated to read her journal about her time as a nurse. Her writing style was such that you can almost see what she was seeing and feel what she felt. It was also an example of what we talked about in class, women taking opportunities to go and do something that they otherwise would not have and that they were just as susceptible to illness as their patients. --Mary P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the men have left/ Women take over the farm/ We do what we must. (Inspired by &amp;quot;Northern Women on Farms&amp;quot;; he did say we could do haikus). I liked reading this account because to me it shows how much women were willing to change in some cases in order to adjust to the men leaving for war and in order to make the farm continue to succeed. These women were great motivators, or could have been if they had encouraged others to do the same.- Elizabeth Lynn Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Clarissa Burdett&amp;#039;s affidavit, I was surprised that Burdett would run away and leave her children behind, potentially to suffer the same abuse she endured. Because Burdett&amp;#039;s torture was the punishment for her husband and niece&amp;#039;s running away, wouldn&amp;#039;t Burdett&amp;#039;s running away cause the master to be especially cruel to her children?-- Kelly Martin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine the pain and anguish that Clarissa Burdett experienced.  That said, I would think that she had to make a descision at that moment, to run away to to be potentialy beaten to death.  If her master beats her to death there is still no one there to protect her children. She knew that she could not take them with her, so she made the desicion to leave them and sought help from the Union army to help her remove her children from the situation.  I wish that we could know from the readings what became of her and her children, but in my opinion she choose the only option that she thought was available to her that was in the potential best interest of her and her children. --Mary P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Eva Jones&amp;#039; letters, there was one thing she said that seemed to emphasize what we discussed in class as to the shock of some southerns that their slaves were not in fact happy and left. &amp;quot;Adelline, Grace, and Polly have all departed in search of freedom, without bidding any of us an affectionate adieu.&amp;quot; -- Vanessa Smiley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by the women who strongly criticized other women following the Civil War, did they do this only because they were unable to directly attack men? - F. Cobb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2007-11-08T05:02:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I really enjoyed reading the account of Jannicke Saehle.  She was so happy and enthusiastic in her letter to her brother.  Though she was sick for four days of the voyage, she did not mind.  She was so excited to be on her way to America.  We discussed in class that many unmarried immigrant women suffered tremendously on their voyage over and upon their arrival.  I realize this was true of most immigrant women, however, I found it refreshing to read such a positive account.--E. Hufford&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading Jannicke Saehle&amp;#039;s letter to her brother in the piece titled, &amp;quot;A Norwegian Immigrant in Wisconsin,&amp;quot; I was shocked about how cheerful she was regarding her situation.  She was thrilled to be making 1 dollar a week, which was strange to me, for many women mentioned in Sanger&amp;#039;s study had made the same salary, had found it insufficient and thus decided to become prostitutes. Perhaps Saehle is so positive about her experience because she had just recently arrived in America, and had yet to encounter some of the harsh realities that other immigrants in New York faced. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Juliann.  Jannicke probably was naïve to the realities of her new home. But how wonderful to be as optimistic as she seems to be.---Cheryl&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading Xin Jin&amp;#039;s Contract, I remembered what Dr. McClurken had said about how the Chinese were the most exploited of all the immigrant groups.  Although, in the contract, it mentions that Xin Jin had volunteered in her service of prostitution to pay off her debt, more than likely, there was manipulation going on there.  How can someone consent when they don&amp;#039;t understand what is being said to them? The language barrier alone must have been a reason why so many Chinese immigrants initially had &amp;quot;consented&amp;quot; to prostitution.  I was a little disturbed when I read the part in her contract where it mentions additional work time in the instances of sickness or pregnancy, in that profession, how can one expect not to face such obstacles?  When reading this piece, I got the impression that prostitution was an endless reality for many of the immigrant Chinese women, one without pay or hope of successfully getting out. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised at how similar all of the prostitution contracts were.  Pretty much all of them referred to four or four and a half years of service, time off for the four diseases, if she is sick for more than 15 days then she works for a month extra and if she is pregnant she will serve an extra year.  Was it such a regular and established practice that everyone already knew the &amp;quot;going rate?&amp;quot;--Alex K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading &amp;quot;A Citizen Protests the Rape of Indian Women in California, 1862,&amp;quot; I found it interesting that the person writing this was so outraged by the soldier&amp;#039;s rape of Indian squaws.  The writer goes as far as to ask that if the Lieutenant of the soldiers was present during this rape, that his rank and position be stripped of him.  I wonder if the writer would have had the same reaction had it been black women rather than Indian women who were raped.--E. Hufford&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Green’s Account of Frontier Life in Colorado, 1887, did not surprise me how she felt about Colorado’s Great American Desert.  It really is not a desert but a prairie.  To a person who lived all their life in a wooded area, the prairie would look like a desert.  Colorado’s prairies can actually be rather beautiful at certain times of the year.  Many different kinds of wildlife inhabit the prairie especially back in the 1880s.  It was too bad that Mrs. Green was too homesick and depressed to marvel at the different land that she now had a chance to experience.  Though I do understand her feelings because that is how I felt when I moved from Colorado to Virginia. ---Cheryl&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Susan Shelby Magoffin seemed to have adapted to her life in Santa Fe New Mexico.  I liked how she was happy to embrace the company of her family and friends.  I thought her descriptions of the people she encountered were wonderful.  I felt it showed just how much she enjoyed her new experiences.---Cheryl&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also was surprised to read such a positive account from an immigrant coming to America.  Although her trip over to New York sounded very difficult she is remarkably cheerful throughout the letter and credits God for getting her through the journey.  In response to Juliann’s comment I’m guessing that Ms. Saehle is pleased with her $1.00 a week wages because they were more than she would have been able to earn in Norway.  At the end of her letter Ms. Saehle makes a note that she received three acres of land for her work as a servant to the Torjersen family.  Was giving land to new immigrants a common way to reimburse them?  This form of reimbursement seems like an excellent way to help immigrants start their new lives in America.  -Caitlin Quinn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in regards to Jannicke Saehle&amp;#039;s wage, I think she would be happy with the amount because she has the opportunity to earn a raise.  This is probably something that wouldn&amp;#039;t have happened in Norway.  - F. Cobb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading Sanger&amp;#039;s (Woloch) documentation of New York prostitutes I was wondering why he was so sympathetic?  Perhaps it is also a reflection of Sanger&amp;#039;s view towards women (women were too weak to resist temptation or seduction)? - F. Cobb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2007-10-30T04:33:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;192.65.245.47: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Woloch’s book--I found the reading The Cruel Mistress, to be a form of abolitionist propaganda to raise the argument about how inhumane slavery is. Angelina Grimke Weld would give great credibility to the abolitionist movement because of her observations of the southern community as she was once a southern herself.  These observations are highly detailed as if it was fresh from her memories yet these accounts in her memories are at least fourteen years old.  Thus it begs the question, did these mistresses really conduct themselves this way according to what Weld had witnessed? Are her memories that reliable? Or are these observations, in how mistresses treated their slaves, facts or exaggerations of the facts? –John Furner  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is likely that these mistresses did conduct themselves in a way very similar to Weld&amp;#039;s accounts even though a decent amount of time had passed between when she had witnessed the actions and when she recorded them for publishing. The treatment that she described I believe was very common of the slave owners to not see their slaves as fully human and therefore not treat them as such. However, the treatment that stood out most to me during this entry was how the mistress would not beat the slaves herself but have that slave&amp;#039;s brother or sister beat them. I would think this would make them want to act out more.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Woloch’ Book—Reading Louisa S. Cheeves McCord attack on Stowe was a bit difficult to swallow. It seems to me that she plays right into the Patriarchal system of having to assume the role to take care of those less fortunate.  Otherwise, she attempts to give credence to southern white man’s burden for the purpose to have slaves.  I find it amusing when she writes, “We proclaim it, on the contrary, a Godlike dispensation, a providential caring for the weak, and a refuge for the portionless.” (219)  Why I find this amusing is that she believes the white race must assume a god like status in the care of the less fortunate, thereby the less fortunate group could only prosper in a civilized world,  if they were enslaved by the white race; white man’s burden.  However, if the white race were so godlike or given providence as she claims, then why are southern slave owners dependant on slaves for their very existence?—John Furner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this week’s readings we see the cruelty of slavery for women, through the abuse and sexual exploitation of black women. Even whites were morally opposed to the institution of slavery as seen by Mary Chestnut’s diary. I was taken back by the popularity of masters forcing sexual relations between men and women. I knew it was a practice, however I was under the impression that slave breeding was not very popular, and mostly masters relied on natural reproduction. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of slave breeding? In the essay by Jennings, she explicitly discusses the role of white, slave owners in the sexual abuse of women. Did masters rape and abuse women simply because they could or did the sexual stereotypes of African American women of the time (“animal – like”, foreign, African queens, exotic, sexually aggressive, etc.) play into it? How did mistresses react to the relationships between masters and female slaves and illegitimate children? Are there examples of mistresses mistreating a woman she suspected was sleeping with her husband (I know Weld discusses the “cruel mistress” but I did not get the impression that her violence was deemed inappropriate or based on accusations of infidelity). Was there any advantage(s) to sleeping with the master? -Mary Beth D&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>192.65.245.47</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />