Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=199.111.68.28McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:17:12ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T02:11:02Z<p>199.111.68.28: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." 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~<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln'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~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". 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<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week'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<br />
<br />
<br />
"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." 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<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "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". 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<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." 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<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "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..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". 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<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". 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<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf</div>199.111.68.28https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T05:46:35Z<p>199.111.68.28: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn'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'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't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
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't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "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." (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<br />
<br />
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 "culture"? 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<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". 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<br />
<br />
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' point of view. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
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 "Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me." 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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
I am very confused when reading Douglass' 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 "quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other". They've seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer'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't they hear of "good" masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect? How can they "mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately", yet believe that their master is the best one? Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn't fight for their masters. Granted, they wouldn't talk terribly about them, yet wouldn't they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
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't flat out abolish it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Was it dangerous for Frederick Douglass to have published this memoir? Would his ex-masters have sent people after him, or was he completely safe where he was? It seems that his memoir would create a lot of enemies. --Gracie<br />
<br />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "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." 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, "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". 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's kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances. I don't doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations. You don't see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
How come, during the time of the greatest relgious revival in America, the government committed it's biggest crimes against humanity. This was the time period that the Indians were being removed from their original lands, and slavery was very prevalent. I'm sure some people had to be sincere in their conversions... --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké'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't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
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'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't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee'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't be happy with what I recieved. You'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' 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<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" 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<br />
<br />
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's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
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 "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there'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</div>199.111.68.28https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T01:30:33Z<p>199.111.68.28: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "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..." 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'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<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn'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<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don'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<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (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<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" 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 "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." 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's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In reading Bennet Barrow'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<br />
<br />
The last line of Bennet Barrow's journal, "Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious" seems to contradict Southern morals. Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn'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 "any man" and not just "a northern man". 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 "injurious"? Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "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," 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<br />
<br />
In response to Laura'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<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' 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<br />
<br />
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 "confessions" 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'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<br />
<br />
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's Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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 "Eden" 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 "old south" 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<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? 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 "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn'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<br />
<br />
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 "house", feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages. Also, the "houses" 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'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 "good slave" 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren'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't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". 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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" 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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece? Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
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</div>199.111.68.28https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T03:02:47Z<p>199.111.68.28: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death."(183) This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf <br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin</div>199.111.68.28https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T03:18:33Z<p>199.111.68.28: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf <br />
<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie</div>199.111.68.28 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38