Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=199.111.69.175McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:37:28ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T11:59:15Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In response to Gracie's comment... I have to disagree. I think he had in his mind what he wanted, but emphasized less objectionable subjects in his speeches. It's clear to me he wanted to stay a united union, but just because he wanted that he makes clear, did not mean he had to go only one way to approach it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, His stance was to unite, but he was willing to keep a united nation either by keeping slavery or not. As the war progressed he began to believe that slavery must be eliminated to be truly united. I might be the only person that feels that way though. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article they talked about gold vs. green backs, and I was wondering how they determined how much gold was worth how many green backs?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
This article mentioned a "mature age" and I was just wondering what age that was and how it was determined?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In the indidents of the riot, I was unsure of the brutal acts against the black man. Wasn't he free? Is the what we discussed in class, about white taken advantage of all blacks and claiming them their property even when they were free?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
What was the real reason Sherman wanted to evacuate the city of Atlanta? Was he really just looking to make it easier for his men or was there a deeper message he was trying to send to the Confederacy in general? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
Outside of violence and intimidation like was described in this passage, did the KKK have any tangible power in the South or was this their sole source of influence? Were its members ever elected to state political positions or seats within Congress? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T11:58:56Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In response to Gracie's comment... I have to disagree. I think he had in his mind what he wanted, but emphasized less objectionable subjects in his speeches. It's clear to me he wanted to stay a united union, but just because he wanted that he makes clear, did not mean he had to go only one way to approach it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, His stance was to unite, but he was willing to keep a united nation either by keeping slavery or not. As the war progressed he began to believe that slavery must be eliminated to be truly united. I might be the only person that feels that way though. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article they talked about gold vs. green backs, and I was wondering how they determined how much gold was worth how many green backs?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
This article mentioned a "mature age" and I was just wondering what age that was and how it was determined?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In the indidents of the riot, I was unsure of the brutal acts against the black man. Wasn't he free? Is the what we discussed in class, about white taken advantage of all blacks and claiming them their property even when they were free?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
What was the real reason Sherman wanted to evacuate the city of Atlanta? Was he really just looking to make it easier for his men or was there a deeper message he was trying to send to the Confederacy in general? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
Outside of violence and intimidation like was described in this passage, did the KKK have any tangible power in the South or was this the sole source of influence? Were its members ever elected to state political positions or seats within Congress? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T11:49:07Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Sherman and the Hard Hand of War */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article they talked about gold vs. green backs, and I was wondering how they determined how much gold was worth how many green backs?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
What was the real reason Sherman wanted to evacuate the city of Atlanta? Was he really just looking to make it easier for his men or was there a deeper message he was trying to send to the Confederacy in general? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T11:46:57Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T06:18:31Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<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 />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<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>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T06:14:41Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<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 />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<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<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T06:03:50Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<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<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T06:02:53Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? (Or would be considered straight up as crazy as Ron Paul?) -Adam Shlossman<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<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T05:57:40Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? (Or would be considered straight up as crazy as Ron Paul?) -Adam Shlossman<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>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T05:56:13Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 */</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 />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a straightforward question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<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>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T07:00:51Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom */</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 />
After reading this journal i finally realized what made Bennett Barrows act the way hi did towards his slaves. Saying when you dress and combs your slaves it can give you a sense of pride and makes you feel proud. I believe that he thought how he treated his slaves was very fair and he made them better people. I dont know if this is true because I dont know how other slave owners treated their slaves.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner<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 />
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm. Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation? And would Bennet Barrow be considered a "nicer" master during his time? I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason. Also, why is the word "Pass" capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
It seemed like he treated his slaves like a protective father would treat his daughter today. Not allow them to go out and keep a close watch on them. I bet the slaves like him somewhat becuase he took good care of them but also hated him becuase they were not allowed to go out and have a good time or even just get away from the plantation for a while.-Bryan Quintana<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 />
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves. He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.” Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security. But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control. Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think. In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important. But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that. I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves). ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting. However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, "No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation" (244). While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations? If so, how did they meet these women? I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that "[negro's] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment." This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
It's interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, "you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you." The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren't to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i'm pretty sure didn't work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery. He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead. I wonder how he treated his kids.<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 />
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: "Seek ye the kingdom of heaven..." he was strucked by it that he "reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject." Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one's energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
<br />
This passage was quite interesting. When Nat Turner said, "And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand" (250). This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a 'new day of judgment' for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing. This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner's extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn't he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I want to focus on the psychology behind this passage. Nat Turner was not incredibly educated-he had studied the Bible, but it doesn't sound like he had been introduced into outside reason. It sounds like he reads until he finds something he can twist into backing his cause, but he does not seem to be influenced himself by ideas and knowledge. He had not been taught as well to rely on reason, so he relied on passion. Because of the wounds he suffered (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)his passion was more likely to be violent, acting out of hurt. He does not have a lot of grounding in education, so his reasoning can go anywhere and seem to make sense to him and anyone who is willing to buy into it. In this case, not educating slaves hurt the masters. A more educated slave would have been more gentle. Frederick Douglass spoke about when he gave up on his education and was reduced to a beast. He was unfeeling and hardened. When he decided to embrace knowledge again and thinking, he softened. --Gracie Ofslager<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 />
What does Hammond mean when he says "Slavery in the abstract"? I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him. Why does he say, "I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any," yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo <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 />
I've never understood how slaveholders could say that they don't think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist. In the beginning of Hammond's letter he states, "If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not." But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders "cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property." -Mary Johnston<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 />
I liked the line Hammond used, "There are few universal truths." This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery. Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, "slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were "entrusted" to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and "proper kindness" but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. "It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied..." how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I hate to be the one to open Pandora's box here, but I couldn't help but notice that many parts of Hammond's defense of slaveholding are nearly identical to the arguments made by prominent activists and politicians against gay marriage in modern America. Where do we draw the line on biblical scripture to determine what is or is not culturally relevant if codes are, as Hammond put it, "what God ordains and Christ sanctifies"? At the same time, have we learned anything from this whole debate about slavery? -Adam Shlossman<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 />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that "the are a great cuss to this country", yet before it seemed that he did'nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don't matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner<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 />
Reading this piece really made me wonder, how exactly did Southern plantation owners get by with the loss of all of their slaves following the Civil War? Considering a great deal of their wealth was invested in purchasing those slaves, as well as their massive plots of land to grow cotton, tobacco, corn, and other crops, what means did they have besides their and their children's labor to cultivate that land? -Adam Shlossman<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<br />
<br />
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were. It’s like they were two totally separate countries. Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south? If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost? In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)? I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time? <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T06:44:40Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” */</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 />
After reading this journal i finally realized what made Bennett Barrows act the way hi did towards his slaves. Saying when you dress and combs your slaves it can give you a sense of pride and makes you feel proud. I believe that he thought how he treated his slaves was very fair and he made them better people. I dont know if this is true because I dont know how other slave owners treated their slaves.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner<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 />
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm. Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation? And would Bennet Barrow be considered a "nicer" master during his time? I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason. Also, why is the word "Pass" capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
It seemed like he treated his slaves like a protective father would treat his daughter today. Not allow them to go out and keep a close watch on them. I bet the slaves like him somewhat becuase he took good care of them but also hated him becuase they were not allowed to go out and have a good time or even just get away from the plantation for a while.-Bryan Quintana<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 />
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves. He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.” Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security. But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control. Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think. In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important. But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that. I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves). ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting. However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, "No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation" (244). While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations? If so, how did they meet these women? I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that "[negro's] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment." This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
It's interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, "you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you." The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren't to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i'm pretty sure didn't work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery. He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead. I wonder how he treated his kids.<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 />
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: "Seek ye the kingdom of heaven..." he was strucked by it that he "reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject." Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one's energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
<br />
This passage was quite interesting. When Nat Turner said, "And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand" (250). This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a 'new day of judgment' for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing. This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner's extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn't he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I want to focus on the psychology behind this passage. Nat Turner was not incredibly educated-he had studied the Bible, but it doesn't sound like he had been introduced into outside reason. It sounds like he reads until he finds something he can twist into backing his cause, but he does not seem to be influenced himself by ideas and knowledge. He had not been taught as well to rely on reason, so he relied on passion. Because of the wounds he suffered (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)his passion was more likely to be violent, acting out of hurt. He does not have a lot of grounding in education, so his reasoning can go anywhere and seem to make sense to him and anyone who is willing to buy into it. In this case, not educating slaves hurt the masters. A more educated slave would have been more gentle. Frederick Douglass spoke about when he gave up on his education and was reduced to a beast. He was unfeeling and hardened. When he decided to embrace knowledge again and thinking, he softened. --Gracie Ofslager<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 />
What does Hammond mean when he says "Slavery in the abstract"? I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him. Why does he say, "I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any," yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo <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 />
I've never understood how slaveholders could say that they don't think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist. In the beginning of Hammond's letter he states, "If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not." But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders "cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property." -Mary Johnston<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 />
I liked the line Hammond used, "There are few universal truths." This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery. Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, "slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were "entrusted" to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and "proper kindness" but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. "It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied..." how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I hate to be the one to open Pandora's box here, but I couldn't help but notice that many parts of Hammond's defense of slaveholding are nearly identical to the arguments made by prominent activists and politicians against gay marriage in modern America. Where do we draw the line on biblical scripture to determine what is or is not culturally relevant if codes are, as Hammond put it, "what God ordains and Christ sanctifies"? At the same time, have we learned anything from this whole debate about slavery? -Adam Shlossman<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 />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that "the are a great cuss to this country", yet before it seemed that he did'nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don't matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner<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<br />
<br />
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were. It’s like they were two totally separate countries. Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south? If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost? In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)? I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time? <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-28T05:32:22Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Henry bellow says, "We are not prepared to allow that wealth is more valued in America than elsewhere, but in other countries the successful pursuit of it is necessarily confied to a few, while here it is open to all." I found this comment interesting, because when I read it, I understand it to mean that Bellow's wants an elite, a monarch to serve. As if he believes in the dominant controlling group that all of the commoners work to please. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Bellow makes the claim of Americans caught up in their pursuit of wealth, "We are not a happy people. And it is true." If this is an accurate statement of this country at the time, I was wondering if this, perhaps, was a confounding variable in the tensions between the North and South that were starting to build. Can we argue that America was a country so overworked and stressed out that it needed its civil war to release those tensions, as well as provide a break from the everyday monotony of commodities exchange? <br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The notion that people opposed slavery in CA because it could led to slaves running away and amassing wealth is one of those things that undermines everything you learn in high school history. It seems that we are given this idea that people strongly opposed slavery because it was wrong and they had strong abolitionist ties, which is not the case here. It makes me wonder how many people really opposed slavery for moral reasons and how many opposed it because it interferred with their interests? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I was wondering what exactly the "American Fork" was? Also it is interesting how bitter Colton seems to be about the good fortune of commoners who prosper from the gold rush. Was it common for a man in the west at this time to have such a traditional view of how society should be arranged, i.e.: "the master and servant" idea that he mentions?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In A Farmer's View of His Wife, I was puzzled by the reaction of the farmer when asked why he had a wife. The statement, "I reckon women are some like horses and oxen, the biggest can do the most work, and that's what I want one for"(pg. 229). Is this how the majority of men felt about their wives who lived on farms? Also, how did these men go about choosing their wives? Were their certain restrictions on who they could marry? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In response to Taylor's question I think the cage is a metaphor for the house and bird is a metaphor for the wife to symbolize that the wife is "caged" in like a bird. At least that was how I was reading it. I also found something interesting, the farmer certainly doesn't seem to have a whole lot of respect for his wife but ELiza herself asks him if he wouldn't like to come home to someone with a "pleasant face" which also shows a lack of appreciation for the wife. It seems that she thinks a wife should be pretty and soft spoken while the man thinks that she should be helpful and strong on the farm. So I would say they both have a dated perception of a woman's place, with neither one being right.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I feel like this particular interpretation of the view of a wife is an extreme. The farmer obviously views his wife as property and is only interested in how she could help him on the farm and around the house. However, I wonder if this is how all farmers are, or if he is an exception. It also makes me wonder if this is how all men at the time viewed their wives, or just farmers. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
This farmer sees women only as property and nothing more. He gave no thought at all to her feelings or wants. I was just wondering if this was the view of many men at this time? Were they all this extreme? My second question is, since Eliza Farnham was the one interviewing this farmer, and he so obviously thought women were only property, why would he have bothered to answer her questions? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I knew women were not treated that well at this time, but I was pretty appalled by the way he just referred to his new wife as property. He viewed her as merely a business transaction he felt necessary because he said he was tired of 'totin his plunder back and forth' so he thought he might as well get a wife of his own. I would just like to say, I am very glad to be living today where I am treated well and respected as I am currently and will always expect to be. A few times in this reading they make the distinction between this farmer and Yankees. Would women be treated any differently with "Yankee" men, or is this just the way women were commonly regarded during this time? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Based on Quincey's statements and questions, I'm wondering this farmer (like most farmers at this time) married so he would eventually have children, which meant free help with the farm work.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the newly married farmer, expressing such lowly opinions of women, had this long of a conversation with a woman. It seems that Eliza did not express her opinions very strongly in the conversation in order to encourage the farmer to continue talking. Does the fact that Eliza is a "Yankee" have anything to do with why the farmer will talk with her?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think that the underlying reason why many people are so shocked by this document is because it is so accurate. In response to some of the questions posed above, I do not think these are merely the thoughts of a farmer, but of just about every man at this time. Perhaps however, farmers were a little behind in socialization since they tended to be more isolated. Even if this was the cause though, I still think most men at the time possessed these primary thoughts, particularly about women being “property.” ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
This seems in a way a little exaggerated. I know that doing the housework were women's responsibility, but I had no idea that husbands had no feelings for their wives at all. However, what's more interesrting is that the farmer's wife agrees with him. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating "grievances", listing what the women wanted. We've talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn't care or paid much attention. Given the history women's rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren't finished fighting for women's rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
We learned that white men rationalized slavery of blacks because they considered them less than human. Is this the same reason women had very little rights? Were women considered subhuman at this time? -Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Davy Crockett just exaggerated his hunting skills to become famous and well-known? Aside from that, the frontier generates an idea that the men are standoffish and mean, that they're kind of like Michael Caine and Robert Duvall's characters in "Secondhand Lions"--they sit on their front porch and shoot trespassers or things that annoy them. Davy Crockett's story here contradicts that by portraying the frontiersmen as being good neighbors and helping them when their food supply was low. Or maybe frontiersmen were nice to their neighbors and mean to everyone else... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to everyone's disbelief at this proud frontiersman's epic bear killing claims, I would like to note that I also do not believe for one moment Crockett massacred that many bears. Here's why: It is common knowledge he ultimately died at the hands of Mexican militiamen with primitive weapons. Bears are several hundred pound killing machines. If he could take on the latter, the former would certainly not have been an issue. Additionally, in response to why he would make this up when he was running for political office, when you think about the petty issues of today that affect votes (the fact that George W. Bush swayed the 2000 election by being voted overwhelmingly the man America would most like to enjoy a beer with) it is really no surprise a society of rugged outdoorsmen and adventurers would more likely vote for a man who claimed to be such a glorious hunter.<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Even though it doesn't relate exactly to this reading, I was also curious about the comment "as rich as a Jew." Where did the wealthy Jewish stereotype come from? Were there even any Jews around in America at this time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
<br />
I feel like it's obvious that David Crockett killed that many bears in an attempt to prove his masculinity and also simply for sport. I think he simply enjoyed hunting, as many people do today. Tennessee is a pretty southern area where today we see lots of hunting as a sport. It was quoted a few times where he says someone asked him to go hunting again and he just couldnt refuse. Obviously it was not necessary for him to kill 105 bears in one year simply to survive, he did it for pleasure. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that his stories were probably heavily exaggerated, I find it odd Crockett bragged about his hunting skills to not only gain recognition from his neighbors, but also politically. I guess it could be because showing such "masculine" and callous behavior in his recreational activities might carry into his politics and make others view him as a cutt-throat businessman. But while portraying this tough, ruthless behavior, his story also manages to find a way to make him look compassionate for other people and helps them to get food. Personally, I can never respect someone who hunts purely for game, but you can see how this could play well in giving Crockett a following if he is in a society/time that idolizes hunters. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Despite whether or not David Crockett was actually exaggerating, I still feel as though this document has value. Rather than focusing on the validity of his story, I think we should focus more on the underlying insight that we gain from it. By looking past the actual story and its soundness, we gain knowledge about the lifestyle customs of the time (1830’s), as well as some of the concerns and perceptions of “manliness”… which might explain WHY Crockett was exaggerating in the first place. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
I can see that this narrative is very exaggerated not only in terms of of how many bears he killed but also how he killed them. Especially when he describes of his account of killing a bear in the dark. But besides that it seems as if he is a really good person like where he helps a man who was grubbing all alone for meat. It also seems as if Crockett does not think highly of agricultural in that he thinks grubbing will not bring him much meat compared to hunting. So you can see that hunting was a primary source for food. Also, Crockett seems to be very proud of his skill for hunting. His neighbor and friends give him their hunting grounds and they get a share of his meat. Also it's interesting that he references a Jew. Were all Jews richer than other groups? ****Eun Yi</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-28T05:09:15Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Henry bellow says, "We are not prepared to allow that wealth is more valued in America than elsewhere, but in other countries the successful pursuit of it is necessarily confied to a few, while here it is open to all." I found this comment interesting, because when I read it, I understand it to mean that Bellow's wants an elite, a monarch to serve. As if he believes in the dominant controlling group that all of the commoners work to please. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The notion that people opposed slavery in CA because it could led to slaves running away and amassing wealth is one of those things that undermines everything you learn in high school history. It seems that we are given this idea that people strongly opposed slavery because it was wrong and they had strong abolitionist ties, which is not the case here. It makes me wonder how many people really opposed slavery for moral reasons and how many opposed it because it interferred with their interests? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I was wondering what exactly the "American Fork" was? Also it is interesting how bitter Colton seems to be about the good fortune of commoners who prosper from the gold rush. Was it common for a man in the west at this time to have such a traditional view of how society should be arranged, i.e.: "the master and servant" idea that he mentions?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In A Farmer's View of His Wife, I was puzzled by the reaction of the farmer when asked why he had a wife. The statement, "I reckon women are some like horses and oxen, the biggest can do the most work, and that's what I want one for"(pg. 229). Is this how the majority of men felt about their wives who lived on farms? Also, how did these men go about choosing their wives? Were their certain restrictions on who they could marry? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In response to Taylor's question I think the cage is a metaphor for the house and bird is a metaphor for the wife to symbolize that the wife is "caged" in like a bird. At least that was how I was reading it. I also found something interesting, the farmer certainly doesn't seem to have a whole lot of respect for his wife but ELiza herself asks him if he wouldn't like to come home to someone with a "pleasant face" which also shows a lack of appreciation for the wife. It seems that she thinks a wife should be pretty and soft spoken while the man thinks that she should be helpful and strong on the farm. So I would say they both have a dated perception of a woman's place, with neither one being right.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I feel like this particular interpretation of the view of a wife is an extreme. The farmer obviously views his wife as property and is only interested in how she could help him on the farm and around the house. However, I wonder if this is how all farmers are, or if he is an exception. It also makes me wonder if this is how all men at the time viewed their wives, or just farmers. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
This farmer sees women only as property and nothing more. He gave no thought at all to her feelings or wants. I was just wondering if this was the view of many men at this time? Were they all this extreme? My second question is, since Eliza Farnham was the one interviewing this farmer, and he so obviously thought women were only property, why would he have bothered to answer her questions? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I knew women were not treated that well at this time, but I was pretty appalled by the way he just referred to his new wife as property. He viewed her as merely a business transaction he felt necessary because he said he was tired of 'totin his plunder back and forth' so he thought he might as well get a wife of his own. I would just like to say, I am very glad to be living today where I am treated well and respected as I am currently and will always expect to be. A few times in this reading they make the distinction between this farmer and Yankees. Would women be treated any differently with "Yankee" men, or is this just the way women were commonly regarded during this time? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Based on Quincey's statements and questions, I'm wondering this farmer (like most farmers at this time) married so he would eventually have children, which meant free help with the farm work.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the newly married farmer, expressing such lowly opinions of women, had this long of a conversation with a woman. It seems that Eliza did not express her opinions very strongly in the conversation in order to encourage the farmer to continue talking. Does the fact that Eliza is a "Yankee" have anything to do with why the farmer will talk with her?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think that the underlying reason why many people are so shocked by this document is because it is so accurate. In response to some of the questions posed above, I do not think these are merely the thoughts of a farmer, but of just about every man at this time. Perhaps however, farmers were a little behind in socialization since they tended to be more isolated. Even if this was the cause though, I still think most men at the time possessed these primary thoughts, particularly about women being “property.” ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
This seems in a way a little exaggerated. I know that doing the housework were women's responsibility, but I had no idea that husbands had no feelings for their wives at all. However, what's more interesrting is that the farmer's wife agrees with him. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating "grievances", listing what the women wanted. We've talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn't care or paid much attention. Given the history women's rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren't finished fighting for women's rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
We learned that white men rationalized slavery of blacks because they considered them less than human. Is this the same reason women had very little rights? Were women considered subhuman at this time? -Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Davy Crockett just exaggerated his hunting skills to become famous and well-known? Aside from that, the frontier generates an idea that the men are standoffish and mean, that they're kind of like Michael Caine and Robert Duvall's characters in "Secondhand Lions"--they sit on their front porch and shoot trespassers or things that annoy them. Davy Crockett's story here contradicts that by portraying the frontiersmen as being good neighbors and helping them when their food supply was low. Or maybe frontiersmen were nice to their neighbors and mean to everyone else... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to everyone's disbelief at this proud frontiersman's epic bear killing claims, I would like to note that I also do not believe for one moment Crockett massacred that many bears. Here's why: It is common knowledge he ultimately died at the hands of Mexican militiamen with primitive weapons. Bears are several hundred pound killing machines. If he could take on the latter, the former would certainly not have been an issue. Additionally, in response to why he would make this up when he was running for political office, when you think about the petty issues of today that affect votes (the fact that George W. Bush swayed the 2000 election by being voted overwhelmingly the man America would most like to enjoy a beer with) it is really no surprise a society of rugged outdoorsmen and adventurers would more likely vote for a man who claimed to be such a glorious hunter.<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Even though it doesn't relate exactly to this reading, I was also curious about the comment "as rich as a Jew." Where did the wealthy Jewish stereotype come from? Were there even any Jews around in America at this time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
<br />
I feel like it's obvious that David Crockett killed that many bears in an attempt to prove his masculinity and also simply for sport. I think he simply enjoyed hunting, as many people do today. Tennessee is a pretty southern area where today we see lots of hunting as a sport. It was quoted a few times where he says someone asked him to go hunting again and he just couldnt refuse. Obviously it was not necessary for him to kill 105 bears in one year simply to survive, he did it for pleasure. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that his stories were probably heavily exaggerated, I find it odd Crockett bragged about his hunting skills to not only gain recognition from his neighbors, but also politically. I guess it could be because showing such "masculine" and callous behavior in his recreational activities might carry into his politics and make others view him as a cutt-throat businessman. But while portraying this tough, ruthless behavior, his story also manages to find a way to make him look compassionate for other people and helps them to get food. Personally, I can never respect someone who hunts purely for game, but you can see how this could play well in giving Crockett a following if he is in a society/time that idolizes hunters. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Despite whether or not David Crockett was actually exaggerating, I still feel as though this document has value. Rather than focusing on the validity of his story, I think we should focus more on the underlying insight that we gain from it. By looking past the actual story and its soundness, we gain knowledge about the lifestyle customs of the time (1830’s), as well as some of the concerns and perceptions of “manliness”… which might explain WHY Crockett was exaggerating in the first place. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
I can see that this narrative is very exaggerated not only in terms of of how many bears he killed but also how he killed them. Especially when he describes of his account of killing a bear in the dark. But besides that it seems as if he is a really good person like where he helps a man who was grubbing all alone for meat. It also seems as if Crockett does not think highly of agricultural in that he thinks grubbing will not bring him much meat compared to hunting. So you can see that hunting was a primary source for food. Also, Crockett seems to be very proud of his skill for hunting. His neighbor and friends give him their hunting grounds and they get a share of his meat. Also it's interesting that he references a Jew. Were all Jews richer than other groups? ****Eun Yi</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T11:44:12Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women */</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 />
I understand that in "A Jeffersonian Sailmakers Fourth of July Address" when he first talks about "GOD, who interposed for our country, relieved us from thradldom, and saved us with an omnipotent arm...." he is talking about the God from above, but is he talking about the same God when he says "to that GOD who governs the nations, and awards the destinies of men", or someone different?- Bryan Quintana<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 />
I just think it's comical that he says "The subjects of the French King, having long groaned under the burden of oppression, taking example from the courage and magnanimity of Americans, burst their chains and nobly contended for the RIGHTS OF MAN," using such powerful and flowery rhetoric, yet the French were their "friends" and they took a vow of isolation when the French asked the Americans to return the favor of helping them fight in their revolutionary war. Where are the Americans flowery rhetoric now? -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
I am very confused by the whole COLUMBIA IS FREE business. I also really enjoyed the undertones of anarchy floating just beneath the surface of this whole document. I think it is very entertaining that a document meant to be a patriotic speech has such undertones. --- Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that at the same time as he seems so mad at everyone he is almost begging it seems. And he doesn't even ask for equal rights... just less mean rights. Like, he says its fine to be punished to the full extent of the law, but not the sold. seems like he would try for a farther up bargain. I found it interesting. -- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
I think that the people reading Forten's proposal were threatened by his eloquence and compelling points of passing this bill. It was as if they thought that if we pass this bill more free blacks will move into our state and become just as educated as Forten, and we will loose our white society in our own state. I think by writing this proposal it actually hurt Forten's chances of passing the bill. I also find it interesting the language he uses, throughout the passage you can tell Forten is clearly educated and uses correct English and grammer, but when giving his anecdotal story about the white men chasing the black man he says "Halloa! Stop the Negro! Hoa ..." He does not paint whites in as educated light as he, he sets them below himself. So the white reading this passage, looses that sense of dominion over Forten, which in this case is a negative because as I stated earlier, they have a fear of blacks becoming more educated, and ultimately more powerful than whites. -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
<br />
In his very first entry, Lewis describes how the Natives fell on the deer carcas like "famished dogs," and how he also mentioned they were in major poverty. Why was that so? It seemed like these natives were pretty self sufficent, yet they were starving. Was it jus that the expidetion came at a time when food was not very plentiful, or was this a regular thing? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In Lewis's description of the attitudes of the Shoshonee people, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between the behavior he described with regard towards their chiefs and the Protestant ideaolody towards God, as well as the American principle of equality. Is Lewis suggesting the Native Americans may have come up with these attitudes independently of Western Enlightenment thinking, or merely that they had been influenced enough by colonial culture that they had come to adopt them from exposure to American behavior through the grapevine?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
I wonder first, was it ever really even considered by the Americans to make the Indians citizens? Also, for those who sided with John Ross, did they ever consider that this pushing Westward by the Americans would continue and not just be a one time thing or did they think that this would be an isolated incident? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
Its apparent that many times a white slave would engage in sexual relations with his women slaves. However i am curious to when these slaves had kids how were they treated. Were the whites slaves for the most part imbarressed that they had a kid with a black women so they would treat their son or daughter just like any other slave, or would they treat them like or similiar to a white son or daughter?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
When Jefferson persuaded Sally Hemmings to return to VA with him, I thought it was out of love but i guess not because Madison stated that Jefferson did not show affections toward his siblings and him. I find that odd. And I find it kind of confusing when he promised her that her children would be set free at the age of 21. To my understanding the child she was pragnant with in France is her first. So wouldn't her child be free anyways since she is free in france? -- Eun Yi<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this reading really interesting. I think that the concerns addressed by Sarah Grimke were still relevant to many women into the 20th century. I think her concern with education of women is definitely ahead of her time, so to say. Most women accepted the education they were being given to cook and clean and raise proper American sons. However, I think the fact that Grimke addresses her concerns early on in the 19th century is courages because the majority of society did not see anything wrong with the way women were being educated at that time. I was wondering, was she with the Quakers when she wrote this? I lean towards yes, simply because of her references to God. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Grimke's piece, she described in awful detail the sexually dominating behavior of masters towards their African slaves. I was curious how a northern white woman came to know of these audacities, especially in an age where there is no media source reporting this, education for women centers around housework, and she probably would not have been directly exposed to any of this? How was this sort of information spread at the time? Was it more just common knowledge?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<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 />
In the Joseph Brant readings, I noticed that he talked a lot about the prisons and the justice system of both the cultures. Is he just doing this to compare? If so, why is this so significant? Is it just an example? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T11:40:20Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 */</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 />
I understand that in "A Jeffersonian Sailmakers Fourth of July Address" when he first talks about "GOD, who interposed for our country, relieved us from thradldom, and saved us with an omnipotent arm...." he is talking about the God from above, but is he talking about the same God when he says "to that GOD who governs the nations, and awards the destinies of men", or someone different?- Bryan Quintana<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 />
I just think it's comical that he says "The subjects of the French King, having long groaned under the burden of oppression, taking example from the courage and magnanimity of Americans, burst their chains and nobly contended for the RIGHTS OF MAN," using such powerful and flowery rhetoric, yet the French were their "friends" and they took a vow of isolation when the French asked the Americans to return the favor of helping them fight in their revolutionary war. Where are the Americans flowery rhetoric now? -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that at the same time as he seems so mad at everyone he is almost begging it seems. And he doesn't even ask for equal rights... just less mean rights. Like, he says its fine to be punished to the full extent of the law, but not the sold. seems like he would try for a farther up bargain. I found it interesting. -- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
I think that the people reading Forten's proposal were threatened by his eloquence and compelling points of passing this bill. It was as if they thought that if we pass this bill more free blacks will move into our state and become just as educated as Forten, and we will loose our white society in our own state. I think by writing this proposal it actually hurt Forten's chances of passing the bill. I also find it interesting the language he uses, throughout the passage you can tell Forten is clearly educated and uses correct English and grammer, but when giving his anecdotal story about the white men chasing the black man he says "Halloa! Stop the Negro! Hoa ..." He does not paint whites in as educated light as he, he sets them below himself. So the white reading this passage, looses that sense of dominion over Forten, which in this case is a negative because as I stated earlier, they have a fear of blacks becoming more educated, and ultimately more powerful than whites. -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
<br />
In his very first entry, Lewis describes how the Natives fell on the deer carcas like "famished dogs," and how he also mentioned they were in major poverty. Why was that so? It seemed like these natives were pretty self sufficent, yet they were starving. Was it jus that the expidetion came at a time when food was not very plentiful, or was this a regular thing? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In Lewis's description of the attitudes of the Shoshonee people, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between the behavior he described with regard towards their chiefs and the Protestant ideaolody towards God, as well as the American principle of equality. Is Lewis suggesting the Native Americans may have come up with these attitudes independently of Western Enlightenment thinking, or merely that they had been influenced enough by colonial culture that they had come to adopt them from exposure to American behavior through the grapevine?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
I wonder first, was it ever really even considered by the Americans to make the Indians citizens? Also, for those who sided with John Ross, did they ever consider that this pushing Westward by the Americans would continue and not just be a one time thing or did they think that this would be an isolated incident? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
Its apparent that many times a white slave would engage in sexual relations with his women slaves. However i am curious to when these slaves had kids how were they treated. Were the whites slaves for the most part imbarressed that they had a kid with a black women so they would treat their son or daughter just like any other slave, or would they treat them like or similiar to a white son or daughter?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
When Jefferson persuaded Sally Hemmings to return to VA with him, I thought it was out of love but i guess not because Madison stated that Jefferson did not show affections toward his siblings and him. I find that odd. And I find it kind of confusing when he promised her that her children would be set free at the age of 21. To my understanding the child she was pragnant with in France is her first. So wouldn't her child be free anyways since she is free in france? -- Eun Yi<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this reading really interesting. I think that the concerns addressed by Sarah Grimke were still relevant to many women into the 20th century. I think her concern with education of women is definitely ahead of her time, so to say. Most women accepted the education they were being given to cook and clean and raise proper American sons. However, I think the fact that Grimke addresses her concerns early on in the 19th century is courages because the majority of society did not see anything wrong with the way women were being educated at that time. I was wondering, was she with the Quakers when she wrote this? I lean towards yes, simply because of her references to God. -- Katie Mauro<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 />
In the Joseph Brant readings, I noticed that he talked a lot about the prisons and the justice system of both the cultures. Is he just doing this to compare? If so, why is this so significant? Is it just an example? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T11:39:48Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 */</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 />
I understand that in "A Jeffersonian Sailmakers Fourth of July Address" when he first talks about "GOD, who interposed for our country, relieved us from thradldom, and saved us with an omnipotent arm...." he is talking about the God from above, but is he talking about the same God when he says "to that GOD who governs the nations, and awards the destinies of men", or someone different?- Bryan Quintana<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 />
I just think it's comical that he says "The subjects of the French King, having long groaned under the burden of oppression, taking example from the courage and magnanimity of Americans, burst their chains and nobly contended for the RIGHTS OF MAN," using such powerful and flowery rhetoric, yet the French were their "friends" and they took a vow of isolation when the French asked the Americans to return the favor of helping them fight in their revolutionary war. Where are the Americans flowery rhetoric now? -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I agree with Christen in that James Forten claims that all men are created equal, but at this time most northern states still were going through the Emancipation laws, declaring that they were going to give up slavery, so i would just like to klnow what the whites of the time thought of James Forten, after reading what he has said. Were they inspired to change their views of blacks rights?-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
I find it odd that, immediately after exclaiming that “GOD created all men equal,” James Forten goes on to say, “the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors.” I feel that this is a contradiction; if they are all equal no man should have more power than another, i.e. be his protector. Perhaps, however, this is a way of buttering up the white audience? Flattery, after all, can get you everywhere. Forten would certainly not have been listened to if he attacked the white men. Therefore, I would like to believe that this assertion made by Forten is not his opinion, but rather, a way to pacify his audience into continuing to read his protest. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I find this to be very passionately written in which that Forten's points are clearly given. When southern masters freed their slaves, I thought they were given a document that declared them a freemen but to be arrested a few hours of being freed, kind of suprised me. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that at the same time as he seems so mad at everyone he is almost begging it seems. And he doesn't even ask for equal rights... just less mean rights. Like, he says its fine to be punished to the full extent of the law, but not the sold. seems like he would try for a farther up bargain. I found it interesting. -- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
I think that the people reading Forten's proposal were threatened by his eloquence and compelling points of passing this bill. It was as if they thought that if we pass this bill more free blacks will move into our state and become just as educated as Forten, and we will loose our white society in our own state. I think by writing this proposal it actually hurt Forten's chances of passing the bill. I also find it interesting the language he uses, throughout the passage you can tell Forten is clearly educated and uses correct English and grammer, but when giving his anecdotal story about the white men chasing the black man he says "Halloa! Stop the Negro! Hoa ..." He does not paint whites in as educated light as he, he sets them below himself. So the white reading this passage, looses that sense of dominion over Forten, which in this case is a negative because as I stated earlier, they have a fear of blacks becoming more educated, and ultimately more powerful than whites. -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In response to the last two questions: I think their first impressions were probably a little skewed, as they only saw actions without the reasoning behind them (as we often do). As they became semi-encultured (a lot of learning can happen in 3 days) they probably saw that despite the menail duties there was a lot of respect or something like that.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
<br />
In his very first entry, Lewis describes how the Natives fell on the deer carcas like "famished dogs," and how he also mentioned they were in major poverty. Why was that so? It seemed like these natives were pretty self sufficent, yet they were starving. Was it jus that the expidetion came at a time when food was not very plentiful, or was this a regular thing? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In Lewis's description of the individualist attitudes of the Shoshonees, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between the behavior he described with regard towards their chiefs and the Protestant ideaolody towards God, as well as the American principle of equality. Is Lewis suggesting the Native Americans may have come up with these attitudes independently of Western Enlightenment thinking, or merely that they had been influenced enough by colonial culture that they had come to adopt them from exposure to American behavior through the grapevine?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How unreasonable is it for Cherokees to ask to be protected by the laws they were forced to abide by in an effort to become citizens? Isn't this the same with illegal immigration form Mexico? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that the Cherokees agree to respect and adhere to any treaty they feel they are bound to adhere to, why would they ever feel like that? Also, the Cherokees say that their best weapon is that of argument, seems to me like they would make good lawyers, plus they would have a lot to argue and protest in court anyways. Were there any Native American lawyers or were they denied that privelege of profession just as the African Americans were? - Landon James<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I wonder what the removal of the Indians did to their personal identity. I wonder how the next generation saw itself. --Gracie Ofslager (is really cool).<br />
<br />
I wonder first, was it ever really even considered by the Americans to make the Indians citizens? Also, for those who sided with John Ross, did they ever consider that this pushing Westward by the Americans would continue and not just be a one time thing or did they think that this would be an isolated incident? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
Its apparent that many times a white slave would engage in sexual relations with his women slaves. However i am curious to when these slaves had kids how were they treated. Were the whites slaves for the most part imbarressed that they had a kid with a black women so they would treat their son or daughter just like any other slave, or would they treat them like or similiar to a white son or daughter?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In reading Madison Hemings' recollection, I find a lot of the family's relationships as well as Madison's recollections from the Jefferson household very interesting. But at the same time, I began to wonder if this was similar in any way to some of the slave narratives we read in the past, like were some of the things Hemings actually said or wrote changed to make it seem like him and his family were better off than they actually were? Or is this different from those and we can safely assume this to be an accurate re-telling? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
After I read this, I started thinking about whether or not this testimony was very credible. Certainly it is based on concrete facts, since Madison there witnessing everything going on at the Jefferson Plantation. However, I feel as though Madison has a little bit of resentment towards his father, who we (as well as Madison) are assuming is Thomas Jefferson. He mentions that TJ only showed affection to his white children and grandchildren. Madison seems to understand why, but still I think he has some resentment (legitimately). To answer some of the questions posed by others: in my opinion, I strongly think that TJ would not have had sexual relations with Sally if his wife (Martha) was still alive. As Prof. McClurken mentioned in class the other day, one of the reasons as to why TJ decided to have a relationship with Sally could have been because Sally was in fact a lot like her half-sister, Martha. We obviously will never know what was going on in their heads, but my guess is that TJ was lonely, naturally, and Sally proved to be a comforting companion for him. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I noticed that Madison Hemings, once freed, lived in Ohio. I am in a ‘Novels of Toni Morrison’ class, and I have noticed that many of her freed slaves also travel to Ohio. Is there any correlation here? For example, as a new state, was Ohio a sort of rallying place for freed slaves? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
When Jefferson persuaded Sally Hemmings to return to VA with him, I thought it was out of love but i guess not because Madison stated that Jefferson did not show affections toward his siblings and him. I find that odd. And I find it kind of confusing when he promised her that her children would be set free at the age of 21. To my understanding the child she was pragnant with in France is her first. So wouldn't her child be free anyways since she is free in france? -- Eun Yi<br />
== Sarah Grimke on the Status of Women ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the value placed in women changed so drastically within only 30 years. After the Revolution, women were required to go to school in order to be able to teach their future sons how to live, work, and thrive in a republic. However, Grimke's article suggests that this is not true anymore as women were now supposed to be there for dancing, cooking, and showing off. American ideals had changed in a little more than a generation. I guess they mothers after the Revolution taught their sons so well that they do not need women anymore. -Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
In her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké argued two main points. First, that God had made equality among the sexes, and that men were the ones who created women’s inferior condition by denying them opportunity. Second, she insisted that women should have same rights and duties as men, and thus should be able to fully participate in education, religion, work and politics (including the abolition movement). Clearly Sarah made the case for women’s equality with passionate conviction…but did her radical words win the agreement of more than just a small minority of women? If not, then why?<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this reading really interesting. I think that the concerns addressed by Sarah Grimke were still relevant to many women into the 20th century. I think her concern with education of women is definitely ahead of her time, so to say. Most women accepted the education they were being given to cook and clean and raise proper American sons. However, I think the fact that Grimke addresses her concerns early on in the 19th century is courages because the majority of society did not see anything wrong with the way women were being educated at that time. I was wondering, was she with the Quakers when she wrote this? I lean towards yes, simply because of her references to God. -- Katie Mauro<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 />
In the Joseph Brant readings, I noticed that he talked a lot about the prisons and the justice system of both the cultures. Is he just doing this to compare? If so, why is this so significant? Is it just an example? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
'''Indian Representatives'''<br><br />
One of the sections in the "Brothers;-" suggestions really struck me as odd. "It appears strange that you should expect [concessions] from us, who have only been defending our just Rights against your invasion." I find the comment ironic as it is the exact opposite of what the Americans were doing. The new settlers, and even the government, were continually forcing Indians out of their lands and attacking them. I know that Indian raids may have been common, but nowhere near to the extent of they brutality the American's used to gain land. It's interesting how words can be twisted around to place the "blame" on someone else. -Alex Zelin</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T06:51:35Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In this piece, Madison makes a very insightful claim about what he views as a characteristic in the nature man. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." As it turns out, this statement rang true far beyond his years in the context of AMERICAN society, with the formation of worker's unions, associations of every sort, political action groups, etc. etc, factions shaped the face of this nation. But I would ask, is this truly a characteristic of human nature, or simply a characteristic that has come to be true of American society? On what support would he have formed this notion? Do you believe he is correct?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I am not sure how representative this piece is of political pieces of the time, but I did notice Warren's writing seems extremely overdramatized. She uses language like "tyranny", "wanton lust of domination", "secret intrigues", "shrine of ambition", "many-headed monster", etc. I did recognize she had a history in the field of drama and entertainment as a poet and a playwright. Is this merely a peculiarity in the way this particular author chooses to write or is this a typical persuasion piece in the vein of others of the time? Did most anti-federalists really see this new constitution as a tyrannical monster? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T06:36:48Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In this piece, Madison makes a very insightful claim about what he views as a characteristic in the nature man. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." As it turns out, this statement rang true far beyond his years in the context of AMERICAN society, with the formation of worker's unions, associations of every sort, political action groups, etc. etc, factions shaped the face of this nation. But I would ask, is this truly a characteristic of human nature, or simply a characteristic that has come to be true of American society? On what support would he have formed this notion? Do you believe he is correct?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-22T01:47:51Z<p>199.111.69.175: </p>
<hr />
<div>La Barre's Failed Bluff<br />
<br />
The Iroquois Indians were in recurrent wars with the French for a significant amount of time during the 17th century. Calloway states on page 118, "Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre's Army)" Why didn't the Iroquois decimate the last of the French forces and possesing the knowledge that La Barre was bluffing his military potential to scare the Iroqois into submission? If the Iroquois destroyed La Barre's Army it would have possibly set in motion a rallying cry of Indian resistence, which leads to my other question. The Native Indians of the Americas were strong and prosperous during the initial European colonization; they had the power to make or break European colonies because many colonies survived only by the genorosity of the Natives (sharing of corn, berries, and meat, as well as farming/hunting techniques, etc). As the years past, the Natives lost their influence and diplomatic power and are in a situation where their population is steadily declining and reaching a point of possible extinction. Why couldn't the Native tribes unify for the sole cause of driving the Europeans out of their lands, or atleast resisting them and forcing the Europeans to live in co-existance? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
"Boston Massacre Oration"-- I found it really interesting how Joseph Warren compared the Acts of Parliament. He likened it to being slavemasters, and the colonists the slaves. Since Warren lived in Boston, I have no doubt that the New Englanders had pretty radical ideas about slavery and were not as strict about power over them; if freed slaves in the North were able to join the Continental Army and Southern slaves had to get permission, then obviously Boston and New England were slightly more abolitionist than the South was. All that aside, did most colonists feel like slaves under the strict Parliamentary Acts? And if so, then wouldn't the colonists thus realize how oppressive it was and free their slaves? Also, I liked the statement addressed in the questions at the end of the document about Warren feminizing liberty, which makes me wonder whether or not this was the first time liberty has been feminized. I know today liberty is also known as Lady Liberty, further proof is the female Statue of Liberty. Is it possible that Warren or other colonists feminized liberty because then they were able to make power masculine? If liberty is feminine and power masculine, then obviously more colonists would defend liberty under the idea that liberty is weaker than power, which leads me to think that feminizing liberty was a way for Warren to promote independence prior to the Continental Congresses. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Memoir"-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes' account sort of "debunked" everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn't as violent and dangerous as I thought it was and it was actually a bit disappointing; there were no hard-core fighting between the crews and colonists, and most surprising was the fact there was no British resistance. It seemed like the fierce rebels expected every single colonist to feel the way they did about the British and the taxes, as shown in how they treated those caught taking tea and those still loyal to the crown who sold tea to fellow Tories/loyalists. But my question involves the actual Tea Party itself. In the excerpt from the memoir, Hewes said that they were "to do no damage to the ship or rigging," but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little "temper tantrum" so long as they didn't damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn't damage the ships and rigging because the ships could have been built in New England or built using American products, thus to damage them would to hurt their fellow colonists? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the "Memoir" I agree with Meganne when she said that she was dissappionted in the fact that there was no "fighting", I too thought the British fought back more. I also was wondering if when Hewes and the other colonists dressed up in "costumes of an indian", if the British were supposed to fall for these costumes and think it was the indians who were throwing the tea, or if the costumes were for personal disguise?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of "all men being originally equals" seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he states that, "..For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in the perpetual preference to all others for ever..." Doesn't this same statement apply to the slavery of blacks and American Indians that was taking place within the colonies at this same time? The colonists spoke of the power of England as tyrannical and complained that their rights were being taken away as if they were slaves....did they not see a connection here with slavery? I also wonder if the colonists ever really realized how economically dependent Britain became on the colonies themselves? Perhaps if they did the colonists could have used this weakness against Britain. What would our country be like today if the relations between the colonies and England had stayed friendly? What would have happened if there never was a revolution? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed John and Abigail Adams letters for several reasons. First of all I really like correspondences because I think they make the people more real. To me they are more interesting because they seem to be more individuals like us as opposed to these really obscure historical figures. One of the reasons I like them is I like the way that we see a female patriot's view of the war. Abigail Adams is just as ardent as John Adams in her support of the Revolution. My favorite part is that unlike the idea we are often presented with of women being considered inferior, John Adams seems to treat Abigail like his equal and his letters don't have a condescending air about them. The letters just provide a new way to look at the war and the society in which all of this was occuring.--Melissa Brokaw <br />
<br />
The documents in Calloway show some continual themes throughout Indian-White Relations. Primarily the idea that the Indians ally with whites they expect something in return. However, as Joseph Brant shows in his letter to the Britsh government, they are taken advantage of and used by the British for their own ends. With this kind of continual treatment, what is the incentive for Indians to ally with any whites? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party is very vivid, and I found it interesting because of the details that were provided that I had never heard about. However, I was most intrigued by the description that Hewes gave of beating of Malcom, the custom-house officer, who had stroke him with his cuddgle earlier, instead of the young boy. I am curious if the actions of this custom house office enraged the colonists enough to give them that extra motivation to carry out the Boston Tea Party or if it was a separate event all together that Hewes had experienced? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I found the Origin & Progess of the American Revolution to be quite detailed in the actions that were carried out on the various victims that the mob took. It seemed that the victims were those with some sort of political power, be it a judge, lawyer, or even a preacher. I was curious if the Mob was just a group of anyone or if there were any requirements for the people who were involved? Was there any action taken against these men or where they just so greatly feared that no one did anyting? Is it possible that many of the other citizens agreed with these actions because they too were displeased with the government officials at this time too? Quincey Garica<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Boston shoemaker’s recollection of the Boston Tea Party it says that people were trying to grab tea off of the deck of the ship and if they were caught the tea was taken away from them, one man was even thrown over boar. It also says that after all of the tea had been thrown into the harbor that there was some still floating in the water and a boat went around and made sure that it all got wet so that it could not be used. Was tea such a valuable commodity that people were willing to risk ridicule and abuse to get it? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I noticed in the Boston Tea Party recollection that they dressed up as indians before going aboard the ships. What was the point of this? Was it just to disguise their identity or were they actually trying to frame the indians? This doesn't make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn't support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
The soldier’s experience of the Revolutionary War give the reader an idea about how hard the times of a soldier could be and the many things that were promised to the soldiers that they did not get. It is sad to think that they joined and fought for their country and never received any reparations for their efforts and were basically forgotten about after the war. Was this because people were just glad that the war was over and didn’t want to think about it any more, or was the economy in such shambles that the government could not afford to pay the soldiers? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party, the beating of the boy and of Malcolm both seem very harsh for the crime. Were all crimes at this time in the region punished to such a harsh extent? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Cheda "Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain," At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as "Giving eight beavers." What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In George Hewes' memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom's punishment isn't severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In Boston King's memoir, he says that he runs away to the english militia because of the horrible treatment by his master and to be a freeman after the war. However, i find it strange that King is still a slave in the unit and it seems as if he could choose his master. Because when Captain Lewes asked if he could be his master, he replies no because he is Captain Grey's servant and then after serving him, he went to other masters. -Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading "A Loyalist Judges's Catalog of Rebellious Crowds" i started to get really annoyed with the patriots actions. How did they expect to get anyones respect or convert any loyalists to their side when they were acting like blood thirsty mobsters? I'm aware there may be some bias in the statements due to it coming from the writings of a loyalist, but if this is even remotely how the patriots acted then i have a hard time finding sympathy for them in their cause. I almost understand why the British enforced a standing army in the colonies, it sounds like an army was very much needed during these times. Also is this how the loyalists acted? Were there mobs of loyalists running around town beating up any patriot they saw? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I have more of a general/overarching question...if the British saw that the colonists were getting extremely angry with all of the taxes and laws that they felt were restricting their freedomn as British citizens, then why didn't the British government back off a little bit and give the colonies some breathing room in order to re-group and get back to the old ways of an adult/child relationship-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
This is a small detail and it probably doesn't really make a huge difference to the article but in "Peter Oliver Origin & Progress of the American Revolution" why are all the names of people and places in italics? Is it simply for emphasis; to draw attention to them so the readers don't miss them? Is this a detail that was added later on when the article was published? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find that the accounts of the men particapating in the Boston Tea Party were so mundane leading up to the event. It seems like everyone just went on with their lives as usual and what they were about to do didn't really affect them. Why exactly was this? Why are their lives right before the Boston Tea Party so important to know? Was there a point in proving that the event that was about to happen wasn't taken seriously by those who participated in them? Wouldn't they know that what they were about to do would ultimately alter the course of history? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the letters that George Washington wrote to Bryan Fairfax, he uses the term Americans several times. I was just wondering when this concept of "american" was actually put in place. And with my understanding, why would they be referring to themselves as anything but British citizens becuase this was a time that they wanted fair British rights more than anything, so why would they distinguish themselves as a different group of people? Another question that comes to mind is how Washington would have gotten this concept, because as we have discussed, the colonies were not nearly as unified as we are taught to believe -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
To try to answer part of Dani's question about the use of "Americans", it might be because at the time George Washington, along many other Chesapeake Elites, were Patriots, and therefore against British power. It says in the introduction that the "colonial rights had to be defended", so maybe this was the beginning of Washington's Patriotism. I am not completely sure about this, but I believe he is using his point of view( as a Patriot) to disagree and defend the colonies.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In George Hewes "Memoir", I thought it was interesting that man of the colonist participating in the Boston Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians. I wonder if the colonist chose this disguise on a whim, or if there was supposed to be a deeper parallelism implied. Also the colonists sense of unity in this act surprised me. Being able to work together, the way Hewes describes, under pressure and with little direction, was a commendable feat. These Boston colonist seem to share a single goal, purpose and identity for the first time during the Boston Tea Party. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In George Washington's Letters to a friend, he uses the term Americans to describe himself and all of the colonist under British rule. Was the term American, in refernce to the North American colonist commonly accepted in 1774 when this letter was written? Washington obviously feels the need for the colonies to become a separate nation of their own, but had others already accepted themselves as Americans? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Like Quincey, I was curious about the account in “Memoir” concerning Malcom and the beating. My question is though how the Boston Tea Party connects to the story of a man beating another with his cudgel and then the resulting flogging etc.? Is it showing the mind set of the colonists at the time and their retaliation? I think I’m just missing the connection between the two stories. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Chickasaw Chiefs “Message to Congress” seems to ask the question who is in charge of the tribes. The chiefs basically ask for American guidance or leadership saying, “Such a man living among us particularly at this time, would rescue us from the darkness and confusion we are in.” With a past where the Indians want nothing to do with colonists or someone trying to take control of them would they then ask for their guidance in who it was appropriate to trade with? Isn’t that asking for Americans to take some sort of leadership over their tribes? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Burke’s speech- Burke speaks about the colonists’ spirit of freedom, “The fact is so; and these people of the Southern Colonies are much more strongly, and with an higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the North-ward. Such…will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves.” Do historians believe that slave ownership caused Americans to be more protective of their own freedom and therefore, more sensitive to British control? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Soldier’s Experience- Martin states, “I never spent a thought about numbers, the Americans were invincible in my opinion.” Did many soldiers enlist into the American army due to these patriotic feelings or were there other reasons? Did many feel pressured into enlisting?<br />
–Emily King<br />
<br />
In the "Boston Massacre Oration," Joseph Warren is in complete oppposition to Parliament's numerous tax Acts that have been passed on the colonies. We talked in class about how the colonistes argued "no taxation without representation," and Warren definitely exploits this argument in his speech. He even makes a reference to Parliament's rebuttal of "virtual representation" by saying "I would next ask, whether the lords, who compose the aristocratic branch of the legislature, are peers of America?" Warren definitely expresses the growing unrest and dissatisfaction of the Patriots with Parliament's attempts to govern the colonies. - Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
In Peter Oliver's Origin and Progress of the American Revolution, I couldn't help but notice what appears to be blatant embellishment of some of the facts. For example, describing Colonial Gilbert's beating of 100 men with a single arm and the FOUR THOUSAND MEN who attacked Thomas Oliver's house. What was the purpose of this document? Was it meant as propaganda for the British to quell these rebellions or was it just written to perhaps save some post-war pride for the loyalists? Can we even trust any of these events really happened?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs, in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the author suggests several future plans for an Independent Republic including the idea of a "President", equal representation, and delegated districts. Were these ideas his own? Were they debated in the Constitution Convention as such? How revolutionary were these thoughts?<br />
-Adam Shlossman</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-02-01T06:33:12Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Suffolk County Court Records */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines. I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
This document seems to be really strict in its views and expectations of the colonist. How adimently did the colonist really follow these rules and beliefs?--Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Although I felt John Winthrop's sermon to contain many great points and inciteful excerpts related to love and people's relationships with one another, a lot of it felt to me to be using God as a kind of selling point. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he was an extremely religious man, but a lot of it gave me the impression it was coming from a politician using religion to get people to act in a particular way. In the beginning he speaks of the rich and the poor. He explains "no man is more honorable than the other" this is because one is rich or poor because God made them that way for the common good of man, and particular traits were even instilled by God into each two classifications of people(rich - love, mercy, gentleness, temperance, poor- faith, patience, obedience) to further justify the divine providence of their rank. Winthrop continues further to instruct that this community must be out of the ordinary, based on brotherly love, the golden rule, and most importantly to follow the rules set by God. It just seems to me he is using God to justify all of the aspects that would get the people to act in the way he directs, and create this utopian community, one that England would look upon with jealousy. He explains how they are up on a pedestal, with all eyes upon them so and if they "deal falsely" with God, he will draw away his present help from them and the world will see them fail. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
I too found William's account strange. He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then, it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Williams compared religious intolerance like "spriritual rape." It seems interesting because rape is non consensual, and forcing someone to believe something they might not want to. Seems to me that at this time sex was somewhat taboo... So making this statement must have been pretty daring. I mean, even more than it already was. Right? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
It is very interesting comparing John Winthrop’s sermon to Roger Williams writing. Winthrop’s sermon continuously refers to communal love between the elite Christians. Williams writing reveals to the reader how Puritan actions told a very different story. “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians (Indians), then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians…” (Pg 64) Did the Puritans truly make important changes in their lives in New England versus their old lives in England, or was it mostly talk? -Emily King<br />
<br />
This document is an exclent source to understanding the Natives of New England. I like how Williams is mostly unbias about the information. I did notice, though, that Williams did not write this as he was experiencing it, but rather while he was sailing back to England. How reliable would his writings be if he did not write it directly after his experience with the Natives?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Roger Williams implies that a more stable, technological society has more opportunity and room for sin. He states that the Indians had no room for the sins that the Europeans brought with them to the New World. Although the Indians weren't as stable and technologically advanced, would they not still have room for error and sin?-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
The English idea of a civilized culture seems very skewed in this observation of Native Americans by Roger Williams. At one point in the text Williams makes the point that the Native Americans do not even know the sins of gluttony and drunkenness, and do not commit crimes of murder, robbery, or adultry such as the English do. Then he goes on to praise god "who hath so advanced Europe above America". The European superiority complex, and idea that "good English gentlemen" must make it their duty to "civilize the savage" is very apparent here. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Maybe I'm a little too innocent in my reading of this, but Roger Williams seemed to be a very unbiased man. He compared and contrasted to English society just because that's all he knew, but he seemed to truly study them before forming opinions on what he thought was right or wrong or different. I really enjoyed this reading. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Roger Williams seems to have an unbiased view of the Native Americans. The English were harsh to the Native Americans upon arrival because they wanted to enslave them. However, Williams wrote of the Native Americans being kind, always willing to give any food they have if a stranger walks in. " It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally find more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." I wonder how different the relationship between the Native Americans and English would have been if the English hadn't been i such a race for profit. Perhaps they could have actually had a peaceful relationship and maybe some of the problems that still exist today would be nonexistent. --Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I found Williams's discussion of blood interesting. He seemed to recognize that blood united the Native Europeans and colonists ("One blood made all mankind"). Considering the lack of medical knowledge at the time, it brought up a question to me. How advanced was the medical knowledge of Purtians at the time? Did they have legitimate doctors and scientists in the new world? How did it compare with Jamestown and VA Colonies? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I found interesting was the random, or not so random, capitalization of certain words. For example, in the first paragraph the words "Fornication", "Marriage", 'Evill", "Money", "County&Court", and "Sentence" are all put into capital letters. Is this to put extra emphasis on them? Or merely something that they did then? <br />
-Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I liked reading about the accounts of things, such as drinking, profanity, etc., that we see today in our daily lives that were against the law and taken to court in this 1670's Puritan community. Seeing the types of things that were considered such serious offenses to the Puritans as those described in the court records, makes me wonder what other things in this time period were illegal and what were requirements of the people. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought it was somewhat odd that it was wrong for a man to beat his wife. don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should. lol But, i mean only that if the woman is a possession of the man, just as the kids are... it seems he would have been allowed to hit her as well. And i thought it was really weird that the court had 3 people check that girl to see if she was with child. Why wouldn't they just wait to see if a baby came out? lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
On the one hand it seemed great that they upheld good morals; however, this took it so far. It seems as if instead of most of the morals being laws, they ought to be things that are socially acceptable. If someone is really immoral, the people ought to try to work with him/her on it, rather than punishing them by law. They're not going to change because of a stupid fine.<br />
--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the conviction of Walter Barefoot for being an Atheist as well as Peter and Clemence Egerton for "Fornicacion before Marriage" is where the separation between church and state came from. Ok, maybe not directly, but it sure makes me appreciate that separation in a whole new light! ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also, I "loved" how in the court documents it is written "Peter Egerton & Clemence his wife." She is being charged with an offense that happened prior to her marriage, yet in the documents she is only listed as Peter's wife, his possession. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should be listed as this even after she's married. I think it's a deplorable practice that I am glad we have put in the past. It just helps to illustrate the patriarchal system that these people lived in. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I noticed that Cowesett Indian was sentenced by the Court to have his "haire cut round close of from his head". I didn't understand this and wanted to clarify. Was this a sort of public shaming based on social codes regarding hair? Were there any rules at this time relating to the types of punishments these courts could administer? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, Dane is constantly analyzing and questioning his actions. Did Puritans rely on Individual distinctions between right and wrong? If so, did they believe that fear in God would guide these individuals to the right path?...or did they have more formal rules/laws? –Emily King<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, I thought it was interesting that when John's parents discouraged him from going to the colonies, he took out the bible and decided that whatever page he randomly opened to would decide his fate. When the passage he read seemed to be telling him to go to the colonies, his parents all of the sudden we're encouraging him to leave right away. The bible seems to have totally control of the puritans, and yet they seem to twist its context because the passage John reads definitely does not clearly state for him to go to America, in fact it doesn't even seem close. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I question the childhood of John Dane and how it shaped his maturity. Why is it so that he can grow up in a strict Puritan community but yet have this desire to disobey his parents? Basically, I'm questioning whether his disobedience was determined by nature or nurture. It seems unlikely that he has a desire to go against the teachings of his religion when that is the foundation of his life. Did he just assume that he was inherently evil anyways so it didn't matter whether he was obedient to authority? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
This question is not specific to only this passage, but it did get me thinking about the issue with child abuse. I know that it was acceptable throughout most of history, but I cannot find any justification for why. In the Bible it talks of how a master should treat his inferiors with respect and show mercy upon them. How could one show any respect or mercy by beating a helpless child? If the Pruitans held so true to the Bible as the Word of God, why did THEY disobey the Lord by allowing such abuse? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In response to Jenna’s questions about John Dane's Memoir, I have what may be some possible answers given my own interpretations of the memoir. First of all, I think that this selection is important mainly because it gives us a view of what life was really like for a true Puritan, rather than the typical stereotypes frequently portrayed about the archetypal Puritan that we so often read about. I did some research and found nothing about the name John Dane…so apparently he was no one of great importance, but that’s not to say he is still not an important example in which we can learn from. I think it is significant to get Dane’s unusual perspective because it is in fact, unusual…especially for what many think of the representative Puritan. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never come across any stories about Puritans doubting their beliefs, so this was especially intriguing to me. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I did some research on Puritans and found some of the information very interesting and significant to John Dane’s memoir: The Puritan’s interpretation of the scriptures was extremely harsh. They emphasized a redemptive piety along with conversion instead of repression. Conversion rejected in the "worldliness" of society, and a strict adherence to Biblical principles. While repression was not encouraged, it was evident in their actions. God could forgive anything, but man could forgive only by seeing a change in behavior. Actions spoke louder than words, therefore actions had to be constantly controlled. The doctrine of predestination kept all Puritans constantly working to do good in this life to be chosen for the next eternal one. However according to the Puritans, god had already chosen who would be in heaven or hell, and each believer had no way of knowing which group they were in. Those who were wealthy were obviously blessed by god and were in good standing with Him (nothing new). <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Reading about John Dane's strong resistance to temptation and commitment to Puritanism made me curious if there were some that were not so strong. Were there any people brought up by Puritan families that completely rebelled against their lfestyle? If so, are there any records of these peoples' contributions to their own society? Or did these types of rebellions not exist back then and all Puritan children just did as they were told?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Are religious convictions stronger or weaker today when compared with Puritans like John Dane? What group or groups in modern times most closely resembles the Puritans?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch. The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying. The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money. He assumed she had taken it away from him. It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found these documents on the testimony aganist Bishop very interesting. I know that the witch hysteria was a very crazy thing, but why did so many people give testimony aganist this woman? Was this a common practice of having many, many people testify aganist the accused, or was this a special case?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I personally love the fact that everything that was presented against Bishop are all things that today would be taken as mere coincidence. The fact that children grew ill and that objects were either misplaced or disappeared were all attributed to this one woman shows the suspicious nature of these people. If my memory serves me correctly, Bishop was also one, if not the first, person to be accused of witchcraft in Salem. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I'm interested in knowing where the ideas of witches started in the first place. Was it an idea that was carried over from England? Also, Bishop pleaded not guilty; if she had pleaded guilty would she have recieved a lesser punishment than execution? -Megan Malecha</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-02-01T06:28:28Z<p>199.111.69.175: /* Roger Williams */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines. I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
This document seems to be really strict in its views and expectations of the colonist. How adimently did the colonist really follow these rules and beliefs?--Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Although I felt John Winthrop's sermon to contain many great points and inciteful excerpts related to love and people's relationships with one another, a lot of it felt to me to be using God as a kind of selling point. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he was an extremely religious man, but a lot of it gave me the impression it was coming from a politician using religion to get people to act in a particular way. In the beginning he speaks of the rich and the poor. He explains "no man is more honorable than the other" this is because one is rich or poor because God made them that way for the common good of man, and particular traits were even instilled by God into each two classifications of people(rich - love, mercy, gentleness, temperance, poor- faith, patience, obedience) to further justify the divine providence of their rank. Winthrop continues further to instruct that this community must be out of the ordinary, based on brotherly love, the golden rule, and most importantly to follow the rules set by God. It just seems to me he is using God to justify all of the aspects that would get the people to act in the way he directs, and create this utopian community, one that England would look upon with jealousy. He explains how they are up on a pedestal, with all eyes upon them so and if they "deal falsely" with God, he will draw away his present help from them and the world will see them fail. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
I too found William's account strange. He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then, it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Williams compared religious intolerance like "spriritual rape." It seems interesting because rape is non consensual, and forcing someone to believe something they might not want to. Seems to me that at this time sex was somewhat taboo... So making this statement must have been pretty daring. I mean, even more than it already was. Right? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
It is very interesting comparing John Winthrop’s sermon to Roger Williams writing. Winthrop’s sermon continuously refers to communal love between the elite Christians. Williams writing reveals to the reader how Puritan actions told a very different story. “It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians (Indians), then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians…” (Pg 64) Did the Puritans truly make important changes in their lives in New England versus their old lives in England, or was it mostly talk? -Emily King<br />
<br />
This document is an exclent source to understanding the Natives of New England. I like how Williams is mostly unbias about the information. I did notice, though, that Williams did not write this as he was experiencing it, but rather while he was sailing back to England. How reliable would his writings be if he did not write it directly after his experience with the Natives?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Roger Williams implies that a more stable, technological society has more opportunity and room for sin. He states that the Indians had no room for the sins that the Europeans brought with them to the New World. Although the Indians weren't as stable and technologically advanced, would they not still have room for error and sin?-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
The English idea of a civilized culture seems very skewed in this observation of Native Americans by Roger Williams. At one point in the text Williams makes the point that the Native Americans do not even know the sins of gluttony and drunkenness, and do not commit crimes of murder, robbery, or adultry such as the English do. Then he goes on to praise god "who hath so advanced Europe above America". The European superiority complex, and idea that "good English gentlemen" must make it their duty to "civilize the savage" is very apparent here. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Maybe I'm a little too innocent in my reading of this, but Roger Williams seemed to be a very unbiased man. He compared and contrasted to English society just because that's all he knew, but he seemed to truly study them before forming opinions on what he thought was right or wrong or different. I really enjoyed this reading. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Roger Williams seems to have an unbiased view of the Native Americans. The English were harsh to the Native Americans upon arrival because they wanted to enslave them. However, Williams wrote of the Native Americans being kind, always willing to give any food they have if a stranger walks in. " It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally find more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." I wonder how different the relationship between the Native Americans and English would have been if the English hadn't been i such a race for profit. Perhaps they could have actually had a peaceful relationship and maybe some of the problems that still exist today would be nonexistent. --Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I found Williams's discussion of blood interesting. He seemed to recognize that blood united the Native Europeans and colonists ("One blood made all mankind"). Considering the lack of medical knowledge at the time, it brought up a question to me. How advanced was the medical knowledge of Purtians at the time? Did they have legitimate doctors and scientists in the new world? How did it compare with Jamestown and VA Colonies? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I found interesting was the random, or not so random, capitalization of certain words. For example, in the first paragraph the words "Fornication", "Marriage", 'Evill", "Money", "County&Court", and "Sentence" are all put into capital letters. Is this to put extra emphasis on them? Or merely something that they did then? <br />
-Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I liked reading about the accounts of things, such as drinking, profanity, etc., that we see today in our daily lives that were against the law and taken to court in this 1670's Puritan community. Seeing the types of things that were considered such serious offenses to the Puritans as those described in the court records, makes me wonder what other things in this time period were illegal and what were requirements of the people. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought it was somewhat odd that it was wrong for a man to beat his wife. don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should. lol But, i mean only that if the woman is a possession of the man, just as the kids are... it seems he would have been allowed to hit her as well. And i thought it was really weird that the court had 3 people check that girl to see if she was with child. Why wouldn't they just wait to see if a baby came out? lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
On the one hand it seemed great that they upheld good morals; however, this took it so far. It seems as if instead of most of the morals being laws, they ought to be things that are socially acceptable. If someone is really immoral, the people ought to try to work with him/her on it, rather than punishing them by law. They're not going to change because of a stupid fine.<br />
--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the conviction of Walter Barefoot for being an Atheist as well as Peter and Clemence Egerton for "Fornicacion before Marriage" is where the separation between church and state came from. Ok, maybe not directly, but it sure makes me appreciate that separation in a whole new light! ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also, I "loved" how in the court documents it is written "Peter Egerton & Clemence his wife." She is being charged with an offense that happened prior to her marriage, yet in the documents she is only listed as Peter's wife, his possession. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should be listed as this even after she's married. I think it's a deplorable practice that I am glad we have put in the past. It just helps to illustrate the patriarchal system that these people lived in. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, Dane is constantly analyzing and questioning his actions. Did Puritans rely on Individual distinctions between right and wrong? If so, did they believe that fear in God would guide these individuals to the right path?...or did they have more formal rules/laws? –Emily King<br />
<br />
In John Dane's Memoir, I thought it was interesting that when John's parents discouraged him from going to the colonies, he took out the bible and decided that whatever page he randomly opened to would decide his fate. When the passage he read seemed to be telling him to go to the colonies, his parents all of the sudden we're encouraging him to leave right away. The bible seems to have totally control of the puritans, and yet they seem to twist its context because the passage John reads definitely does not clearly state for him to go to America, in fact it doesn't even seem close. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I question the childhood of John Dane and how it shaped his maturity. Why is it so that he can grow up in a strict Puritan community but yet have this desire to disobey his parents? Basically, I'm questioning whether his disobedience was determined by nature or nurture. It seems unlikely that he has a desire to go against the teachings of his religion when that is the foundation of his life. Did he just assume that he was inherently evil anyways so it didn't matter whether he was obedient to authority? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
This question is not specific to only this passage, but it did get me thinking about the issue with child abuse. I know that it was acceptable throughout most of history, but I cannot find any justification for why. In the Bible it talks of how a master should treat his inferiors with respect and show mercy upon them. How could one show any respect or mercy by beating a helpless child? If the Pruitans held so true to the Bible as the Word of God, why did THEY disobey the Lord by allowing such abuse? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In response to Jenna’s questions about John Dane's Memoir, I have what may be some possible answers given my own interpretations of the memoir. First of all, I think that this selection is important mainly because it gives us a view of what life was really like for a true Puritan, rather than the typical stereotypes frequently portrayed about the archetypal Puritan that we so often read about. I did some research and found nothing about the name John Dane…so apparently he was no one of great importance, but that’s not to say he is still not an important example in which we can learn from. I think it is significant to get Dane’s unusual perspective because it is in fact, unusual…especially for what many think of the representative Puritan. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never come across any stories about Puritans doubting their beliefs, so this was especially intriguing to me. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I did some research on Puritans and found some of the information very interesting and significant to John Dane’s memoir: The Puritan’s interpretation of the scriptures was extremely harsh. They emphasized a redemptive piety along with conversion instead of repression. Conversion rejected in the "worldliness" of society, and a strict adherence to Biblical principles. While repression was not encouraged, it was evident in their actions. God could forgive anything, but man could forgive only by seeing a change in behavior. Actions spoke louder than words, therefore actions had to be constantly controlled. The doctrine of predestination kept all Puritans constantly working to do good in this life to be chosen for the next eternal one. However according to the Puritans, god had already chosen who would be in heaven or hell, and each believer had no way of knowing which group they were in. Those who were wealthy were obviously blessed by god and were in good standing with Him (nothing new). <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Reading about John Dane's strong resistance to temptation and commitment to Puritanism made me curious if there were some that were not so strong. Were there any people brought up by Puritan families that completely rebelled against their lfestyle? If so, are there any records of these peoples' contributions to their own society? Or did these types of rebellions not exist back then and all Puritan children just did as they were told?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Are religious convictions stronger or weaker today when compared with Puritans like John Dane? What group or groups in modern times most closely resembles the Puritans?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch. The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying. The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money. He assumed she had taken it away from him. It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
I also found these documents on the testimony aganist Bishop very interesting. I know that the witch hysteria was a very crazy thing, but why did so many people give testimony aganist this woman? Was this a common practice of having many, many people testify aganist the accused, or was this a special case?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I personally love the fact that everything that was presented against Bishop are all things that today would be taken as mere coincidence. The fact that children grew ill and that objects were either misplaced or disappeared were all attributed to this one woman shows the suspicious nature of these people. If my memory serves me correctly, Bishop was also one, if not the first, person to be accused of witchcraft in Salem. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I'm interested in knowing where the ideas of witches started in the first place. Was it an idea that was carried over from England? Also, Bishop pleaded not guilty; if she had pleaded guilty would she have recieved a lesser punishment than execution? -Megan Malecha</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T06:03:15Z<p>199.111.69.175: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
<br />
Josiah Jeremy's, "The Floting Island" and John Heckewelder's "The Arrival of the Dutch" have very similar accounts of how the natives encountered the Europeans. First of all, It seems that there is a priest who is a key figure in being one of the first to come to shore. they are the ones who give the natives presents and show signs of peace. I find it ironic that there seems to always be a show of peace and friendship toward the natives, then fighting breaks out. I think the natives of Manhattan got their first look at how crafty the Europeans were when they pulled that trick with the bull hide, cutting it up so they could get more land.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
In King Alfonso's letters, he is constantly pleading to the King of Portugal to keep his filthy merchants out of their country and to keep them from kidnapping anymore people and selling guns. I know that this king was a Christian, but why did he not just take charge of his own country?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In a way, I felt bad for Kind Alfonso his letters. He seems to always remark about the fact that he has been told to ask for the things he needs, and it will be provided for him by King Joao probably to remind King Joao that a deal has been made that he is responsible of honoring. King Alfonso references several times that he must maintain the order of things that was created by King Joao's father, the previous King. I assume the arrangements of the relations between the two kingdoms was founded by the previous Kings of these Kingdoms and now the present, Alfonso and Joao, are trying to maintain order. In a way, I just felt the desperation from King Alfonso. He speaks as though he is subordinate of King Joao, this may be because of his realization that his kingdom is in dire need of his help and all of the efforts of King Alfonso have failed. His people are being taken away for slaves, others are quickly dying of disease, and he is in need of many things to keep the kingdom functioning, such as priests, teachers, doctors, etc. He could not stop the Portuguese in any way, not what they trade, not the people they took as slaves, and as he watched them corrupt his kingdom, he had to turn around and beg for help from the King whose men were causing the damage. I think it would be interesting to have read the letters from King Joao to see his take and the manner he spoke to King Alfonso. Is there any record of his responses or his general outlook on the situation? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Pareja's section about women he asks "Having given birth recently, have you considered eating these things as sinful?" What is his meaning behind this? Is this still about the fish being sinful? The other things he references are things like charcoal, dirt, pottery, fleas and lice. I would not consider fish among these things to be sinful or dirty. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In response to Jessie Bright's question about why we still celebrate Columbus Day:<br />
As confusing as it may sound, I do not believe that the term "Columbus Day" is meant to be taken as literally as most people perceive it to be. I think the broader meaning of Columbus Day is meant to commemorate more so the many positive effects and aftermath of Columbus' great voyage to the West; which would encompass mainly the fact that Columbus' expedition prompted the European’s interest in the “New World.” An effective understanding of this European interest would then lead us to ponder about the significance it had on their culture from there on out and thus how it ultimately affected us Americans today. Therefore, we are not celebrating the man Columbus himself, but rather his famous quest to the West that consequently lead to a new historical age. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Also, I was doing some research and found that other countries actually celebrate Columbus Day as well…except they all call it something totally different, which ties into my last point I made about how we commemorate the constructive effects of Columbus’ voyage instead of Columbus himself or the negative effects. For example, many countries in Latin America celebrate “Dia de la Raza” (Day of the Race); in Costa Rica “Dia de las Culturas” (Day of the Cultures); in Spain “Dia de la Hispanidad,” etc… As you can see, they are all observing the same event, and by the definitions of the holiday titles you can see that they are actually a celebration of new culture and race (which is obviously something important to them and therefore worth celebrating). <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Emily commented that those journal accounts may not be accurate. I am curious about this too. And if the several references in the accounts published in the Johnson Reader are accurate, I am wondering what would have inspired this sort of assumption? We are aware of several Native American creation stories at this point and none would seem to suggest that Columbus had any qualities those people might look for in deities. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
I found the description of the great Montezuma in this account quite interesting. I know in many European countries it was not common to bath everyday, even among the nobility. However, I noticed that it stated that Montzuma did in fact bath everyday, and I was curious if this was a common practice for rulers of the Native American villages? Also in this account, the wonderful gardens of Montezuma were mentioned. I was curious if the herbs and medicinal plants that grew there were shared with others in the villages, or if Montezuma reserved these herbs and medicinal plants solely for himself? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Are the Native Americans of Mexico, referred to in the passage, the Mayans? Also, why do the Indians perform canibalism at their ceremonial banquets? Did they practice canibalism normally or was it only a part of the sacraficing ritual? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Calloway reader made repeated comments about the Native Americans' overall fascination with these foreigners in general and the seemingly petty possessions they brought with them on their journey over, even naming several important territories after European trade goods. I had to wonder - were the native people at the time completely unaware of any peoples/cultures/continents' existence outside of their own? I found this hard to believe, especially considering the tangible evidence I have previously been presented of foreigners constantly making this intercontinental journey throughout the preceding centuries. What was the extent of the Native American world view in the early 1500's?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in "The Arrival of the Dutch", the Native Americans believed that the man that "wore the red clothes" was perceived to be "the great Mannitto (Supreme Being). -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the floating island story, the woman has a dream about an island with tall tress and living beings dressed in rabbit-skin and then the next day a ship arrived with trees and people (who looked like bears). I know dreams played an important role in Native American beliefs, but they weren't psychic. Plus, her dream wasn't a clear interpretation of what happened that day. --Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Powhatan speech to Captain John Smith shows a side of the Indians you don't always see. In every story I've heard it's always the settlers killing the Natives or taking advantage of them and stealing their land. In the introduction to this speech we learn that not only did the settlers rely on the Indians for food, but one chief threatened to take away their food supply if they started a war. --Meg Malecha<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy theory of "The Floating Island", I thought that it was interesting it was a young woman who foretold of the account that would occur between the Native Americans and the Europeans. I found it a little peculiar that it was a young woman who dreamt the account due to the lack of respect and power that most women had in the Native American socities. The unpleasant reaction by the necromancers was not shocking because they felt that due to their status, a dream of such importance should have come through them, those with "power of their magic." This theory was quite interesting and had such a positive, peaceful interpretation of the interaction with the Europeans and Native Americans. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
I think the portion of the reading relating to the Congo was particularly relevant to situations of today. It was interesting to see the inception of imperial rule in this area, and ensuing consequences, when in fact the nation is still dealing with the consequences of its imperial rule. King Afonso talks about how the Portuguese simply use the Congo for their own means, mainly resources. This is still going on in the Congo, mainly with the desire for diamonds. It was very interesting to see the origins of the situation manifesting itself in the letters by the King. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have some trouble with the introduction to Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s account. The intro in Johnson says that Castillo was angered by the false reports of the Conquest that he had been reading, and so decided to write his own, truthful, account. However, Castillo’s account is littered with extravagance and hyperbole. For example, he writes, “As for the horrible noise when the lions and tigers roared, and the jackals and foxes howled, and the serpents hissed, it was so appalling that one seemed to be in hell” (22). While I am sure all of these new creatures and their noises were overwhelming, the extent to which Castillo describes everything actually makes me question his supposed sincerity. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
<br />
Powhatan's "Speech to Captain John Smith" leaves me with multiple questions. I'm confused of who recorded it, was it John Smith? Also, how is it that the speech has suddenly become translated into english? Within the 2 years the colonists have been at Jamestown, there doesn't seem to be a the Indians could have become so fluent in a foreign speech. Especially knowing that by 1609 the population was so low that the exposure to the english language was extremely limited. How were the Indians and colonists able to communitcate so well if their languages differed so dramatically? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
On page 37, it says "The universal name the Monseys have for New York, is "laaphawachking"... They say this name was given in consequence of beads being here distributed among them by the Europeans." Does this imply that before the Europeans came, the Natives are believed not to have had names for places?? That seems mighty ridiculous to me. Maybe someone could clear that up for me? <br />
-Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Also, I found it very ironic that in Powhattan's speech to John Smith he is asking what can be gained by war that cannot be gained by love. <br />
This is ironic because one of the justifications of taking over the natives was that they were a savage warring people. How funny that Powhattan would be the one explaining how useless war is. I assume this was not published until much later? After most of the natives had been killed??? -Jessica Lawrie<br />
In reading Johnson you find out that when the Europeans came to eh Kingdom of Congo they brought and started trading guns to the natives. Is this the event that has lead to the mass genocides and "terrorism" in the Congos. You see movies of the Congos with guns, killing, and terrorism around every corner and in my mind i can see the Europeans coming and trading guns as the event that lead to some of all this. In the letter from King Afonso to King Joao III, you see Afonso very distressed and sensing the change that this trading of firearms and other goods has brought to his Kingdom, and look where they are now. - Landon James<br />
<br />
If Columbus said he believed "they (Indians) were a people who would be better freed [from error] and converted to our Holy Faith by love NOT by force" then why was their oppression in the first place? I know we talked about hwo he pretty much had permission to opress and enslave whomever he so pleased, but was their no sense of personal morality, a sense for what's right and what's wrong? For Columbus to write this then go and oppress them makes me ashamed. - Landon James<br />
<br />
Columbus seemed really intent on changing the Native Americans and converting them to Christianity. What did he have to gain by this? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Columbus discovered the New World, NOT the Indies. Spain and the Queen and King had invested money into finding the Indies and spices and immediate payback funds for their investment in Columbus. However, when Columbus did not discover the Indies, or at least a route to them, was Isabella not just a little bit disappointed or upset that her funds did not go towards their original goal. Nowe it may seem like this question is stupid, for Columbus found what might be better than a spice route to the Indies; a new continent and the opportunity to settle. Yet, if I was Isabella I would have liked to see that route to India. Is there any indication that Isabella was disappointed? - Jake Guralnik</div>199.111.69.175https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-18T12:42:01Z<p>199.111.69.175: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In reply to Renee's thought about a tree being present in both stories, I think there is a true significance. A dominate belief in the Native American culture is the presence of mother earth and in their stories her "authority" is represented by the tree. I think Christianity has some similar beliefs that all things are alive and the tree is a perfect example of growth, whether it be physical growth, spiritual growth, or growth by maturity. So a simple answer to her question, in my opinion, is that the presence of a tree in all 3 stories is not a coincidence. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I know this may sound like a silly question, but I've never understood why God created the earth. Discussion question 1 for the Genesis reading asks "How and why did God create the earth?", but I actually don't know. In Sunday school churches always teach about the creation though they do not provide a definate reason why. Did God create the earth just for "kicks"? Are there other scriptures that give a definate answer? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both of the Native American creation stories, both the Seneca and the Iroquois, seemed to be very negative. Both focused on the struggle between the two brothers, and I wonder if there is any parallel with the strugle the Native Americans faced with the colonist. <br />
<br />
Also I was wondering if the account of the Creek origin, told by Chekilli, was also trying to allude to struggle between Native Americans and colonist. Especially in the last paragraph on page 32, "they now know that the white path was the best for them: for , although Tomochichi was a stranger, they see he has done them good." And then he goes on to mention the King and Esquire Oglethorpe, who as described in the picture on page 32 invited Tomochichi and his wife to travel to England. I'm confused as to what in this story is fiction and what is actually based on historical events.--Helen Dinndorf--<br />
<br />
I found the Iroquois Creation Story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky, and the Book of Genesis all intriguing because each story shares similarities, as well as profound differences. Are these similaries mere coincidence or insight to some greater purpose? My question is how would a historian percieve these similarities pertaining to the different people, cultures, and societies? The stories remind me of a program I watched on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark and how multiple religions and societies have similiar stories of a great flood in their past, some documented, some orally past down from generation to generation, but it makes one think! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
In response to Landon James'question: "Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans?" I know of a one "benefit" (and I say that sarcastically) that the Native Americans recieve; they get tax exemptions on products they sell, such as tobacco products (Cigars and Cigarettes). I know this because my parents buy cigarettes at one reservation in New York. I heard that the government is displeased since many small local U.S. tobacco sellers cannot keep up with Native American low prices. The Native American my parents buy their tobacco products from told them with the profit he has made selling tobacco he plans to build a casino on the reservation, everything tax free! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with A. Zelin about the Seneca origin narrative, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", it reminded me of Cain and Abel as well. I find it interesting because in the Bible it is the first time a human dies and I wonder, is the death of Othagwenda in the Seneca story the first mention of a human death in their spiritual history as well? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
While reading the passage from Genesis I noticed that there were two sentences where God is speaking and the word "us" and/or "our" is used. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." and "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." I just find it interesting that "us" and "our" are used when God is speaking. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that in "The Politics" by Aristotle, he says, "It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just..." For those Europeans who had actually read Aristotle, he is basically saying that it is good for those people who are slaves by nature to be enslaved and it is also not wrong to enslave them. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In response to the statement above about God referring to himself as "us", some people believe the "us" is the trinity, and others believe it is the angels with God, and all the heavenly beings. Still others believe it is kind of like a "royal" us. Like, showing importance, kind of in the way queens would say "We would like a sandwich and a pepsi." (not that she'd ask for those two specifics...)<br />
-- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
A couple people have asked whether or not Native Americans are fighting back today. Over Christmas break there was a news story on how the Lakota people have withdrawn treaties made with the United States in the 19th century. They declared themselves independent. You can read the story at Fox News or CNN, just type "Lakota Indians" into the search bar.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Somewhat connected to what A. Zelin said, I saw an unmistakable link among three stories with 2 brothers each. Teharonghyawago & Tawiskaron (From the Iroquois Creation Story), Cain and Able (From the Bible's account of creation), and Romulus and Remus (From Greek Mythology). In all three stories, one brother killed another. It seems to support the fact that people travelled across the Bering Strait. Naturally all the people would start with the same version of creation long long ago, but over the years as it was orally passed down, it began to change in whatever way the story teller relayed it (whether intentionally or not). I found that interesting and exciting. :) --Jessica Lawrie <br />
<br />
A little off topic, but, in class we were asked what the plural for moose is. I was thinking maybe the reason there is no plural for the word is that they are solitary animals. Maybe because there were never more than one around, there was no need for a word for more than one word. I hope no one minds that this comment is not exactly about the reading. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Oh! It was also very interesting to me that it was believed the people were heavily tattooed. For a people so in tune with nature, it seems they would not want to harm their bodies, which are part of nature. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
<br />
The section that discusses how the Creeks came to where they are begins by saying the earth opened in the West "where its mouth is", and the people came out of it. It then says "The earth became angry." I'm wondering if this is originated with yellowstone and the active volcanics there. In the ancient Roman world at Cumae there is volcanic activity where the sulfur comes up through cracks in the earth. It was thought to be the mouth to the underworld. It's an interesting possible parallel. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Jessica about the connection of the story of Genesis and the Iroquois Creation story. It gives evidence that while these people were separated by thousands of miles, their stories were still interconnected and must mean that they originated from the same place. At the same time there are very noticeable differences. I guess my question would be how did these peoples culture change so drastically that their stories would differ to such a large degree? Another question is why is there such a large gap between the Iroquois story and the Seneca story? Are they meant to be the same but translated differently or are there just that many variations in the story? –Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the Iroquois Creation Story, The Great Spirit ordered the Great Turtle to catch his daughter, pregnant with illegitimate child, on it's back, which is what she built the earth on. Yet in the Seneca Creation Story, the chief's ill daughter fell first on waterfowl, who wished to save her and were not ordered to do so. Finally, the chief's daughter was passed onto the back of the Great Turtle. Also, I was curious who both stories differed so in who created the earth, since the Seneca version, it is actually the animals and not the daughter. However, the Turtle being "the base" for the construction of the earth, is consistent in both stories, which ties into the close relationship between Native Americans and nature. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Jenna S. wrote about regarding the connection between Genesis, the Christian based Creation story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky based on teh Seneca Creation story, adn the Iroquois Creation story. The fact that all three stories contained 2 brothers, one evil and one good, who end up fighting to the death provides a strong and important connection between the Native Americans and the Christians. This connection is vital because all three groups introduce death and struggle as a part of human life. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I can't get my head out of Chekilli's narration of the travelings of the Creeks. At first when I was reading his speech I thought the story to be written in such an elementary way relative to the other readings, but then I started to visualize how he spoke the story, and it's kind of coming to life for me. I feel like I'm in an Indian Hut listening to an old guy tell what he knew of legends and such. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
In comparing the two creation stories, Iroquois Creation Story and "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky", I found it interesting that the Iroquois Creation story told that the woman was thrown down from the sky by her father because she had been "pregnant by an illicit connection". Then in the other story, "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" she had just been taken ill and in the concern of all the people, and her father in particular, they removed the tree in effort to cure her of her ailment by hanging her from in when she was pushed down by another. Pregnancy in this second story is ignored, it is instead assumed that nature itself impregnated the woman and her daughter (she tells her daughter to only look to the West when picking potatoes, then the time she looked to the East the West Wing entered her and she got pregnant). I just found it interesting the very different role of pregnancy and even of the father of the children, in general, played in these stories. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In examining further into the creation stories, "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and the Iroquois Creation Story, I focus on the twins. In the story "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" I deemed the role of the twins to be far more significant and to have made an actual impact on the formation of nature. The balance of positive and negative attributes each contributed to the expanding of the island worked well, but is understandable that the battle of each brother to have things his own way would lead to a fight between the two twins. In the Iroquious Creation Story, I felt that the twins' role was much less notable, the brothers' fight seemed almost meaningless, especially to have been the cause of the death of a brother(which begs the question of how good could one actually be to have murdered his brother over past grievances?) Nevertheless, after the "good" brother released all of the animals that had been captured and held captive by his twin, combined with the inevitable hatred still felt by the "good" brother for "evil" brother that he had knowingly killed their mother, the twins began to fought. With this fight, which took place all throughout the island, arose the only eminent impact the brothers actually had in this story: from the varied tones in their voices while passing different places during the fight resulted in the formation of different languages. The first story was more of a creation story of how Earth and its beings came to place, while the other said much less about how things came to be beyond the original formation of the island. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In the story, “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky,” I found it ironic that the chief’s daughter was ill in heaven but when she was pushed down to earth, she was able to be cured when she couldn’t be cured in heaven with many attempts.<br />
And how was life made when the woman somehow conceived a daughter and then that daughter conceived male twins? Did the twins make more humans like the way they made the animals and nature? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
The two stories, “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky” and “In the Beginning” are similar in the way they tell how life was first originated. [One from the Seneca religion and the other from the Christian religion] They contrast in ways that one was a woman who was first placed on earth and the other a man. Also, in the Seneca’s story it seems as if the twins were God because they made the animals and nature (or not?) -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that many Indian tribes believed that the world was created on the back of a giant sea turtle and that the Iroquis and the Seneca's story of how the earth was created was similar. -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the different creation stories in chapter one of Johnson, I realized that each one of the stories is directly correlated to both the culture that wrote them, and also the time period in which they were written. For example, the Seneca's creation story, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky," didn't make much sense to me, but then I thought about the fact that we are only what we know. The Native Americans used their knowledge of what they knew at the time in order to make up a creation story that made sense in their eyes. The turtle for example, was something the Native Americans were familiar with, thus they chose to incorporate it into the story about how life came to be. In the Christian version of creation, "Genesis," it is apparent that the society of that time period believed that creation was way too complex for merely mortal men to have been responsible for. Therefore, they put all the credit towards a much higher being of intelligent design since they were not able to fathom the unexplained. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I think for a topic of discussion, we should explore some different creation stories from other parts of the world (and even in the same parts of the world) so that we can compare and contrast the various ways in which certain cultures and societies explained what they did not know, creation. It would be interesting to see the certain similarities among some of them, and at the same time it would be interesting to see the differences among the stories in which the people lived relatively close to one another, like another Indian tribe in North America for example. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
This might be a little off topic, but I kept thinking about it as I was reading about the Native American's beliefs and storys. My geography teacher mentioned in his lecture today that 'gods' used to be used to explain things that people didn't understand. For example, when it wasn't understood why the sun rose on one side and set on another, the explaination was the "sun god" dragged the sun across the sky every day. Now that we know about the earth's axis, how it's titled, and how the earth rotates, we don't need any other explaination. So it makes sense to me that the Indians had some of the beliefs and thoughts that they did.<br />
P.S. Does anyone know how to enable cookies?<br />
--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in both “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky” and “Iroquois Creation Story,” the stories ended with brother in a brawl. However, I agree with Christen that the role of the twins in “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky” was far more significant in the creation of nature and such. It seems that the twins also created hardship and unhappiness because the one brother disputed what the other brother had made saying that the people who would come to live there would live too easily and be too happy. The “Iroquois Creation Story” spawned the branches of good and evil with the two brothers. “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky” told more of nature and the land created, whereas The “Iroquois Creation Story” told more of how humans act. <br />
I also think that exploring different creation stories from other parts of the world would be an interesting discussion topic. <br />
-- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
I had never actually read any of the Bible until I read the Genesis portion in the reading. I never realized it was written in such a storytelling kind of way, not unlike the creation stories of the Native Americans. It is interesting to think about why different groups of people believe different things and how religious beliefs are formed.- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
I know that there are groups of Chirstians today that take the Bible extremely literally, while some only use the stories to base their morals and don't take it word for word. I wonder if this is true of the Native Americans, or if they all take their stories as absolute truth.- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting to think about all of the different religions of the world that an individual can decide to follow. It's kind of like playing roulette. Which one will give me a prize when the wheel stops turning? :) -Matt Pulley<br />
<br />
I can understand how some may think that God is just an agreed upon being to explain the unexplainable. For a while I believed in that, too. I changed my mind when I learned about a man who claimed to be of God, who only knew of loving, healed the sick, and gave his life for the rest of humanity. I hope I didn't scare anyone. On a lighter note, I think the plural usage of moose should be "meese." -Matt Pulley<br />
<br />
Calloway's book discussed in detail the pillaging and capitalization of Native American resources by early European settlers, even mentioning incidents where they were willing to change the text of contracts or give gifts infested with smallpox to get ahead. Do any qualities of these early pilgrims's still exist in the American Society of today? Would something like this happen again if given the opportunity? - Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
After reading the Iroquois Creation Story I became rather fascinated with this ancient religion. Does any evidence of this religion still exist in America? Are their any sort of shrines to the Sea Turtle? Also, how is it that Native Americans of the NE who had never seen the sea could even know sea turtles existed, let alone accept that one could be their ultimate creator? - Adam Shlossman</div>199.111.69.175 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