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: 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=199.111.70.91McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:25:35ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T04:31:56Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 */</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 />
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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T04:29:22Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T04:34:45Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 */</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 />
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 />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
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>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T04:32:43Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass */</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 />
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 />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
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>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-28T11:59:05Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 */</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 />
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 />
After reading "Gold Fever" i see that soem fifty thousand people went in search of finding gold. I''' wounder how many people would pack up and travel today if they heard of a gold rush'''? I would believe that most people who did pack up and leave for California were pretty confident that they were going to find riches because back then it wasnt as simple as just buying a plane ticket and getting there in a few hours. How long on average would people be searching until they finally gave up and headed back?- Bryan Quintana<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 />
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 />
When reading this conversation, the part that stands out to me the most is how the husband picked his wife because of her size. "...The biggest can do all the work, and that's what I want one for." (229) I just find it very interesting that women and slaves seemed to have no choice in the majority of their life, although white women were considered 'above' slaves. ---Virginia Stratton<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 />
<br />
I wonder how successful this was. Was it blown off by the majority of society and noticed later, or did people begin to rally behind it?--Gracie Ofslager<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 />
I also felt that it seemed that A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett seemed to have a lot of "fluff in it". I find it very hard for him to kill that amount of bears in one year. For David Crocketts purpose however i cant blame him for trying to come off the way that he came off in his narrative.- Bryan Quintana<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 />
When reading this, part of me wants to believe that Crockett really did kill that many bears, but like everybody else I know that his stories have been greatly exaggerated. What I really find interesting is how the other people that Crockett goes hunting with are barely mentioned and are almost a distraction than real characters. --- Virginia Stratton<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>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T03:12:31Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie</div>199.111.70.91https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T03:07:18Z<p>199.111.70.91: /* George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 */</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 />
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 />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie</div>199.111.70.91 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