Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=199.111.73.63McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:27ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T12:00:05Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In response to Gracie's comment... I have to disagree. I think he had in his mind what he wanted, but emphasized less objectionable subjects in his speeches. It's clear to me he wanted to stay a united union, but just because he wanted that he makes clear, did not mean he had to go only one way to approach it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, His stance was to unite, but he was willing to keep a united nation either by keeping slavery or not. As the war progressed he began to believe that slavery must be eliminated to be truly united. I might be the only person that feels that way though. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article they talked about gold vs. green backs, and I was wondering how they determined how much gold was worth how many green backs?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
This article mentioned a "mature age" and I was just wondering what age that was and how it was determined?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In the indidents of the riot, I was unsure of the brutal acts against the black man. Wasn't he free? Is the what we discussed in class, about white taken advantage of all blacks and claiming them their property even when they were free?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
What was the real reason Sherman wanted to evacuate the city of Atlanta? Was he really just looking to make it easier for his men or was there a deeper message he was trying to send to the Confederacy in general? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
Outside of violence and intimidation like was described in this passage, did the KKK have any tangible power in the South or was this their sole source of influence? Were its members ever elected to state political positions or seats within Congress? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how nonchalantly Elias tells this story. And, I also found it interesting how calm he seemed to be while being "interviewed" by the ku-klux. It seems odd to me though, that he would not be a little upset at his brother's wife for telling where he lives. At the same time though, I guess he would be glad for her life to be spared. This really made me sad to read though. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-25T11:52:41Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I had to read Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley a couple of times. I was very confused on what Lincoln was saying about saving the Union and freeing slaves. I understand now that all that Lincoln cared about was saving the Union. He makes it quiet clear that by and means nessary he will save the Union.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Emacipation Proclomation Lincoln states, "...the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I reccomend to them that...(276). My question is whethere Lincoln might have put this point in the address in order to in a way appease the southern people. With that statement, the southerners could claim self defense on any occassion that they were caught beating free blacks. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in The Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln recommends that freemen “labor faithfully for reasonable wages.” He is suggesting for newly freed slaves to live the same life their white counterparts have for years through a job and at the same time claims they should be paid a ‘reasonable’ wage. Here, isn’t he basically suggesting an inequality in pay at the same time as calling for equality? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This excerpt shows what we discussed in class; that Lincoln was more concerned with saving the Union than with freeing slaves. He even states that he would only free the slaves if he thought it would save the Union. However, I found it interesting that this neutral stance he took in his reply to Greely suddenly changes a year later to a proclamation of freedom and emancipation. Did Lincoln change his mind and decide that slavery should be ended for moral reasons? Or did he just have reason to believe that ending slavery at that time would help save the Union? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln seems like a guy who was afraid to take a stance on anything until someone else forced his hand. He did a lot of good things and all, but he seemed kind of spineless in his stance on slavery. He just wanted everyone to like him.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
It's interesting how someone who didn't care for the slaves can change his mind so quickly. It could be that during the first years of the war Lincoln thought about the issue of slavery more and believed that if slavery was gone then there would be nothing to fight about and not because of his moral. He did say that he would only do something about the slaves only if it would assist to the unification of the union. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In his emancipation proclamation, Lincoln seems to make a great deal of seemingly random exceptions from emancipation (or at least, that is how I read it). This entire paragraph was very confusing to me. Are these cities and counties really get excluded? If so, why? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In response to Gracie's comment... I have to disagree. I think he had in his mind what he wanted, but emphasized less objectionable subjects in his speeches. It's clear to me he wanted to stay a united union, but just because he wanted that he makes clear, did not mean he had to go only one way to approach it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, His stance was to unite, but he was willing to keep a united nation either by keeping slavery or not. As the war progressed he began to believe that slavery must be eliminated to be truly united. I might be the only person that feels that way though. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree I was suprised to see those quotes as well. It appears that this anonymous slave had some education. After reading this passage and thinking about all the good points this slave made it reminds me of an early Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcom X.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also agree that the slave who wrote this passage seems very intelligent. He not only estimates the worth of all slaves within the United States but he also identifies many hypocritical thoughts that whites have towards African Americans. In addition, he points out how torn slaves were during the Civil War. Slaves who were in the South were expected to be faithful to their masters and continue to labor. But at the same time the North is fighting for freedom, which the slaves obviously want. So, they are torn between what they are expected to do and what they want to do. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article they talked about gold vs. green backs, and I was wondering how they determined how much gold was worth how many green backs?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were some interesting points I was curious about. They spoke of how they relieved men and women from the trouble and violence, but where any women actually attack and/or murdered? Because the next page tells of specific cases and none were of women. So I wonder why women would be included in the relief effort if they weren't considered the main targets. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was that although there are almost twice as many women as there are men, the men have three times as many jobs. Just putting that out there.I also realized that as I was reading this, I didn't really know much about this riot. The New York riot did not seem to be discussed very much, if at all in my earlier years of learning history. (That has just been my experience, I don't know if anyone else is diffrent). I think this may be so because the North was ashamed that something like this happened so far north, where people are fighting for equality for the blacks. I believe that this incident is a very shameful topic to discuss. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
This article mentioned a "mature age" and I was just wondering what age that was and how it was determined?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
In these correspondences, Sherman signs his letter your obedient servant to his superior and to General Hood, the confederate general. It seems logical to be used as respect to his superior, but for Hood and Sherman to both sign their letters with this ending seems weird. Are they mocking each other or was there just a general respect for other officers? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
What was the real reason Sherman wanted to evacuate the city of Atlanta? Was he really just looking to make it easier for his men or was there a deeper message he was trying to send to the Confederacy in general? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
How this passage talked about his recollection of the war and the things he saw, makes me question the mental health of the people who helped in the war, not just the soldiers. My Abnormal Psychology class discussed the issue of Post Tramatic Stress Disorder and veterans of war so this thought has been on my mind already. I know there are many cases of soldiers having PTSD after the tramatic events of war, but what about doctors and nurses? They've also seen the horror of war so do you think some of them ended up suffering from PTSD? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering if Whitman was on any particular side? Was he a Confederate or part of the Union? Because it says that he visited hospitals in D.C. and in Fredericksburg, so, how could he get the clearance to visit both sides? I could just be misinterperting the segment, but I just wanted to be sure. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Walt Whitman was just a weird guy who wanted something to write on. Poets people watch a lot--so I hear. Also, it may have been a common thing to visit soldiers to boost their morale--kind of like feeding the homeless or something--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
According to the Black Codes of Mississippi, it seems as though slavery never ended. The documents quote "that if any apprentice shall leave the employment of his or her master or mistress, without his or her consent, said master or mistress may pursue & recapture said apprentice... That if any person entice away any apprentice from his or her master or mistress, or shall knowingly employ an apprentice, or furnish him or her food or clothing, without the written consent of his or her master or mistress.. said person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.. and shall be punished as provided for the punishment of persons enticing from their employer hired freedmen, free Negroes or mulattoes". I feel as if those are the exact same laws as when there was slavery. If the slave ran away, the master went to find them and bring them back. If anyone helped the slave in any way, the master had the right to punish them. Didn't the national government see the problem with these state laws? Didn't the Civil War prove that the National Government was stronger than the state governments? Why didn't they override these laws? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that in these codes it includes one about intermarriage. Was that really an issue that needed to be dealt with? It just seems to surprise me that in Mississippi, in the deep south, that people would even consider intermarriage, enough to write a code about it. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
Did these posters actually found their family? I mean it's so vague in terms that the only information that is given is the name and for some of them only first name. They don't mention the age of the people, what they look like, and other information that would assist in the search for their loved ones. Also, many people have the same names: were there times when someone saw their name but was actually someone else with the same name? because it can happen. especially with children since they can't remember anything. -----Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading this, I found it very interesting the places that the people were writing from, and in turn living. Many of them wanted any information to be sent to Virginia which leads me to believe that is where they lived. Another good portion of them asked the information to be sent to Philadelphia. I just find it interesting the locations of these people. Did many former slaves stay in Virginia because they didn’t have the funds to go north? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This excerpt was very enlightening (in a sad/horrible way) since it was an exact account of what it was like to be a victim of the KKK. We get a ton of information out of this, specifically about what the members of the KKK were after (what motivated them to behave in such a gruesome way). I guess my question would be somewhat of the say as Quincey’s: did the onset of the KKK inspire blacks to migrate north or did it encourage them to fight back in the south? Also, I was curious as to what exactly Elias got out of his personal experience with the KKK…it’s not clear what his feelings are towards it, or what it inspired him to do. ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
After reading this account, I am horrified by the terrors that the KKK inflicted on innocent people without any form of just cause (if there can be a just cause for terrorizing people). My question is about what the KKK members say at the end when they ask Hill to pray for them so that God will forgive them. Why did they do this? Did they know deep down that what they were doing was wrong? Why else ask God to forgive them? --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==<br />
<br />
This piece was very interesting since it concerned somewhat different points of view than what we’ve previously read. Many Northern Republicans were deeply disappointed about what Reconstruction entailed. Furthermore, black Southerners had a surprisingly immense amount of confidence when it came to defending themselves with their own (insufficient) resources. Charles Nordhoff wrote “The Cotton States” and focused on these main two points. I personally liked Nordhoff’s excerpt simply because he presents the positives and negatives of BOTH sides of the conflict. This shows that even though he has his opinion and he is not scared to voice it, he is respectful of other people’s views and even understands them. This makes for a very reputable piece of writing since people are more likely to put themselves in the shoes of others when the argument is not purely one-sided and aloof. ~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T12:05:14Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the preface by William Lloyd Garrison, Garrison states that, "The experience of Frederick Douglass, as a slave, was not a peculiar one; his lot was not especially a hard one; his case may be regarded as a very fair specimen of the treatment of slaves in Maryland..." However, in the narrative, Douglass still makes it very clear that although the life he led was not that bad he clearly had suffered, particularly with the telling of watching his aunt get whipped. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the narrative, Douglass mentions, "If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural..." Is Ham in reference to Abraham? Why would he use Ham instead of Abraham? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
I hadn't really ever thought about it before... But my age defines a lot of who I am, and always has. When i was four, the main conversation starter was "How old are you?" and now that is my main starter when I talk to children of similar age. For Douglass to address this first page and then throughout his narrative shows the large effect this had on him, and how it kept him from fully grasping his identity. Along these lines, I find that in times that he had a kinder, less brutal master, Douglass was able to develop a stronger sense of identity, and in response to Jessie Bright, this may explain why he ran away while under the care of a less awful master. At least, that's the thought that crossed my mind. --Jessica Lawrie<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 />
Even though blacks were allowed to attend were they treated any better then they were in everyday life? If they were treated better would black people go to these camps just to be treated a little better or would they go becuase they truly believe in there purpose? Was this one of the first times where blacks were begining to be treated like whites?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Jackson's farewell address. It sounded real proud about what has happened so far and where this country would be going in the future. In his speech he tells the people that they come first and they must not be taken advantage of by the government. He beleives that the people are the building blocks of this country.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I really find it interesting that Grimke sympathizes with the colored woman so much. Seeing as how Grimke grew up in a household with many slaves, I wonder what was the turning point in her life that made her sympathizes with the slaves so much. --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I found that this still describes a lot of the way women are still thought of today. It's true, we've come a lot further, but in some ways, especially within the church, I find that women are still expected to drop their lives to take care of their family. This is nothing I object to. I mean, It's a great way to instill in your own morals into your kids. What I object to is the attitude that if you choose to work, you are a lesser woman. The church I used to go to is made up of literally 6 families, all of which have more than 6 kids, and all of which the women do not work and have a main job of taking care of their kids. As the teenage girls get older, no one cares about their schooling. Many don't even go to college or anything. It is more exciting and honorable to find a husband, even at the age of 18. And I found it so interesting that Sarah Grimke's letter would be so applicable even in today's society, after so much progress had been made among women for equality. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I agree with Ally. The fact that Lovejoy got warnings and considering the fact that he had most likely seen what these mobs had done to other people he still acted as if nothing was wrong. The cause he was fighting for was noble, but he just seems a little dumb to me. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that, even though Lovejoy was in a free state, the two men that come to attack him were from slave states. Little was from Virginia and St. Charles was from Mississippi. I was wondering if it was common for individuals from slave states to travel into free states and commit acts of violence when they knew that abolitionists would be speaking? -- Katie Mauro</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T12:04:32Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* 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 />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the preface by William Lloyd Garrison, Garrison states that, "The experience of Frederick Douglass, as a slave, was not a peculiar one; his lot was not especially a hard one; his case may be regarded as a very fair specimen of the treatment of slaves in Maryland..." However, in the narrative, Douglass still makes it very clear that although the life he led was not that bad he clearly had suffered, particularly with the telling of watching his aunt get whipped. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the narrative, Douglass mentions, "If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural..." Is Ham in reference to Abraham? Why would he use Ham instead of Abraham? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
I hadn't really ever thought about it before... But my age defines a lot of who I am, and always has. When i was four, the main conversation starter was "How old are you?" and now that is my main starter when I talk to children of similar age. For Douglass to address this first page and then throughout his narrative shows the large effect this had on him, and how it kept him from fully grasping his identity. Along these lines, I find that in times that he had a kinder, less brutal master, Douglass was able to develop a stronger sense of identity, and in response to Jessie Bright, this may explain why he ran away while under the care of a less awful master. At least, that's the thought that crossed my mind. --Jessica Lawrie<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 />
Even though blacks were allowed to attend were they treated any better then they were in everyday life? If they were treated better would black people go to these camps just to be treated a little better or would they go becuase they truly believe in there purpose? Was this one of the first times where blacks were begining to be treated like whites?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Jackson's farewell address. It sounded real proud about what has happened so far and where this country would be going in the future. In his speech he tells the people that they come first and they must not be taken advantage of by the government. He beleives that the people are the building blocks of this country.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I really find it interesting that Grimke sympathizes with the colored woman so much. Seeing as how Grimke grew up in a household with many slaves, I wonder what was the turning point in her life that made her sympathizes with the slaves so much. --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I found that this still describes a lot of the way women are still thought of today. It's true, we've come a lot further, but in some ways, especially within the church, I find that women are still expected to drop their lives to take care of their family. This is nothing I object to. I mean, It's a great way to instill in your own morals into your kids. What I object to is the attitude that if you choose to work, you are a lesser woman. The church I used to go to is made up of literally 6 families, all of which have more than 6 kids, and all of which the women do not work and have a main job of taking care of their kids. As the teenage girls get older, no one cares about their schooling. Many don't even go to college or anything. It is more exciting and honorable to find a husband, even at the age of 18. And I found it so interesting that Sarah Grimke's letter would be so applicable even in today's society, after so much progress had been made among women for equality. --Jessica<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I agree with Ally. The fact that Lovejoy got warnings and considering the fact that he had most likely seen what these mobs had done to other people he still acted as if nothing was wrong. The cause he was fighting for was noble, but he just seems a little dumb to me. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that, even though Lovejoy was in a free state, the two men that come to attack him were from slave states. Little was from Virginia and St. Charles was from Mississippi. I was wondering if it was common for individuals from slave states to travel into free states and commit acts of violence when they knew that abolitionists would be speaking? -- Katie Mauro</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T11:52:22Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the preface by William Lloyd Garrison, Garrison states that, "The experience of Frederick Douglass, as a slave, was not a peculiar one; his lot was not especially a hard one; his case may be regarded as a very fair specimen of the treatment of slaves in Maryland..." However, in the narrative, Douglass still makes it very clear that although the life he led was not that bad he clearly had suffered, particularly with the telling of watching his aunt get whipped. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the narrative, Douglass mentions, "If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural..." Is Ham in reference to Abraham? Why would he use Ham instead of Abraham? -- Katie Mauro<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 />
Even though blacks were allowed to attend were they treated any better then they were in everyday life? If they were treated better would black people go to these camps just to be treated a little better or would they go becuase they truly believe in there purpose? Was this one of the first times where blacks were begining to be treated like whites?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Jackson's farewell address. It sounded real proud about what has happened so far and where this country would be going in the future. In his speech he tells the people that they come first and they must not be taken advantage of by the government. He beleives that the people are the building blocks of this country.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I really find it interesting that Grimke sympathizes with the colored woman so much. Seeing as how Grimke grew up in a household with many slaves, I wonder what was the turning point in her life that made her sympathizes with the slaves so much. --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I found that this still describes a lot of the way women are still thought of today. It's true, we've come a lot further, but in some ways, especially within the church, I find that women are still expected to drop their lives to take care of their family. This is nothing I object to. I mean, It's a great way to instill in your own morals into your kids. What I object to is the attitude that if you choose to work, you are a lesser woman. The church I used to go to is made up of literally 6 families, all of which have more than 6 kids, and all of which the women do not work and have a main job of taking care of their kids. As the teenage girls get older, no one cares about their schooling. Many don't even go to college or anything. It is more exciting and honorable to find a husband, even at the age of 18. And I found it so interesting that Sarah Grimke's letter would be so applicable even in today's society, after so much progress had been made among women for equality. --Jessica<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I agree with Ally. The fact that Lovejoy got warnings and considering the fact that he had most likely seen what these mobs had done to other people he still acted as if nothing was wrong. The cause he was fighting for was noble, but he just seems a little dumb to me. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that, even though Lovejoy was in a free state, the two men that come to attack him were from slave states. Little was from Virginia and St. Charles was from Mississippi. I was wondering if it was common for individuals from slave states to travel into free states and commit acts of violence when they knew that abolitionists would be speaking? -- Katie Mauro</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T11:38:36Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
After reading this journal i finally realized what made Bennett Barrows act the way hi did towards his slaves. Saying when you dress and combs your slaves it can give you a sense of pride and makes you feel proud. I believe that he thought how he treated his slaves was very fair and he made them better people. I dont know if this is true because I dont know how other slave owners treated their slaves.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reading Bennet Barrow's journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm. Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation? And would Bennet Barrow be considered a "nicer" master during his time? I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason. Also, why is the word "Pass" capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
It seemed like he treated his slaves like a protective father would treat his daughter today. Not allow them to go out and keep a close watch on them. I bet the slaves like him somewhat becuase he took good care of them but also hated him becuase they were not allowed to go out and have a good time or even just get away from the plantation for a while.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
The last line of Bennet Barrow's journal, "Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious" seems to contradict Southern morals. Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn't want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation. However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says "any man" and not just "a northern man". I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery? How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be "injurious"? Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow's journal was not the consideration of children. After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master? Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves. He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.” Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security. But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control. Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think. In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important. But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that. I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves). ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting. However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, "No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation" (244). While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations? If so, how did they meet these women? I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that "[negro's] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment." This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
It's interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, "you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you." The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren't to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i'm pretty sure didn't work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery. He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead. I wonder how he treated his kids.<br />
<br />
In this passage i found it hard not to wonder about cases of incest.... I know it's taboo, but it seems to me that many of these slaves who where not allowed to marry others, especially on much smaller plantations, would resort to a romance within the family to satisfy sexual needs. Do we know anything about this? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
In the Plantation Rules document, one rule is that slaves couldn't marry outside the plantation. Wouldn't enouraging marriage within the plantation result in higher pregnancy rates? I know that slaves children, also become slaves and belong to the master; but what about maternity leave and nursing the infant? Wouldn't females slaves have to take a leave of absense? If so, was this a common way to get out of doing work?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In response to Laura's question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples. Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times. Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today. But reading his "confessions" made me wonder just what drives people to do so. Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn't treated him the way they did when he was a child? Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated? In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous. The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner's Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James<br />
<br />
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: "Seek ye the kingdom of heaven..." he was strucked by it that he "reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject." Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one's energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
<br />
This passage was quite interesting. When Nat Turner said, "And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand" (250). This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a 'new day of judgment' for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing. This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner's extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn't he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I want to focus on the psychology behind this passage. Nat Turner was not incredibly educated-he had studied the Bible, but it doesn't sound like he had been introduced into outside reason. It sounds like he reads until he finds something he can twist into backing his cause, but he does not seem to be influenced himself by ideas and knowledge. He had not been taught as well to rely on reason, so he relied on passion. Because of the wounds he suffered (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)his passion was more likely to be violent, acting out of hurt. He does not have a lot of grounding in education, so his reasoning can go anywhere and seem to make sense to him and anyone who is willing to buy into it. In this case, not educating slaves hurt the masters. A more educated slave would have been more gentle. Frederick Douglass spoke about when he gave up on his education and was reduced to a beast. He was unfeeling and hardened. When he decided to embrace knowledge again and thinking, he softened. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Reading this makes me wonder... First, this is written by a white man for him.... since it's an interview on death row. That said, I wonder if the two men are kind of struggling for the power of this passage. Maybe Nat Turner wasn't really that crazy, but was using Christ as a means of persuasion to his followers. The interviewer might realize this and try to spin Turner's words to sound crazed and overboard. It makes me wonder what Nat Turner would have written on his own. Do we have any journals or anything written by this man without the help of a white man??? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
What does Hammond mean when he says "Slavery in the abstract"? I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him. Why does he say, "I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any," yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn't Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also? Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose. I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James<br />
<br />
I've never understood how slaveholders could say that they don't think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist. In the beginning of Hammond's letter he states, "If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not." But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders "cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor. I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to "house", feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages. Also, the "houses" that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops. As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn't it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor? Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves. Also, as a "good slave" cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I liked the line Hammond used, "There are few universal truths." This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery. Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, "slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were "entrusted" to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and "proper kindness" but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. "It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied..." how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I hate to be the one to open Pandora's box here, but I couldn't help but notice that many parts of Hammond's defense of slaveholding are nearly identical to the arguments made by prominent activists and politicians against gay marriage in modern America. Where do we draw the line on biblical scripture to determine what is or is not culturally relevant if codes are, as Hammond put it, "what God ordains and Christ sanctifies"? At the same time, have we learned anything from this whole debate about slavery? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that "the are a great cuss to this country", yet before it seemed that he did'nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don't matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Reading this piece really made me wonder, how exactly did Southern plantation owners get by with the loss of all of their slaves following the Civil War? Considering a great deal of their wealth was invested in purchasing those slaves, as well as their massive plots of land to grow cotton, tobacco, corn, and other crops, what means did they have besides their and their children's labor to cultivate that land? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece? Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans. He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed. Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were. It’s like they were two totally separate countries. Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south? If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost? In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)? I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time? <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T11:28:28Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
After reading this journal i finally realized what made Bennett Barrows act the way hi did towards his slaves. Saying when you dress and combs your slaves it can give you a sense of pride and makes you feel proud. I believe that he thought how he treated his slaves was very fair and he made them better people. I dont know if this is true because I dont know how other slave owners treated their slaves.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's journal I think its very interesting that the slave owners were almost intimidated my their slaves because with out slaves, they would have nothing. Also, he mentions a lot the rules of slaves marrying outside of his plantation. I was wondering if slaves had that much interaction with slaves from other plantations, especially since his plantation is so large, you would think they would live, eat, and work all in one place.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reading Bennet Barrow's journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I do not understand how a slave could marry out of the plantation even if they wanted to. When would slaves ever meet other slaves if they stayed on the farm. Did this ever take place in history where slaves married other slaves from another plantation? And would Bennet Barrow be considered a "nicer" master during his time? I ask because he allows his slaves to leave the plantation, granted they must have a sufficent reason. Also, why is the word "Pass" capitalized when it is used in the diary entry? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
It seemed like he treated his slaves like a protective father would treat his daughter today. Not allow them to go out and keep a close watch on them. I bet the slaves like him somewhat becuase he took good care of them but also hated him becuase they were not allowed to go out and have a good time or even just get away from the plantation for a while.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
The last line of Bennet Barrow's journal, "Never allow any man to talk to your negroes, nothing more injurious" seems to contradict Southern morals. Most of his journal consisted or reasonings why he didn't want his slaves to leave his plantation, nor did he want slaves who had days off to visit his plantation. However, this last line struck me as interesting because it says "any man" and not just "a northern man". I thought all of the South had views that they were determined to keep slavery? How would talking to a white man who owned a plantation up the road be "injurious"? Is it because they may spend their (lacking of) free time down at that plantation instead of their own? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I was surprised one of the reasons for not allowing slaves to marry out of the plantation in Bennet Barrow's journal was not the consideration of children. After all, if a man marries a woman from another plantation, and she has children, wouldn’t the children belong to the woman’s master? Therefore, I would think that one of the primary reasons for wanting to keep marriages within the plantation would be for the master to acquire more slaves through childbearing. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Although the introduction to this piece says that it defines the rules in terms of what the master expected his slaves to do and not do, I can’t help but notice that there really only seems to be things listed that the slaves can NOT do. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Even though I’m sure Bennet Barrow claimed that his rules were expressions of his concerns and what not, it seems to me that he is merely trying to maintain control over his slaves. He says “The very security of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised.” Perhaps he is trying to make himself feel better by twisting it to sound like he is concerned about security. But in my opinion, many slave masters desired a constant sense of control. Having hundreds of slaves I’m sure induced a stressful lifestyle, so continuous power and rules probably had to be of utmost importance I would think. In this aspect, it makes sense why a sense of control was so important. But I think, as a psychology major, it goes deeper than that. I think that many slave holders genuinely knew that what they were doing was wrong, and that they incessantly tried to justify their actions through distortion and denial…(in this case, Bennet Barrow claiming that he has to make up rules because he is “worried” about the safety of his slaves). ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Barrow said that you should try to make slaves feel as if they were at home and provide them with essential needs to make them happy but Barrow seems to do the opposite of this. He limits their social activities when they are done with their work and even controls their marriage. He says he gives his slaves good meat and clothes twice a year, and other iteams as allowance. It seems as if he believes that he is being very generous. So, I guess other masters didnt give their slaves much. He also says that you should make a slave feel dependent on you but it seems as if it is the opposite. The white people seems more dependent on the slaves. He sees a plantation as a piece of machinary and slaves are the parts that make the machine run smoothly. Therefore they are dependent on the use of slaves. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I thought that this journal entry was quite interesting. However, a few of the rules that were expressed seemed quite frivolous, and one was, "No negro shall be allowed to marry out of the plantation" (244). While I understand that it would be problematic because it could result in the buying of a slave that a plantation owner may not want nor could afford, but was it really a common problem for men to want to marry women from other plantations? If so, how did they meet these women? I understand that one option could possibly be they were sold from one plantation to another, but if that were true, how would the two keep in touch, if the majority were illiterate? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I noticed in the very begining of the article, Barrow talks about the Driver. Who is that? I also noticed that when he began his long paragraph on page 244, Barrow states that "[negro's] are always liable to my call without questioning for a moment." This means that the slaves need to be ready for him to call at any moment and they must come no matter what. I found it funny how in the remaining paragraph, he tries to justify that by saying things like if there is a fire, if the slaves are not at his beck and call, there could be serious losses. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
It's interesting how the slave holders played psychological games to keep the slaves, "you must therefore make him as comfortable at Home as possible...you must provide for him Your self and be that means creat in him a habit of perfect dependence on you." The slave holders make this relationship so the slaves aren't to think they are there against their will but because they need the owner to function, which i'm pretty sure didn't work because they did have the run aways and small rebellions. Maybe the slave owners were making themselves think they were fooling the slaves of dependency? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
How often was the master of the plantation also the Driver? And with that, were these positions interchangable? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Bennett Barrow was blinded by the fact that he needed slavery. He tried to make it seem right and as if he were treating the slaves justly, so he paid attention to a self-contradicting theory instead. I wonder how he treated his kids.<br />
<br />
In this passage i found it hard not to wonder about cases of incest.... I know it's taboo, but it seems to me that many of these slaves who where not allowed to marry others, especially on much smaller plantations, would resort to a romance within the family to satisfy sexual needs. Do we know anything about this? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In response to Laura's question, Jesus often withdrew from the company of His disciples to have one on one time with God to more fully understand and hear what He was supposed to hear, free fromt he distractions of the disciples. Jesus does this in the Garden of Gethsemane where He asks the disciples to stay watch and they fall asleep several times. Thus, Turner is acting as Jesus might have when He heard the Spirit calling. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today. But reading his "confessions" made me wonder just what drives people to do so. Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn't treated him the way they did when he was a child? Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
were whites more afraid of the violence and insurrection that the slaves were capable of, or the fact that slaves were becoming more and more educated? In The Narrative of Frederick Douglas, Douglas states that becoming educated was the only thing that seperated him from the whites and once he was educated he was dangerous. The whites had to be thinking some of this at the time of Nat Turner's Rebellion, for, as you see from the reading, Turner was a rather well-spoken individual who was at least educated. - Landon James<br />
<br />
This article about Nat Turner was interesting.... The time when he overheard the scripture: "Seek ye the kingdom of heaven..." he was strucked by it that he "reflected much on this passage, and prayed daily for light on this subject." Then a spirit spoke to him and said that same exact passage. it seems like he just imagined or hallucinated that for he did say that he devoted his time to fasting and prayer which can drain one's energy. About him believing that he was extraordinary and special was not entirely his fault but that everyone was telling him since childhood that he was someone special who was born for some great purpose. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
<br />
This passage was quite interesting. When Nat Turner said, "And now the Holy Ghost had revealed itself to me, and made plain the miracles it had shown me-For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew-and as the leaves on the trees bore the impression of the figures I had seen in the heavens, it was plain to me that the Savior was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand" (250). This quote had a strong impact for me because to me, at this point, Turner is comparing himself to Jesus Christ, and truly believes that his responsibility is to bring about a 'new day of judgment' for all of the injustice that his people were experiencing. This quote also demonstrates the strong religious ties that slaves had, and how those religious ties became their driving forces to get through there lives as slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
<br />
In this reading, I find it really interesting how Turner says that the Holy Ghost came to him and led him to do what he did. I wonder if Turner almost viewed himself as a prophet because he was doing the will of God. This could be stretching the point but it seems that it could be valid due to Turner's extreme behavior. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
If he knows how to read and write, why wouldn't he compose his own confession in order to ensure its integrity and truth?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I want to focus on the psychology behind this passage. Nat Turner was not incredibly educated-he had studied the Bible, but it doesn't sound like he had been introduced into outside reason. It sounds like he reads until he finds something he can twist into backing his cause, but he does not seem to be influenced himself by ideas and knowledge. He had not been taught as well to rely on reason, so he relied on passion. Because of the wounds he suffered (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)his passion was more likely to be violent, acting out of hurt. He does not have a lot of grounding in education, so his reasoning can go anywhere and seem to make sense to him and anyone who is willing to buy into it. In this case, not educating slaves hurt the masters. A more educated slave would have been more gentle. Frederick Douglass spoke about when he gave up on his education and was reduced to a beast. He was unfeeling and hardened. When he decided to embrace knowledge again and thinking, he softened. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
What does Hammond mean when he says "Slavery in the abstract"? I think that at times in his letter he uses complex thoughts as to impress the reader and make them feel like inferior in intelligence to him. Why does he say, "I admit at once that every man is...to emancipate his slaves, should he hold any," yet he goes on to argue against the idea of ending slavery? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn't Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also? Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose. I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James<br />
<br />
I've never understood how slaveholders could say that they don't think slavery is right, but go on to say why slavery must exist. In the beginning of Hammond's letter he states, "If you were to ask me whether I am an advocate of slavery in the abstract...I am not." But by the end of his letter he states that slaves are in fact the slaveholders property and that slaveholders "cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their property." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
Hammond suggests that it is less expensive to have slaves than cheap labor. I found this interesting, as I figured it would cost more to "house", feed, and dress the slaves than it would be to pay someone cheap wages. Also, the "houses" that the slaves are living in are on fertile land that could be used for growing more cash crops. As unfortunately there was no hint of a minimum wage back then, wouldn't it have been cheaper to minimally pay for labor? Meat (however bad it may be) is a lot more expensive to feed slaves, especially in the large plantations, than to give them a little bit of money to feed themselves. Also, as a "good slave" cost around $20,000 now (as mentioned in class), a plantation owner could minimally pay them for their working years and it would add up to be less than that amount. How did the money amount add up in their eyes? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Hammond’s argument for slavery is very twisted. What were the responses from the abolitionists? Did any slaves dare to speak out against these arguments? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I liked the line Hammond used, "There are few universal truths." This statement describes perfectly the way that Hammond felt about slavery. Like Thomas Jefferson, Hammon disagreed with the idea of slavery but contradicted, "slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice." -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In this article, I gathered that Hammond may believe that slavery is not the same as owning another person. Is this accurate? I was also a bit shocked at how he insisted that God was pro-slavery, but I guess that a great way to vindicate ones behavior or actions would be to fully believe that your religion or God supports it. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how the slave holders claim the slaves were "entrusted" to them and each holder is responsible to treat the slave with some care and "proper kindness" but they did not seem to think they were people. There were cruelty standards for slaves and the owners that were not tolerable were frowned upon but the slaves just seemed a means of making money and moving the economy. "It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them, Of this we are all satisfied..." how did this mind set last for so long and for so many people, Slavery was just part of the early American culture and they had no problem with it, and I do not find their reasoning justifiable. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I like how Hammond points out that slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. I think that in this argument he is trying to get his audience to believe that slaveholders are just like every other man in America. I find this to be disgusting and beyond all reason! --- Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I hate to be the one to open Pandora's box here, but I couldn't help but notice that many parts of Hammond's defense of slaveholding are nearly identical to the arguments made by prominent activists and politicians against gay marriage in modern America. Where do we draw the line on biblical scripture to determine what is or is not culturally relevant if codes are, as Hammond put it, "what God ordains and Christ sanctifies"? At the same time, have we learned anything from this whole debate about slavery? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that "the are a great cuss to this country", yet before it seemed that he did'nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don't matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Reading this piece really made me wonder, how exactly did Southern plantation owners get by with the loss of all of their slaves following the Civil War? Considering a great deal of their wealth was invested in purchasing those slaves, as well as their massive plots of land to grow cotton, tobacco, corn, and other crops, what means did they have besides their and their children's labor to cultivate that land? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece? Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans. He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed. Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were. It’s like they were two totally separate countries. Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south? If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost? In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)? I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time? <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-15T07:15:32Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==<br />
<br />
In Johnson, reading "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading. First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time? It's mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time. Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time. I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership? Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness. Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur's life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters? - Landon James<br />
<br />
In Johnson, reading "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist", I also had questions. With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn't people have realized that it was the same person? Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection? It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Johnson's, "Confession of a Thief and Rapist" I also was wondering about the community's actions towards this man. Wouldn't they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist" i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn't even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren't exactly positive? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "Confessions of a thief and rapist" Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them. For example, he's whipped for stealing rum and clothes. Didn't people see that whipping slaves wasn't severe enough as punishment? It didn't work; it didn't keep him from committing more crimes. Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment? And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?<br />
--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Johnson's "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist" I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we've been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one's slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn't seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
"Confession of a Thief and a Rapist"--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did. In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town. Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did? Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Arthur got away with crimes so easily until his last. I would’ve thought that there would have been zero tolerance and punishment would have been harsh and immediate, especially for a slave. Was this because the crimes were against other blacks and it would have been far different if the victims had been white? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Why did it take so long for something to be done about everything this man was doing? And its interesting that nothing truly seemed to be done until this man raped a white woman.- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting that Arthur got away with practically all of his crimes (until the last one) and lived to committ more crimes. I thought back then, when Africans do something wrong, they were punished so severly that most died, even for the smallest wrong doings. But then Arthur is not just committing small crimes and also not just once. and when he does get caught and escapes, there would have been news about him and asking others to be on the lookout so when he got caught the second or third time they would have watched him closer. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This reading brought up a couple questions for me. First, why wasn't Arthur more severly punished for his crimes? Especially after he had a history of drunkeness, stealing, and running away? Second, why would other people continue to buy him with his previous record? I guess the answer probably has to do with slaves being considered valuable property. This reading shows the some of the more extreme actions or rebellion that we talked about in class. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In this reading, I realized that the punishments for the man's crimes were not always fitting to the crime itself. There seems to be an inconsistancy among the severity of his punishments for the acts committed. Were the laws dramatically different depending on what city he was in? And also, his sentence for committing rape was execution, how is it that in the present day rape charges result in as little as 18 months in prison? Has America moved toward a society that is way too liberal and forgiving of horrible acts? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I wish someone would have offered him a job and helped him learn to function in society. Of course, I've never done that for a homeless person...<br />
--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
This reading was frustrating. How did this guy keep escaping his jails? It seems like the legal system had quite a few flaws, because half the time he didn't have his punishment carried out. It was a very informative reading, though. It talked about how kind his master was to him (probably more so because he was his son). It also mentioned on page 79, that he "prayed for the benefit of the clergy;which the court denied." Does this mean that he wanted to convert to Christianity and the law men would not allow it? Was this a normal practice?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
While reading this, I was surprised to see how many time this 'Thief and Rapist" returned back to his master. Having no real home of his own, is it possible that despite being a slave, this man thought of this place as his home?? And I can't understand why he was given so many chances to get back onto the right path. Is this because of his value to his master? Or was he just not caught until he confessed? hmm.... --Jessica Lawrie--<br />
<br />
== Father Abraham's speech from ''Poor Richard's Almanac'', 1757 ==<br />
<br />
In regards to "Poor Richard's Advice" I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense. Don't get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his "wit and wisdom" that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times. Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything "may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven" (83)? What's the point of Franklin's wisdom if you don't have the "Blessing of Heaven"? Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard's Almanac. This frustrated me. - Landon James<br />
<br />
"Poor Richard's Almanack"--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today's society, I found Father Abraham's speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can't do anything because they're being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
While reading this essay I found myself constantly asking who Father Abraham was. Is this a reference to the Biblical Father Abraham or is this just another of Franklin's pseudonyms? If it is in reference to the Biblical Abraham then I am led to the question of why did he pick Abraham? Out of all the main figures in the Bible why did Franklin choose Abraham? What does Abraham have to do with the theme of "Poor Richard's Almanac"? I just seem to be missing the connection between the two. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did people actually put this advice to use? A lot of what he is saying just seems asinine to me. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I just found it interesting that so many of the catchy sayings that Franklin utilizes in his almanac are still commonly used to this day. "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise", and "There are no gains, without pains" are both saying that i have heard numerous times throughout my life, without knowing the origin of them was Ben Franklin. Franklin's ability to make an idea stick has had a huge impact on our country. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder who Father Abraham was. Was he based on an actual person that Franklin knew? Also, while Franklin was a very successful man, based on his womanizing and such, I don't think he had too much room to preach.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
I think that the crimes were so severe for any crime to prevent anything from happening. But Arthur's story clearly shows that psychological willpower is more important than physical punnishments. -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in ''VA and SC Gazette'', 1737-1745 ==<br />
<br />
Also in "Johnson's Advertisements for Runaway Slaves", I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards? Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in "confessions of a theif and rapist"?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
While reading "Advertisements for Runaway Slaves" I came across several times mention of "what the law allows" mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person's slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband's affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
"Advertisements for Runaway Slaves"--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves' shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials. Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time? In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway. Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
This may be a pretty stupid question but what is a Pistole Reward and why did only the advertisements in the VA paper say it? Were these ads really that effective? - Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It seems like there were so many ways the slaves could have altered their appearances or pretended not to know English to get around these descriptions, did many do this? It is obvious that these advertisements depict that slaves were treated as property, but it doesn't seem that the ads were very effective. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I think it's cool and interesting that a lot of the escapes occured in groups of threes. I don't know if this is possible, but it would be really interesting to learn about thier stories. For instance, how they planned their escape, if they ever got caught, and if they stuck together once they escaped. - Jake Guralnik <br />
<br />
I noticed that each state had different incentives, such as South Carolina tended to give monetary rewards and Virginia offered pistols. Did most other colonies tend to give monetary rewards or did it dramatically differ between individual colonies or even the counties within the colonies? Also, were the rewards given in each colony dependent on the punishment in that colony for runaway slaves? I have to agree with Dani that I found the pistols a very intriguing incentive for people to turn in run away slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I have to ask, how often did these masters actually get their slave(s) returned to them? These ads seem somewhat unrealistic because there is no perfect description of the slaves and the slaves could be out of the state already by the time the ads are published. Another question is why are different rewards offered for different slaves? Did certain slaves hold higher value for a master? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering how much the rewards for the run away slaves were worth relative to todays monitary standards? The rewards generally seemed to be somewhere between 10 and 40 shillings. Just to get a better idea of how much the slave owners were willing to pay for the return of a runaway.--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I find it interesting to note the differences in the money offered in Thomas Wright’s for each of the slaves. At first I suspected that the amount of money correlated to how useful the slave had been, but then I noticed a different pattern. It seems to me that Wright is offering more money the longer each of the slaves have been missing. For example, the slave missing the longest (two years) has the largest reward offered, while the slaves missing only a month or so have the least money offered for their return. Why would this be? Is it a matter of pride in that Wright is determined to get them back and so offers more and more money the longer they are gone, or could it be that he feels safe offering more money the longer they are gone because he feels there is less chance of them being returned, and thus having to pay the money? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also, Thomas Wright seems to have a lot of slaves go missing at pretty regular intervals. Either he was dull-witted and an easy master to escape from, or he was particularly harsh and many of his slaves felt it was worth the risk of running away. Which makes me wonder if his female slaves also left and he just did not care enough to try to get them back? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
What were the security measures that owners of slaves took to ensure they didn't run away? Obviously slaves were not treated all that well, but wouldn't they attempt to run away fairly often given the circumstances? Would they be willing to pay repeatedly simply to get their slaves back?<br />
-Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "A Scottish immigrant writes new from America" i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the "New World" but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn't mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In Alexander Thomson's Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn't mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn't mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson's letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In Johnson’s “A Scottish immigrant writes new from America”, Thomson claims that in North America, colonists are far from lazy, the climate is healthy, there is no fear of attack by Indians, no taxes, and religious liberty. His descriptions and comparisons to Europe make it apparent that a sense of American pride is developing. Was this the widespread feeling in America? What did Europeans think America was like?- Emily King<br />
<br />
In this, he mentions many times that if the Scottish people knew the truth of what America was like, they would come to settle. Weren't there more sources describing how wonderful America was? Why did he feel the obligation to show Scotland why people should come to America?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Thomson's letter he seems to have wanted the people in Scotland to sail over to North America because he told the reciever of the letter to spread the word to people of how great N. America was. I understand that all he wanted to do was to correct people's misconception of America because there were arcticles that wrote negative things about N. America. -Eun Yi<br />
<br />
What was the main source of European’s opinion of the new colony? Obviously those who settled in America wrote home about their experiences, but there was so much positive propaganda about the new colony in England earlier on trying to convince those to come that they did, despite death rates. Had encouragement to settle faded out by then and that’s why he tried so hard to convince Scottish citizens to come over to America? Why was there such a negative view of America.<br />
-Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In Thomson's letter, he seems to be really selling the whole bit about North America being so great. Would this letter be all from his ideas, or could there be some sort of propaganda going on here, with him trying to convince people to come over from Europe to North America?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==<br />
<br />
I found this narritive very interesting, especially from the view of the Amina merchant in the Caribbean who would try to catch members from the families of the men who owed him money. The most peculiar part of this was, "Many a debtor gave his wife or his daughter-of his own accord-in payment of a debt. The Negro believes he has as much right over them as over any other type of possessions." (pg. 95 Johnson) This was interesting because the Negro men in the Caribbean viewed their wives and daughter as the white men in the colonies viewed the negro slaves. This demonstrates the possible misconception that those in the Caribbean may have experienced about their duties/life in the colonies. While trading and selling was common among them, they were not accustomed to the ways of the slaves in the colonies, which were more intense and agressive. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
On page 93, When he says that the Kanga share borders with the Mandingo and Fula, but don't understand their language, but do understand the language of the Mangree, did they then trade through the Mangree?? Like, was the Mangree a universal language between them all? If so, why did not everyone just use the language of the Mangree?? Maybe i'm being crazy here.... --Jessica Lawrie--<br />
<br />
== Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of my life" ==<br />
<br />
'''Samson Occom'''’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards. This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living. Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example? A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity. Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture? – Rory Reese<br />
<br />
On Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of my life", he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In response to Rory Reese’s questions: The conversion from heathen to Christian (English) was not very common at all when the English settlers first came to America. However, as time went on and the Native American heathens learned more and more about the English Christians, the more they saw Christianity as an opportunity for success and prosperity. Though they had their various religions/beliefs, the Native Americans recognized that their legacy was ultimately dying out, especially as the English continued to take over their land as they expanded west. In many cases, the English would use force and threaten the Natives if they did not convert…but in other cases they would go about it in a more positive and convincing way, as in Samuel Occom’s case. Occom tells us that the English would “visit us and preach the word of god,” conveying a very positive view on how many conversions came about on behalf of the Native Americans themselves. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In the beginning of Occom’s short narrative, it occurred to me that conversion into a Christian not only encompassed believing in salvation through jesus christ, but also an array of education as well as social belonging. Still to this day I feel as though this is one of the main reasons why people rely so greatly on religion. In his narrative, Occom states that “from this time [since my conversion] the distress and burden of my mind was removed, and I found serenity and pleasure soul, in serving god.” This quote proves my point exactly- people simply want a reason to live, and religion has served that purpose since the beginning of time. If the bible had preached that we should all kill our neighbors if they disgraced us, then that is exactly what followers would do. Occom did nothing wrong- he was just doing what he thought was right, what he was taught. This quote however, really made me think about the role religion played back then, and how the principle of it hasn’t changed a bit.<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other Calloway ==<br />
<br />
In Calloway, "Will" by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman. She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written. Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I also found the "Will" piece extremely interesting. It appears that women were able to hold property and I was wondering how common this was, especially due to the fact that in the past women commonly did not hold much property in their name. How common was it for women, especially Indians to write out wills? When did this practice start? Through reading the exerts from Calloway and Johnson it is so blatantly obvious that the Europeans used their religion as a means to justify their horrific treatments of Indians. They exploited Indians and their culture in order to advance their own prosperity. --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99). Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’? - Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account "Will" in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Calloway states it was their best chance for survival and to become protected servants of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware's complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego's diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 "Some people interpret Canasatego's words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois." Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In "Mahican Indians Reply to William Burnet, Governor of New York" the phrase "do give 3 Beavers" kept coming up and I have no idea why. This is probably very irrelevant to what it is actually about but it just struck me as so odd that I had to question it and wonder what it meant. - Jenna Shevlin</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-15T07:04:32Z<p>199.111.73.63: /* Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Confessions of a Thief and Rapist, Boston Broadside, 1768 ==<br />
<br />
In Johnson, reading "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist I found several questions arose as I was reading. First of all, was rum really the liquor of choice at this time? It's mentioned almost as much as stealing is during the account, and it is obviously enjoyed by both black and whites at the time. Also, Arthur seems to be extraordinarily mobile and extraordinarily fortunate with his sentencings for the longest time. I wanted to clarify, is this a rare account of the passing of slave ownership? Also, I find it hard to believe that every master he had, as treacherous and cleptomaniacal as he was, treated him with kindness and gentleness. Would there have been any reason at this point in Arthur's life to fabricate the treatment given him by his former masters? - Landon James<br />
<br />
In Johnson, reading "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist", I also had questions. With all of his crimes near or around the same places, wouldn't people have realized that it was the same person? Or were there so many people stealing that no one ever made the connection? It also surprised me that his old master continuously took him back, even after hearing all that he had done. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Johnson's, "Confession of a Thief and Rapist" I also was wondering about the community's actions towards this man. Wouldn't they realize that after the first few times of catching him and whipting him, that this did not phase him? Also, this obviously has to do with slave resistance, but why did he never act out with violence towards his master? Was it because his master was kind? If so, I have to agree with Landon in asking, why was the master so kind and accepting of him?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist" i was curious as to why they treated Arthur so kindly right during the height of the slave trade. I assumed that they wouldn't even have given him a second chance because colonists never treated slaves kindly, especially after numerous crimes committed, how did he get away with committing so many crimes when feelings toward african-american slaves weren't exactly positive? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "Confessions of a thief and rapist" Arthur first commits minor crimes and is punished for them. For example, he's whipped for stealing rum and clothes. Didn't people see that whipping slaves wasn't severe enough as punishment? It didn't work; it didn't keep him from committing more crimes. Was whipping, jail, and execution the only forms of punishment? And who decided which crime deserved what punishment?<br />
--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
<br />
In reading Johnson's "Confessions of a Thief and Rapist" I found it interesting how easily it seemed for him to travel around to the places of his choice. Would it really have been so easy for a slave to do this during this time? Also, I thought it odd that with all of the people who were implied to be looking for him and the amount of times he was caught committing these offenses, that the punishment remain to be lashings. At the same time, although these punishments seem relatively lenient, I find it difficult to think of a better alternative. In considering the possibilities that we've been introduced to in the reading, we see mainly lashings, jail, or execution. But when you think about it, whipping someone is the only logical way to deal with it. Putting one's slave in jail defeats the purpose for buying a slave in general because no work is being done by the slave and putting anyone in jail takes up space and costs money. Furthermore, execution (in the eyes of a slave owner) is a portion of their labor gone, as well as the money they spent on this servant. Although, as Megan even commented above, whipping seems like it doesn't seem to make a big impact, given the alternatives, it seems the most logical punishment in this situation. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
"Confession of a Thief and a Rapist"--I found it interesting how society reacted. Of course, he led a life of crime and had a right to be punished accordingly, however I wonder about the motives the government had to circulate his apology. Was it to show other blacks or lesser whites what would happen to them if they committed the same crimes? Also, it seems like Arthur was truly asking for forgiveness; did he consent to writing his apology and enumerating on his crimes to clear his conscious or because it was the standard at the time? Is it also possible that Arthur committed the crimes as a way to punish the whites for his enslavement, to rebel against them?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of “Confessions of a thief and a rapist” the narrator warns “those of my own color” not to do the same things that he did. In the beginning it says that these confessions were distributed around the town. Could it be that the whites wanted this particular confession to circulate among the slaves so that they would be warned not to act like this guy, and they would also see that even after all of the times that he escaped he was still caught and punished for the things that he did? Could it also be possible that the priest or someone making him write this made him put in the warning to people of his same color so they wouldn’t act out? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Arthur got away with crimes so easily until his last. I would’ve thought that there would have been zero tolerance and punishment would have been harsh and immediate, especially for a slave. Was this because the crimes were against other blacks and it would have been far different if the victims had been white? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Why did it take so long for something to be done about everything this man was doing? And its interesting that nothing truly seemed to be done until this man raped a white woman.- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I find it really interesting that Arthur got away with practically all of his crimes (until the last one) and lived to committ more crimes. I thought back then, when Africans do something wrong, they were punished so severly that most died, even for the smallest wrong doings. But then Arthur is not just committing small crimes and also not just once. and when he does get caught and escapes, there would have been news about him and asking others to be on the lookout so when he got caught the second or third time they would have watched him closer. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This reading brought up a couple questions for me. First, why wasn't Arthur more severly punished for his crimes? Especially after he had a history of drunkeness, stealing, and running away? Second, why would other people continue to buy him with his previous record? I guess the answer probably has to do with slaves being considered valuable property. This reading shows the some of the more extreme actions or rebellion that we talked about in class. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In this reading, I realized that the punishments for the man's crimes were not always fitting to the crime itself. There seems to be an inconsistancy among the severity of his punishments for the acts committed. Were the laws dramatically different depending on what city he was in? And also, his sentence for committing rape was execution, how is it that in the present day rape charges result in as little as 18 months in prison? Has America moved toward a society that is way too liberal and forgiving of horrible acts? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I wish someone would have offered him a job and helped him learn to function in society. Of course, I've never done that for a homeless person...<br />
--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
This reading was frustrating. How did this guy keep escaping his jails? It seems like the legal system had quite a few flaws, because half the time he didn't have his punishment carried out. It was a very informative reading, though. It talked about how kind his master was to him (probably more so because he was his son). It also mentioned on page 79, that he "prayed for the benefit of the clergy;which the court denied." Does this mean that he wanted to convert to Christianity and the law men would not allow it? Was this a normal practice?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
While reading this, I was surprised to see how many time this 'Thief and Rapist" returned back to his master. Having no real home of his own, is it possible that despite being a slave, this man thought of this place as his home?? And I can't understand why he was given so many chances to get back onto the right path. Is this because of his value to his master? Or was he just not caught until he confessed? hmm.... --Jessica Lawrie--<br />
<br />
== Father Abraham's speech from ''Poor Richard's Almanac'', 1757 ==<br />
<br />
In regards to "Poor Richard's Advice" I felt as if Benjamin Franklin was writing in an almost arrogant sense. Don't get me wrong, I like the wit and wisdom of Frankling; however, this piece is riddled with so much of his "wit and wisdom" that it was hard to follow the message of the old man at times. Furthermore, what was the point of including all the little bits of wisdom if at the end the old man said that everything "may be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven" (83)? What's the point of Franklin's wisdom if you don't have the "Blessing of Heaven"? Something that you cannot receive merely from reading from Poor Richard's Almanac. This frustrated me. - Landon James<br />
<br />
"Poor Richard's Almanack"--Aside from the obvious that some of the sayings are still prevalent to today's society, I found Father Abraham's speech very thought-provoking. It seems that Father Abraham feels that any character trait a person has is an abomination and a temptation that could lead to major repercussions. Being hopeful, trusting, wishing for better, being frugal with money yet still indulging in consumerism, having time to do nothing--such as to relax after a long day--it seems that by Father Abraham, people can't do anything because they're being tempted. The temptations that Father Abraham listed in his speech could very well be the colonial form of the Deadly Sins; idleness, folly, pride, sloth, trust, hope, wish, frugality. Is it possible that some colonists thought of the temptations and taxes on society like the Christian Deadly Sins? Father Abraham and Poor Richard seems to advocate that. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
While reading this essay I found myself constantly asking who Father Abraham was. Is this a reference to the Biblical Father Abraham or is this just another of Franklin's pseudonyms? If it is in reference to the Biblical Abraham then I am led to the question of why did he pick Abraham? Out of all the main figures in the Bible why did Franklin choose Abraham? What does Abraham have to do with the theme of "Poor Richard's Almanac"? I just seem to be missing the connection between the two. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did people actually put this advice to use? A lot of what he is saying just seems asinine to me. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I just found it interesting that so many of the catchy sayings that Franklin utilizes in his almanac are still commonly used to this day. "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise", and "There are no gains, without pains" are both saying that i have heard numerous times throughout my life, without knowing the origin of them was Ben Franklin. Franklin's ability to make an idea stick has had a huge impact on our country. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder who Father Abraham was. Was he based on an actual person that Franklin knew? Also, while Franklin was a very successful man, based on his womanizing and such, I don't think he had too much room to preach.--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
I think that the crimes were so severe for any crime to prevent anything from happening. But Arthur's story clearly shows that psychological willpower is more important than physical punnishments. -- Taja L. Winston<br />
<br />
== Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in ''VA and SC Gazette'', 1737-1745 ==<br />
<br />
Also in "Johnson's Advertisements for Runaway Slaves", I was wondering why all the South Carolina articles offer money as a reward and all the Virginia articles offer Pistole Rewards? Does that have to do with their geographical location or their society at the time? Also, are the slaves running away to the Indians, or is it common for them to run away and act like the negro man in "confessions of a theif and rapist"?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
While reading "Advertisements for Runaway Slaves" I came across several times mention of "what the law allows" mainly in regards to rewards. Was there a particular conduct to be followed when someone finds and returns a slave (by both the person who found the slave and the slave owner)? Or was it just seen as the right thing to do, and therefore colonists were willing to help one another? It seems to me that if the benefits of keeping a slave greatly out-weighed the reward one would get for returning a slave, then you would find many cases of people keeping another person's slave for their own (and doing their best to ensure the slave would not run away as done with the previous owner) Was this ever the case? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
The Advertisements for runaway slaves had a few interesting points. Why would the people advertise for slaves that have been missing for more than sic months, one man said one had been missing for two years. If the slave had been caught by another slave owner, what were the chances of him returning the slave that had runaway? I also thought it was interesting that alot of the runaway slaves had been branded by slave owners. Does the location have something to do with the state they were from because a few had brands on parts other than the shoulders. The other interesting thing I found was there were some posted by women. One being a widow, since the male family role was established at this point, how long did Mary Wilson watch over her late husband's affairs, or did this not matter because it was in Virginia and not more north where the patriarchal line was in effect.- Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
In the advertisements of the runaway slaves one of the things that really struck me is that the ads state whether or not the slave speaks English. Obviously this is important, but I am wondering how are they expected to be caught and brought back when no one can speak to them? They can just take them I suppose but without them speaking English this really compounds this issue of returning runaway slaves. I also found it interesting that one man was described as speaking little to no English even though he had been there for at least a year. Is this indicative of perhaps another way to rebel against the master? Maybe refusing to learn, or refusing to speak what he would have heard around him? I would just assume that after a year he would have picked some of the English up.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
"Advertisements for Runaway Slaves"--It is no surprise that masters considered slaves to be their property, likening their physical human status to be nothing better than a couch or a garden hoe. But I had no idea, though found it somewhat interesting, that the masters would degrade the slaves even more by treating them like cattle. Branding their slaves' shoulders with a mark of identification likens them to be nothing more than cows, sheep, or horses, yet slaves were human beings. Did the colonists consider their slaves at all in determining how to show their ownership? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the “Advertisements for Runaway Slaves” that the South Caroline ads did not really give much description of the slaves physical appearance or clothing, it was just basically their name and if they were branded with some initials. Wouldn’t the slaves think to change their names so that they could not be identified as easily and wouldn’t their shoulders and the places that they were branded be covered most of the time? In the Virginia ads there are much more detailed descriptions of the runaway slaves and I think that these would make it easier to identify a runaway. Is it possible that the differences in these ads could be because South Carolina was farther south and saw slaves more as property than as a person than Virginians did? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
This may be a pretty stupid question but what is a Pistole Reward and why did only the advertisements in the VA paper say it? Were these ads really that effective? - Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It seems like there were so many ways the slaves could have altered their appearances or pretended not to know English to get around these descriptions, did many do this? It is obvious that these advertisements depict that slaves were treated as property, but it doesn't seem that the ads were very effective. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I think it's cool and interesting that a lot of the escapes occured in groups of threes. I don't know if this is possible, but it would be really interesting to learn about thier stories. For instance, how they planned their escape, if they ever got caught, and if they stuck together once they escaped. - Jake Guralnik <br />
<br />
I noticed that each state had different incentives, such as South Carolina tended to give monetary rewards and Virginia offered pistols. Did most other colonies tend to give monetary rewards or did it dramatically differ between individual colonies or even the counties within the colonies? Also, were the rewards given in each colony dependent on the punishment in that colony for runaway slaves? I have to agree with Dani that I found the pistols a very intriguing incentive for people to turn in run away slaves. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I have to ask, how often did these masters actually get their slave(s) returned to them? These ads seem somewhat unrealistic because there is no perfect description of the slaves and the slaves could be out of the state already by the time the ads are published. Another question is why are different rewards offered for different slaves? Did certain slaves hold higher value for a master? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I was wondering how much the rewards for the run away slaves were worth relative to todays monitary standards? The rewards generally seemed to be somewhere between 10 and 40 shillings. Just to get a better idea of how much the slave owners were willing to pay for the return of a runaway.--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I find it interesting to note the differences in the money offered in Thomas Wright’s for each of the slaves. At first I suspected that the amount of money correlated to how useful the slave had been, but then I noticed a different pattern. It seems to me that Wright is offering more money the longer each of the slaves have been missing. For example, the slave missing the longest (two years) has the largest reward offered, while the slaves missing only a month or so have the least money offered for their return. Why would this be? Is it a matter of pride in that Wright is determined to get them back and so offers more and more money the longer they are gone, or could it be that he feels safe offering more money the longer they are gone because he feels there is less chance of them being returned, and thus having to pay the money? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also, Thomas Wright seems to have a lot of slaves go missing at pretty regular intervals. Either he was dull-witted and an easy master to escape from, or he was particularly harsh and many of his slaves felt it was worth the risk of running away. Which makes me wonder if his female slaves also left and he just did not care enough to try to get them back? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
What were the security measures that owners of slaves took to ensure they didn't run away? Obviously slaves were not treated all that well, but wouldn't they attempt to run away fairly often given the circumstances? Would they be willing to pay repeatedly simply to get their slaves back?<br />
-Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Alexander Thomson, A Scottish immigrant writes new from America, 1774 ==<br />
<br />
In Johnson's "A Scottish immigrant writes new from America" i thought it was interesting how impressed this man was with North America. It must be that after the initial rough stages of settlement during the late 18th century the colonies must have been much more prosperous. I had gotten so used to reading about all the terrible things in the "New World" but this man describes Pennsylvania as if its some sort of Utopia and everyone should move there. He doesn't mention one bad thing about it. I have to wonder if he is having such an easy time there because he came with much money and had many family members to help with work, this of course must not be the case with everyone which must be the reason for many immigrants to experience the exact oppostite of what the Scottish man experienced. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In Alexander Thomson's Letter From America, it is evident how much America has changed since the first settlers arrived. This man comes over, pushing 50, with a wife and a dozen kids, and really has nothing to complain about. He is happy with his land, and his work on his plantation, he likes the religious tolerance and he doesn't mention anyone in his family dying, and over all he is content in his lot. All of these things show the changing dynamics of the American world. It is important to note the things he does not mention, such as Native Americans, never once do they come up, this shows us that he is probably not in contact perhaps because the Europeans have pushed them off the land. He also doesn't mention starvation and death, this can be attributed to the way the people have adapted to America since the early 17th century. Thomson's letter gives many indications of the changes that have occurred in 150 years and it seems as though it is a whole new place. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In Johnson’s “A Scottish immigrant writes new from America”, Thomson claims that in North America, colonists are far from lazy, the climate is healthy, there is no fear of attack by Indians, no taxes, and religious liberty. His descriptions and comparisons to Europe make it apparent that a sense of American pride is developing. Was this the widespread feeling in America? What did Europeans think America was like?- Emily King<br />
<br />
In this, he mentions many times that if the Scottish people knew the truth of what America was like, they would come to settle. Weren't there more sources describing how wonderful America was? Why did he feel the obligation to show Scotland why people should come to America?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Thomson's letter he seems to have wanted the people in Scotland to sail over to North America because he told the reciever of the letter to spread the word to people of how great N. America was. I understand that all he wanted to do was to correct people's misconception of America because there were arcticles that wrote negative things about N. America. -Eun Yi<br />
<br />
What was the main source of European’s opinion of the new colony? Obviously those who settled in America wrote home about their experiences, but there was so much positive propaganda about the new colony in England earlier on trying to convince those to come that they did, despite death rates. Had encouragement to settle faded out by then and that’s why he tried so hard to convince Scottish citizens to come over to America? Why was there such a negative view of America.<br />
-Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In Thomson's letter, he seems to be really selling the whole bit about North America being so great. Would this letter be all from his ideas, or could there be some sort of propaganda going on here, with him trying to convince people to come over from Europe to North America?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==<br />
<br />
I found this narritive very interesting, especially from the view of the Amina merchant in the Caribbean who would try to catch members from the families of the men who owed him money. The most peculiar part of this was, "Many a debtor gave his wife or his daughter-of his own accord-in payment of a debt. The Negro believes he has as much right over them as over any other type of possessions." (pg. 95 Johnson) This was interesting because the Negro men in the Caribbean viewed their wives and daughter as the white men in the colonies viewed the negro slaves. This demonstrates the possible misconception that those in the Caribbean may have experienced about their duties/life in the colonies. While trading and selling was common among them, they were not accustomed to the ways of the slaves in the colonies, which were more intense and agressive. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of my life" ==<br />
<br />
'''Samson Occom'''’s acceptance of the Christian religion in his narrative is a life changing experience where he sees his old life as heathen and takes on a life with English standards. This is seen when he talks about the wages for white missionaries vs. Indian and in his habits of living. Was this transformation of heathen to English seen a lot in educated and converted Indians or is this a rare example? A contradictory document is the “Speech of the Oneida Headman” where the Iroquois rejected English schools and Christianity. Where the natives more likely to reject or accept Christianity which leads to English culture? – Rory Reese<br />
<br />
On Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of my life", he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In response to Rory Reese’s questions: The conversion from heathen to Christian (English) was not very common at all when the English settlers first came to America. However, as time went on and the Native American heathens learned more and more about the English Christians, the more they saw Christianity as an opportunity for success and prosperity. Though they had their various religions/beliefs, the Native Americans recognized that their legacy was ultimately dying out, especially as the English continued to take over their land as they expanded west. In many cases, the English would use force and threaten the Natives if they did not convert…but in other cases they would go about it in a more positive and convincing way, as in Samuel Occom’s case. Occom tells us that the English would “visit us and preach the word of god,” conveying a very positive view on how many conversions came about on behalf of the Native Americans themselves. <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In the beginning of Occom’s short narrative, it occurred to me that conversion into a Christian not only encompassed believing in salvation through jesus christ, but also an array of education as well as social belonging. Still to this day I feel as though this is one of the main reasons why people rely so greatly on religion. In his narrative, Occom states that “from this time [since my conversion] the distress and burden of my mind was removed, and I found serenity and pleasure soul, in serving god.” This quote proves my point exactly- people simply want a reason to live, and religion has served that purpose since the beginning of time. If the bible had preached that we should all kill our neighbors if they disgraced us, then that is exactly what followers would do. Occom did nothing wrong- he was just doing what he thought was right, what he was taught. This quote however, really made me think about the role religion played back then, and how the principle of it hasn’t changed a bit.<br />
~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Other Calloway ==<br />
<br />
In Calloway, "Will" by Naomai Omaush, I found it interesting that she gave items to the minister in her main will when she was a converted Indian woman. She bequeaths the rest of her items after the main body of the will was written. Why did someone who was not her kin (which was an important part in Native American culture) have precedence in her will? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I also found the "Will" piece extremely interesting. It appears that women were able to hold property and I was wondering how common this was, especially due to the fact that in the past women commonly did not hold much property in their name. How common was it for women, especially Indians to write out wills? When did this practice start? Through reading the exerts from Calloway and Johnson it is so blatantly obvious that the Europeans used their religion as a means to justify their horrific treatments of Indians. They exploited Indians and their culture in order to advance their own prosperity. --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In the “Response to the Delawares’ Complaint”, I found it interesting Canasatego argues, “We conquered you; we made Women of you..” (98). He also claims, “Your Ears are ever open to slanderous Reports about our Brethren; you receive them with as much Greediness as lewd Women receive the Embraces of bad Men..” (99). Does using this as an insult create women as a lesser sex or is being a women just seen as weaker and therefore something that can be ‘conquered’? - Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I noticed throughout the readings that some of the Native Indians were embracing European culture and to some extent prospering,as did Naomai Omaush in her account "Will" in 1749. What was the reasoning of the Natives embracing European culture when it was destroying their culture? Calloway states it was their best chance for survival and to become protected servants of the King of England. Can anyone elaborate or justify why they think these acts were of submission or brilliant diplomacy on the part of the Natives? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Canasatego: Response to the Delaware's complaint, the Treaty of Lancaster, and the Speech at the Treaty of Lancaster, P. 98-104 involves the land dispute between the commissioners of Virginia and Maryland concerning Iroquois land. The topic that caught my eye was Canasatego's diplomatic abilities and eloquence. He spoke about The League of the Iroquois and how it made them formidable and gave them great weight and authority over other nations. Additionally, he made a speech, ironically on July 4th, 1744 about the need for colonists to unite. Calloway states on p. 100 "Some people interpret Canasatego's words as evidence that, forty-five years later, The Founding Fathers based the United States Constitution on that of the Iroquois." Is there any futher information on this topic and what is the possibility of this statement being true? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In "Mahican Indians Reply to William Burnet, Governor of New York" the phrase "do give 3 Beavers" kept coming up and I have no idea why. This is probably very irrelevant to what it is actually about but it just struck me as so odd that I had to question it and wonder what it meant. - Jenna Shevlin</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-18T00:45:45Z<p>199.111.73.63: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In reply to Renee's thought about a tree being present in both stories, I think there is a true significance. A dominate belief in the Native American culture is the presence of mother earth and in their stories her "authority" is represented by the tree. I think Christianity has some similar beliefs that all things are alive and the tree is a perfect example of growth, whether it be physical growth, spiritual growth, or growth by maturity. So a simple answer to her question, in my opinion, is that the presence of a tree in all 3 stories is not a coincidence. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I know this may sound like a silly question, but I've never understood why God created the earth. Discussion question 1 for the Genesis reading asks "How and why did God create the earth?", but I actually don't know. In Sunday school churches always teach about the creation though they do not provide a definate reason why. Did God create the earth just for "kicks"? Are there other scriptures that give a definate answer? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both of the Native American creation stories, both the Seneca and the Iroquois, seemed to be very negative. Both focused on the struggle between the two brothers, and I wonder if there is any parallel with the strugle the Native Americans faced with the colonist. <br />
<br />
Also I was wondering if the account of the Creek origin, told by Chekilli, was also trying to allude to struggle between Native Americans and colonist. Especially in the last paragraph on page 32, "they now know that the white path was the best for them: for , although Tomochichi was a stranger, they see he has done them good." And then he goes on to mention the King and Esquire Oglethorpe, who as described in the picture on page 32 invited Tomochichi and his wife to travel to England. I'm confused as to what in this story is fiction and what is actually based on historical events.--Helen Dinndorf--<br />
<br />
I found the Iroquois Creation Story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky, and the Book of Genesis all intriguing because each story shares similarities, as well as profound differences. Are these similaries mere coincidence or insight to some greater purpose? My question is how would a historian percieve these similarities pertaining to the different people, cultures, and societies? The stories remind me of a program I watched on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark and how multiple religions and societies have similiar stories of a great flood in their past, some documented, some orally past down from generation to generation, but it makes one think! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
In response to Landon James'question: "Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans?" I know of a one "benefit" (and I say that sarcastically) that the Native Americans recieve; they get tax exemptions on products they sell, such as tobacco products (Cigars and Cigarettes). I know this because my parents buy cigarettes at one reservation in New York. I heard that the government is displeased since many small local U.S. tobacco sellers cannot keep up with Native American low prices. The Native American my parents buy their tobacco products from told them with the profit he has made selling tobacco he plans to build a casino on the reservation, everything tax free! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with A. Zelin about the Seneca origin narrative, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", it reminded me of Cain and Abel as well. I find it interesting because in the Bible it is the first time a human dies and I wonder, is the death of Othagwenda in the Seneca story the first mention of a human death in their spiritual history as well? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
While reading the passage from Genesis I noticed that there were two sentences where God is speaking and the word "us" and/or "our" is used. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." and "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." I just find it interesting that "us" and "our" are used when God is speaking. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that in "The Politics" by Aristotle, he says, "It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just..." For those Europeans who had actually read Aristotle, he is basically saying that it is good for those people who are slaves by nature to be enslaved and it is also not wrong to enslave them. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In response to the statement above about God referring to himself as "us", some people believe the "us" is the trinity, and others believe it is the angels with God, and all the heavenly beings. Still others believe it is kind of like a "royal" us. Like, showing importance, kind of in the way queens would say "We would like a sandwich and a pepsi." (not that she'd ask for those two specifics...)<br />
-- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
A couple people have asked whether or not Native Americans are fighting back today. Over Christmas break there was a news story on how the Lakota people have withdrawn treaties made with the United States in the 19th century. They declared themselves independent. You can read the story at Fox News or CNN, just type "Lakota Indians" into the search bar.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Somewhat connected to what A. Zelin said, I saw an unmistakable link among three stories with 2 brothers each. Teharonghyawago & Tawiskaron (From the Iroquois Creation Story), Cain and Able (From the Bible's account of creation), and Romulus and Remus (From Greek Mythology). In all three stories, one brother killed another. It seems to support the fact that people travelled across the Bering Strait. Naturally all the people would start with the same version of creation long long ago, but over the years as it was orally passed down, it began to change in whatever way the story teller relayed it (whether intentionally or not). I found that interesting and exciting. :) --Jessica Lawrie <br />
<br />
A little off topic, but, in class we were asked what the plural for moose is. I was thinking maybe the reason there is no plural for the word is that they are solitary animals. Maybe because there were never more than one around, there was no need for a word for more than one word. I hope no one minds that this comment is not exactly about the reading. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Oh! It was also very interesting to me that it was believed the people were heavily tattooed. For a people so in tune with nature, it seems they would not want to harm their bodies, which are part of nature. --Jessica Lawrie</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-18T00:35:12Z<p>199.111.73.63: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In reply to Renee's thought about a tree being present in both stories, I think there is a true significance. A dominate belief in the Native American culture is the presence of mother earth and in their stories her "authority" is represented by the tree. I think Christianity has some similar beliefs that all things are alive and the tree is a perfect example of growth, whether it be physical growth, spiritual growth, or growth by maturity. So a simple answer to her question, in my opinion, is that the presence of a tree in all 3 stories is not a coincidence. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I know this may sound like a silly question, but I've never understood why God created the earth. Discussion question 1 for the Genesis reading asks "How and why did God create the earth?", but I actually don't know. In Sunday school churches always teach about the creation though they do not provide a definate reason why. Did God create the earth just for "kicks"? Are there other scriptures that give a definate answer? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both of the Native American creation stories, both the Seneca and the Iroquois, seemed to be very negative. Both focused on the struggle between the two brothers, and I wonder if there is any parallel with the strugle the Native Americans faced with the colonist. <br />
<br />
Also I was wondering if the account of the Creek origin, told by Chekilli, was also trying to allude to struggle between Native Americans and colonist. Especially in the last paragraph on page 32, "they now know that the white path was the best for them: for , although Tomochichi was a stranger, they see he has done them good." And then he goes on to mention the King and Esquire Oglethorpe, who as described in the picture on page 32 invited Tomochichi and his wife to travel to England. I'm confused as to what in this story is fiction and what is actually based on historical events.--Helen Dinndorf--<br />
<br />
I found the Iroquois Creation Story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky, and the Book of Genesis all intriguing because each story shares similarities, as well as profound differences. Are these similaries mere coincidence or insight to some greater purpose? My question is how would a historian percieve these similarities pertaining to the different people, cultures, and societies? The stories remind me of a program I watched on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark and how multiple religions and societies have similiar stories of a great flood in their past, some documented, some orally past down from generation to generation, but it makes one think! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
In response to Landon James'question: "Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans?" I know of a one "benefit" (and I say that sarcastically) that the Native Americans recieve; they get tax exemptions on products they sell, such as tobacco products (Cigars and Cigarettes). I know this because my parents buy cigarettes at one reservation in New York. I heard that the government is displeased since many small local U.S. tobacco sellers cannot keep up with Native American low prices. The Native American my parents buy their tobacco products from told them with the profit he has made selling tobacco he plans to build a casino on the reservation, everything tax free! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with A. Zelin about the Seneca origin narrative, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", it reminded me of Cain and Abel as well. I find it interesting because in the Bible it is the first time a human dies and I wonder, is the death of Othagwenda in the Seneca story the first mention of a human death in their spiritual history as well? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
While reading the passage from Genesis I noticed that there were two sentences where God is speaking and the word "us" and/or "our" is used. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." and "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." I just find it interesting that "us" and "our" are used when God is speaking. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that in "The Politics" by Aristotle, he says, "It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just..." For those Europeans who had actually read Aristotle, he is basically saying that it is good for those people who are slaves by nature to be enslaved and it is also not wrong to enslave them. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In response to the statement above about God referring to himself as "us", some people believe the "us" is the trinity, and others believe it is the angels with God, and all the heavenly beings. Still others believe it is kind of like a "royal" us. Like, showing importance, kind of in the way queens would say "We would like a sandwich and a pepsi." (not that she'd ask for those two specifics...)<br />
-- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
A couple people have asked whether or not Native Americans are fighting back today. Over Christmas break there was a news story on how the Lakota people have withdrawn treaties made with the United States in the 19th century. They declared themselves independent. You can read the story at Fox News or CNN, just type "Lakota Indians" into the search bar.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Somewhat connected to what A. Zelin said, I saw an unmistakable link among three stories with 2 brothers each. Teharonghyawago & Tawiskaron (From the Iroquois Creation Story), Cain and Able (From the Bible's account of creation), and Romulus and Remus (From Greek Mythology). In all three stories, one brother killed another. It seems to support the fact that people travelled across the Bering Strait. Naturally all the people would start with the same version of creation long long ago, but over the years as it was orally passed down, it began to change in whatever way the story teller relayed it (whether intentionally or not). I found that interesting and exciting. :) --Jessica Lawrie <br />
<br />
A little off topic, but, in class we were asked what the plural for moose is. I was thinking maybe the reason there is no plural for the word is that they are solitary animals. I hope no one minds that this comment is not exactly about the reading. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Oh! It was also very interesting to me that it was believed the people were heavily tattooed. For a people so in tune with nature, it seems they would not want to harm their bodies, which are part of nature. --Jessica Lawrie</div>199.111.73.63https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-18T00:30:57Z<p>199.111.73.63: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In reply to Renee's thought about a tree being present in both stories, I think there is a true significance. A dominate belief in the Native American culture is the presence of mother earth and in their stories her "authority" is represented by the tree. I think Christianity has some similar beliefs that all things are alive and the tree is a perfect example of growth, whether it be physical growth, spiritual growth, or growth by maturity. So a simple answer to her question, in my opinion, is that the presence of a tree in all 3 stories is not a coincidence. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I know this may sound like a silly question, but I've never understood why God created the earth. Discussion question 1 for the Genesis reading asks "How and why did God create the earth?", but I actually don't know. In Sunday school churches always teach about the creation though they do not provide a definate reason why. Did God create the earth just for "kicks"? Are there other scriptures that give a definate answer? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both of the Native American creation stories, both the Seneca and the Iroquois, seemed to be very negative. Both focused on the struggle between the two brothers, and I wonder if there is any parallel with the strugle the Native Americans faced with the colonist. <br />
<br />
Also I was wondering if the account of the Creek origin, told by Chekilli, was also trying to allude to struggle between Native Americans and colonist. Especially in the last paragraph on page 32, "they now know that the white path was the best for them: for , although Tomochichi was a stranger, they see he has done them good." And then he goes on to mention the King and Esquire Oglethorpe, who as described in the picture on page 32 invited Tomochichi and his wife to travel to England. I'm confused as to what in this story is fiction and what is actually based on historical events.--Helen Dinndorf--<br />
<br />
I found the Iroquois Creation Story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky, and the Book of Genesis all intriguing because each story shares similarities, as well as profound differences. Are these similaries mere coincidence or insight to some greater purpose? My question is how would a historian percieve these similarities pertaining to the different people, cultures, and societies? The stories remind me of a program I watched on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark and how multiple religions and societies have similiar stories of a great flood in their past, some documented, some orally past down from generation to generation, but it makes one think! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
In response to Landon James'question: "Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans?" I know of a one "benefit" (and I say that sarcastically) that the Native Americans recieve; they get tax exemptions on products they sell, such as tobacco products (Cigars and Cigarettes). I know this because my parents buy cigarettes at one reservation in New York. I heard that the government is displeased since many small local U.S. tobacco sellers cannot keep up with Native American low prices. The Native American my parents buy their tobacco products from told them with the profit he has made selling tobacco he plans to build a casino on the reservation, everything tax free! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with A. Zelin about the Seneca origin narrative, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", it reminded me of Cain and Abel as well. I find it interesting because in the Bible it is the first time a human dies and I wonder, is the death of Othagwenda in the Seneca story the first mention of a human death in their spiritual history as well? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
While reading the passage from Genesis I noticed that there were two sentences where God is speaking and the word "us" and/or "our" is used. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." and "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." I just find it interesting that "us" and "our" are used when God is speaking. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that in "The Politics" by Aristotle, he says, "It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just..." For those Europeans who had actually read Aristotle, he is basically saying that it is good for those people who are slaves by nature to be enslaved and it is also not wrong to enslave them. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
A couple people have asked whether or not Native Americans are fighting back today. Over Christmas break there was a news story on how the Lakota people have withdrawn treaties made with the United States in the 19th century. They declared themselves independent. You can read the story at Fox News or CNN, just type "Lakota Indians" into the search bar.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Somewhat connected to what A. Zelin said, I saw an unmistakable link among three stories with 2 brothers each. Teharonghyawago & Tawiskaron (From the Iroquois Creation Story), Cain and Able (From the Bible's account of creation), and Romulus and Remus (From Greek Mythology). In all three stories, one brother killed another. It seems to support the fact that people travelled across the Bering Strait. Naturally all the people would start with the same version of creation long long ago, but over the years as it was orally passed down, it began to change in whatever way the story teller relayed it (whether intentionally or not). I found that interesting and exciting. :) --Jessica Lawrie <br />
<br />
A little off topic, but, in class we were asked what the plural for moose is. I was thinking maybe the reason there is no plural for the word is that they are solitary animals. I hope no one minds that this comment is not exactly about the reading. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Oh! It was also very interesting to me that it was believed the people were heavily tattooed. For a people so in tune with nature, it seems they would not want to harm their bodies, which are part of nature. --Jessica Lawrie</div>199.111.73.63 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