Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=199.111.76.237McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T16:37:39Z<p>199.111.76.237: </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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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 />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T16:27:55Z<p>199.111.76.237: </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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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 />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T02:46:36Z<p>199.111.76.237: /* Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In response to alex, hwo could a black slave even attempt to prove himself free? He is not considered a citizen, has no rights, cannot hold any weight in court, and is a piece of property and nothign more. How exactly would a slave go about this process of proving that he was free? - Landon James<br />
<br />
Is Douglas the most dangerous type of abolitonist? One who has seen and lived the terrors of slavery and is educated enought o make solid arguments such as these. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T02:45:58Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument?<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T02:32:08Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-10T00:36:08Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-10T00:27:23Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T03:32:12Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn't Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also? Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose. I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" the poor farmer mentions that he wishes slaves werent there and that "the are a great cuss to this country", yet before it seemed that he did'nt even understand how New York worked without slaves. Is he just trying to make it seem like they don't matter, or does he really not realize the effect slaves have on their economy?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King<br />
<br />
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece? Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans. He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed. Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
The very fact that the north sent journalists/reporters down to the south to try and figure out what exactly was going on just further reinforces how disconnected the north and south really were. It’s like they were two totally separate countries. Did journalists use the information (that Frederick Law Olmsted obtained from the farmers) against the south? If so, was this their primary purpose- to use information against the south? Were they like…spies almost? In other words, what was really the point in traveling all the way to the south (or north for that matter)? I know they gained a lot of direct insight as to what was going on, but I guess my question is- what exactly did they do with that insight most of the time? <br />
~Megan Tisdelle~</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-04T03:21:08Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
If slavery is the will of God, then why wasn't Hammond and everyone else around him who was white enslaved also? Does the will of God magically look over those who preach its validity and purpose. I think this was clearly indiocating white supremacy, for Hammond is essentially stating that whites are above the law and the will of God. -Landon James<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
Olmstead mentions, “They did not suppose the niggers ever thought of rising now, but could give no better reason for not supposing so than that ‘everybody said there warn’t no danger on’t way.’” If this is true, why did whites no longer fear blacks revolting? -Emily King<br />
<br />
What exactly were the “pens in the woods” that the farmer refers to in this piece? Were they common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I am a little confused as to how the farmer actually feels about African-Americans. He seems sorry for them and their conditions but at the same time, seems to want nothing to do with them if they are freed. Were these sentiments and this confusion common? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<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>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:36:52Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Henry bellow says, "We are not prepared to allow that wealth is more valued in America than elsewhere, but in other countries the successful pursuit of it is necessarily confied to a few, while here it is open to all." I found this comment interesting, because when I read it, I understand it to mean that Bellow's wants an elite, a monarch to serve. As if he believes in the dominant controlling group that all of the commoners work to please. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In A Farmer's View of His Wife, I was puzzled by the reaction of the farmer when asked why he had a wife. The statement, "I reckon women are some like horses and oxen, the biggest can do the most work, and that's what I want one for"(pg. 229). Is this how the majority of men felt about their wives who lived on farms? Also, how did these men go about choosing their wives? Were their certain restrictions on who they could marry? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating "grievances", listing what the women wanted. We've talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn't care or paid much attention. Given the history women's rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren't finished fighting for women's rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Davy Crockett just exaggerated his hunting skills to become famous and well-known? Aside from that, the frontier generates an idea that the men are standoffish and mean, that they're kind of like Michael Caine and Robert Duvall's characters in "Secondhand Lions"--they sit on their front porch and shoot trespassers or things that annoy them. Davy Crockett's story here contradicts that by portraying the frontiersmen as being good neighbors and helping them when their food supply was low. Or maybe frontiersmen were nice to their neighbors and mean to everyone else... -- Meganne Lemon</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:24:40Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T02:28:16Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death."(183) This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Address to the Wolf and People of the Mandan Nation, I was impressed by the statement, "We are now your fathers; and you shall not lose by the change. As soon as Spain had agreed to withdraw from all the waters of the Missouri and Mississippi, I felt the desire of becoming acquainted with all my red children beyond the Mississippi, and of uniting them with us as we have those on this side of that river, in the bonds of peace and friendship."(190) This statement was very powerful for me because I felt that there was a true sincerity in living harmoniously with the Native Americans. Do you think that Indians appreciated this gesture, or do you think that they were concerned with the line, "We are now your fathers;"(190), since they were avoiding the empowerment by the whites? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-21T02:18:11Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address", I found it interesting how Wendover says, “That republican principles and true patriotism, can only be promoted by the practice of the moral virtues and conscious integrity.” If the people during this time believed republican principles and moral virtue were intertwined, were the personal lives of politicians being criticized? If so, was it anywhere close to what politicians go through today? Emily King<br />
<br />
Wendover states, "...it was left for Americans to convince the potentates of Europe, that the end of all just governemnts was the happiness of the governed," (184). It seems to me that he is describing anarchy here, yet he is in favor of American governmment policies and the constitution. How was this contradiction formed? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In this reading, when Wendover saya, "...Not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms, America trembles; all awake to foreboding fears. All alarmed at the clouds that thicken, Americans collect. The crisis is truly distressing-Death is a terror, but slavery is death." This statement was very interesting because it appears that many find the situation of slavery problematic and upsetting, but yet they view it as a terror. At this point it is implied that slavery is viewed as terror because it is new to many of the colonists; is this true? However, it is also implying that everyone feels trapped by slavery. Which is more likely, the feeling of entrapment or the fact that is just fear of a new concept? Quincey Garcia <br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Where were these letters by Forten published? Were they only for the eyes of white men controling legal power in Pennsylcania, or were they viewed by many in the general public? Also, was James Forten one of a kind, being a wealthy free born African American in Pennyslvania, or were there many others like him?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Although I find James Forten’s proclamations that all men are created equal and his other points excerpted from the Declaration of Independence and Pennsylvania Constitution to be persuasive, I feel the whites of this time would not. At this time, don’t many whites still maintain the mentality that blacks are sub-human and therefore don’t deserve the same rights. I realize significant changes have been made regarding slaves, but when whites have for so long viewed blacks in one way, it is hard to adjust this frame of mind, especially so dramatically as to call them their equals. One tactic I feel was probably good for Forten’s argument was when he said “we sincerely hope, the white men, whom we should look upon as our protectors…” This could make them look upon blacks as something weak and below them, like a child who is pleading for their protection, rather than an equal who is there to challenge them and the laws they wish to implement. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
On pages 186-187, Forten speaks of how the authors of the constitution saw black men as equal, and that they realized they could not enslave black men because of lack of authority. Did Forten not critically look at the men behind the constitution and see that many supporters of the constitution, especially Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. Also, if Forten's perception were true, why wouldn't the forefathers of America not outlaw slavery in the constitution? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Jefferson’s contrasting private and public Indian policy is shocking. He acts like he wants to keep the Indians completely in the dark while Americans take their land from them. Why did Jefferson think this was the best way to get the Indians land versus forcefully taking it? Did Americans still fear the Indians enough to prevent a war? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In this document, Jefferson states, "When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests..." (189). Was Jefferson, who is usually held in high regards as brilliant, really so ignorant to think that Indians would be content contained on a small piece of land, while their forests, in a sense, their livelihood, are being settled by Americans? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
My question is a sort of spin off from Rory's. How did Sacajawea affect this rather poor opinion of females reflected in the beginning of their journey. It's well known that without her, the trip probably would have failed, or at least been much more difficult. What first influenced them to have such a poor opinion to start with? --Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa in that this document showed the impact of the removal of the Indians on a larger scale that we have not yet been able to see. It seems a little ironic that people who want freedom are so quick to push the Native Americans off their land. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this, I was kind of impressed just how secret political figures could keep their lives. Even now, as in class, we can only speculate (though I'm fairly positive the Hemings were Jerfferson's children) as to whether or not Jefferson actually fathered Heming's children. His relationship could have easily been blown open as a smear campaign, servants could have told someone, and even when the supposed multiple children of Jefferson's came forward there still was a great amount of secrecy. How was he able to maintain such secrecy?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T04:07:18Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T03:50:25Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T18:17:31Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>La Barre's Failed Bluff<br />
<br />
The Iroquois Indians were in recurrent wars with the French for a significant amount of time during the 17th century. Calloway states on page 118, "Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre's Army)" Why didn't the Iroquois decimate the last of the French forces and possesing the knowledge that La Barre was bluffing his military potential to scare the Iroqois into submission? If the Iroquois destroyed La Barre's Army it would have possibly set in motion a rallying cry of Indian resistence, which leads to my other question. The Native Indians of the Americas were strong and prosperous during the initial European colonization; they had the power to make or break European colonies because many colonies survived only by the genorosity of the Natives (sharing of corn, berries, and meat, as well as farming/hunting techniques, etc). As the years past, the Natives lost their influence and diplomatic power and are in a situation where their population is steadily declining and reaching a point of possible extinction. Why couldn't the Native tribes unify for the sole cause of driving the Europeans out of their lands, or atleast resisting them and forcing the Europeans to live in co-existance? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
"Boston Massacre Oration"-- I found it really interesting how Joseph Warren compared the Acts of Parliament. He likened it to being slavemasters, and the colonists the slaves. Since Warren lived in Boston, I have no doubt that the New Englanders had pretty radical ideas about slavery and were not as strict about power over them; if freed slaves in the North were able to join the Continental Army and Southern slaves had to get permission, then obviously Boston and New England were slightly more abolitionist than the South was. All that aside, did most colonists feel like slaves under the strict Parliamentary Acts? And if so, then wouldn't the colonists thus realize how oppressive it was and free their slaves? Also, I liked the statement addressed in the questions at the end of the document about Warren feminizing liberty, which makes me wonder whether or not this was the first time liberty has been feminized. I know today liberty is also known as Lady Liberty, further proof is the female Statue of Liberty. Is it possible that Warren or other colonists feminized liberty because then they were able to make power masculine? If liberty is feminine and power masculine, then obviously more colonists would defend liberty under the idea that liberty is weaker than power, which leads me to think that feminizing liberty was a way for Warren to promote independence prior to the Continental Congresses. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Memoir"-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes' account sort of "debunked" everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn't as violent and dangerous as I thought it was and it was actually a bit disappointing; there were no hard-core fighting between the crews and colonists, and most surprising was the fact there was no British resistance. It seemed like the fierce rebels expected every single colonist to feel the way they did about the British and the taxes, as shown in how they treated those caught taking tea and those still loyal to the crown who sold tea to fellow Tories/loyalists. But my question involves the actual Tea Party itself. In the excerpt from the memoir, Hewes said that they were "to do no damage to the ship or rigging," but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little "temper tantrum" so long as they didn't damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn't damage the ships and rigging because the ships could have been built in New England or built using American products, thus to damage them would to hurt their fellow colonists? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of "all men being originally equals" seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he states that, "..For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in the perpetual preference to all others for ever..." Doesn't this same statement apply to the slavery of blacks and American Indians that was taking place within the colonies at this same time? The colonists spoke of the power of England as tyrannical and complained that their rights were being taken away as if they were slaves....did they not see a connection here with slavery? I also wonder if the colonists ever really realized how economically dependent Britain became on the colonies themselves? Perhaps if they did the colonists could have used this weakness against Britain. What would our country be like today if the relations between the colonies and England had stayed friendly? What would have happened if there never was a revolution? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed John and Abigail Adams letters for several reasons. First of all I really like correspondences because I think they make the people more real. To me they are more interesting because they seem to be more individuals like us as opposed to these really obscure historical figures. One of the reasons I like them is I like the way that we see a female patriot's view of the war. Abigail Adams is just as ardent as John Adams in her support of the Revolution. My favorite part is that unlike the idea we are often presented with of women being considered inferior, John Adams seems to treat Abigail like his equal and his letters don't have a condescending air about them. The letters just provide a new way to look at the war and the society in which all of this was occuring.--Melissa Brokaw <br />
<br />
The documents in Calloway show some continual themes throughout Indian-White Relations. Primarily the idea that the Indians ally with whites they expect something in return. However, as Joseph Brant shows in his letter to the Britsh government, they are taken advantage of and used by the British for their own ends. With this kind of continual treatment, what is the incentive for Indians to ally with any whites? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party is very vivid, and I found it interesting because of the details that were provided that I had never heard about. However, I was most intrigued by the description that Hewes gave of beating of Malcom, the custom-house officer, who had stroke him with his cuddgle earlier, instead of the young boy. I am curious if the actions of this custom house office enraged the colonists enough to give them that extra motivation to carry out the Boston Tea Party or if it was a separate event all together that Hewes had experienced? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I found the Origin & Progess of the American Revolution to be quite detailed in the actions that were carried out on the various victims that the mob took. It seemed that the victims were those with some sort of political power, be it a judge, lawyer, or even a preacher. I was curious if the Mob was just a group of anyone or if there were any requirements for the people who were involved? Was there any action taken against these men or where they just so greatly feared that no one did anyting? Is it possible that many of the other citizens agreed with these actions because they too were displeased with the government officials at this time too? Quincey Garica</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T18:06:28Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>La Barre's Failed Bluff<br />
<br />
The Iroquois Indians were in recurrent wars with the French for a significant amount of time during the 17th century. Calloway states on page 118, "Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre's Army)" Why didn't the Iroquois decimate the last of the French forces and possesing the knowledge that La Barre was bluffing his military potential to scare the Iroqois into submission? If the Iroquois destroyed La Barre's Army it would have possibly set in motion a rallying cry of Indian resistence, which leads to my other question. The Native Indians of the Americas were strong and prosperous during the initial European colonization; they had the power to make or break European colonies because many colonies survived only by the genorosity of the Natives (sharing of corn, berries, and meat, as well as farming/hunting techniques, etc). As the years past, the Natives lost their influence and diplomatic power and are in a situation where their population is steadily declining and reaching a point of possible extinction. Why couldn't the Native tribes unify for the sole cause of driving the Europeans out of their lands, or atleast resisting them and forcing the Europeans to live in co-existance? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
"Boston Massacre Oration"-- I found it really interesting how Joseph Warren compared the Acts of Parliament. He likened it to being slavemasters, and the colonists the slaves. Since Warren lived in Boston, I have no doubt that the New Englanders had pretty radical ideas about slavery and were not as strict about power over them; if freed slaves in the North were able to join the Continental Army and Southern slaves had to get permission, then obviously Boston and New England were slightly more abolitionist than the South was. All that aside, did most colonists feel like slaves under the strict Parliamentary Acts? And if so, then wouldn't the colonists thus realize how oppressive it was and free their slaves? Also, I liked the statement addressed in the questions at the end of the document about Warren feminizing liberty, which makes me wonder whether or not this was the first time liberty has been feminized. I know today liberty is also known as Lady Liberty, further proof is the female Statue of Liberty. Is it possible that Warren or other colonists feminized liberty because then they were able to make power masculine? If liberty is feminine and power masculine, then obviously more colonists would defend liberty under the idea that liberty is weaker than power, which leads me to think that feminizing liberty was a way for Warren to promote independence prior to the Continental Congresses. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Memoir"-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes' account sort of "debunked" everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn't as violent and dangerous as I thought it was and it was actually a bit disappointing; there were no hard-core fighting between the crews and colonists, and most surprising was the fact there was no British resistance. It seemed like the fierce rebels expected every single colonist to feel the way they did about the British and the taxes, as shown in how they treated those caught taking tea and those still loyal to the crown who sold tea to fellow Tories/loyalists. But my question involves the actual Tea Party itself. In the excerpt from the memoir, Hewes said that they were "to do no damage to the ship or rigging," but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little "temper tantrum" so long as they didn't damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn't damage the ships and rigging because the ships could have been built in New England or built using American products, thus to damage them would to hurt their fellow colonists? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of "all men being originally equals" seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he states that, "..For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in the perpetual preference to all others for ever..." Doesn't this same statement apply to the slavery of blacks and American Indians that was taking place within the colonies at this same time? The colonists spoke of the power of England as tyrannical and complained that their rights were being taken away as if they were slaves....did they not see a connection here with slavery? I also wonder if the colonists ever really realized how economically dependent Britain became on the colonies themselves? Perhaps if they did the colonists could have used this weakness against Britain. What would our country be like today if the relations between the colonies and England had stayed friendly? What would have happened if there never was a revolution? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed John and Abigail Adams letters for several reasons. First of all I really like correspondences because I think they make the people more real. To me they are more interesting because they seem to be more individuals like us as opposed to these really obscure historical figures. One of the reasons I like them is I like the way that we see a female patriot's view of the war. Abigail Adams is just as ardent as John Adams in her support of the Revolution. My favorite part is that unlike the idea we are often presented with of women being considered inferior, John Adams seems to treat Abigail like his equal and his letters don't have a condescending air about them. The letters just provide a new way to look at the war and the society in which all of this was occuring.--Melissa Brokaw <br />
<br />
The documents in Calloway show some continual themes throughout Indian-White Relations. Primarily the idea that the Indians ally with whites they expect something in return. However, as Joseph Brant shows in his letter to the Britsh government, they are taken advantage of and used by the British for their own ends. With this kind of continual treatment, what is the incentive for Indians to ally with any whites? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party is very vivid, and I found it interesting because of the details that were provided that I had never heard about. I was most intrigued by the description that Hewes gave of beating of Malcom, the custom-house officer, who had stroke him with his cuddgle earlier, instead of the young boy. I am however curious if the actions of this custom house office enraged the colonists enough to give them that extra motivation to carry out the Boston Tea Party or if it was a separate event all together that Hewes had experienced? Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-15T02:07:14Z<p>199.111.76.237: </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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-15T01:52:53Z<p>199.111.76.237: </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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Oldendorp interviews slaves in the Caribbean, 1777 ==<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T23:28:58Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
I too found William's account strange. He seemed the voice of reason amidst all of the Englishmen/ priests that were bent on converting them or simply using and abusing the native population at that time. It made me wonder what events in his life or experiences would have lead him to have such a drastically different view of the native Americans because back then, it wasn't necessary that Englishmen treat the native americans with respect etc... -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community, nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to read the various accounts that were trying to prove that Bishop was in fact a witch. The information that people provided was wide ranged, from business deals to children crying. The account I found most remarkable was the man, William Stacy, who received money for working for her, but later, approximately 3 rods from her, he could not find his money. He assumed she had taken it away from him. It was very interesting to read the different accounts, and know that these "stories" were the evidence used to convict a woman of witch craft. Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T23:14:00Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T23:13:09Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, and alcoholism, but it still seems strange to me, and I frankly don’t understand why the Puritans punish people for their wrongdoings if at the beginning of time we are all predestined to our fate, and I am curious to know why the court system was such a big part of the Puritan society if the "elect" had already been picked by God understanding of course that some kind of governing system had to be in place in order to ensure safety among the people.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records, majority of the accusations seem more of a personal issue to me. I mean I understand that the Puritans were very religious but didn't they think that some of the issues can be solved at home? And for practically all the cases, there is a fine no matter how small the crime is which makes it seem as if they are more after the money. And it seems the women are getting harsher punishments than the men. --- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
This was definitly an interesting account to read. To see just how different is was then through the court records was great. I did find myself wondering however whether there were some kind of standards or written laws that dictated the punishment. How did the court decide what the punishment to be? Why wasn't the punishment the same across the board for a crime? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I agree with Jenna that this was an interesting account to read because it enabled the reader to see the world of the Puritans judicially, which also explained general behaviors of there time period. In response to your question about why the punishment wasn't the same across the board, I think that the reason the punishments differed was because of their religious standards and patrichial system, which held men to high standards. Since more was required of the men, I think the government felt that the punishments had to make the men understand that their actions were not tolerated by the community nor were they acceptable based on a religious stand point.<br />
== John Dane's Memoir ==<br />
<br />
While reading this I found myself wondering why this account was an important one. Who exactly is John Dane? Did he do anything noteworthy or was he just another Puritan? Why is it important that we know his life story? Is there a particular reason or is it just so we can try and get a sense of what life might have been like for the Puritans prior to and after coming to New England? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
== Testimony against Bridget Bishop ==</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T03:35:59Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Pareja's section about women he asks "Having given birth recently, have you considered eating these things as sinful?" What is his meaning behind this? Is this still about the fish being sinful? The other things he references are things like charcoal, dirt, pottery, fleas and lice. I would not consider fish among these things to be sinful or dirty. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
I found the description of the great Montezuma in this account quite interesting. I know in many European countries it was not common to bath everyday, even among the nobility. However, I noticed that it stated that Montzuma did in fact bath everyday, and I was curious if this was a common practice for rulers of the Native American villages? Also in this account, the wonderful gardens of Montezuma were mentioned. I was curious if the herbs and medicinal plants that grew there were shared with others in the villages, or if Montezuma reserved these herbs and medicinal plants solely for himself? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in "The Arrival of the Dutch", the Native Americans believed that the man that "wore the red clothes" was perceived to be "the great Mannitto (Supreme Being). -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the floating island story, the woman has a dream about an island with tall tress and living beings dressed in rabbit-skin and then the next day a ship arrived with trees and people (who looked like bears). I know dreams played an important role in Native American beliefs, but they weren't psychic. Plus, her dream wasn't a clear interpretation of what happened that day. --Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Powhatan speech to Captain John Smith shows a side of the Indians you don't always see. In every story I've heard it's always the settlers killing the Natives or taking advantage of them and stealing their land. In the introduction to this speech we learn that not only did the settlers rely on the Indians for food, but one chief threatened to take away their food supply if they started a war. --Meg Malecha<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy theory of "The Floating Island", I thought that it was interesting it was a young woman who foretold of the account that would occur between the Native Americans and the Europeans. I found it a little peculiar that it was a young woman who dreamt the account due to the lack of respect and power that most women had in the Native American socities. The unpleasant reaction by the necromancers was not shocking because they felt that due to their status, a dream of such importance should have come through them, those with "power of their magic." This theory was quite interesting and had such a positive, peaceful interpretation of the interaction with the Europeans and Native Americans. Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T03:17:32Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Pareja's section about women he asks "Having given birth recently, have you considered eating these things as sinful?" What is his meaning behind this? Is this still about the fish being sinful? The other things he references are things like charcoal, dirt, pottery, fleas and lice. I would not consider fish among these things to be sinful or dirty. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in "The Arrival of the Dutch", the Native Americans believed that the man that "wore the red clothes" was perceived to be "the great Mannitto (Supreme Being). -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the floating island story, the woman has a dream about an island with tall tress and living beings dressed in rabbit-skin and then the next day a ship arrived with trees and people (who looked like bears). I know dreams played an important role in Native American beliefs, but they weren't psychic. Plus, her dream wasn't a clear interpretation of what happened that day. --Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Powhatan speech to Captain John Smith shows a side of the Indians you don't always see. In every story I've heard it's always the settlers killing the Natives or taking advantage of them and stealing their land. In the introduction to this speech we learn that not only did the settlers rely on the Indians for food, but one chief threatened to take away their food supply if they started a war. --Meg Malecha<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy theory of "The Floating Island", I thought that it was interesting it was a young woman who foretold of the account that would occur between the Native Americans and the Europeans. I found it a little peculiar that it was a young woman who dreamt the account due to the lack of respect and power that most women had in the Native American socities. The unpleasant reaction by the necromancers was not shocking because they felt that due to their status, a dream of such importance should have come through them, those with "power of their magic." This theory was quite interesting and had such a positive, peaceful interpretation of the interaction with the Europeans and Native Americans. Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-18T01:24:55Z<p>199.111.76.237: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In reply to Renee's thought about a tree being present in both stories, I think there is a true significance. A dominate belief in the Native American culture is the presence of mother earth and in their stories her "authority" is represented by the tree. I think Christianity has some similar beliefs that all things are alive and the tree is a perfect example of growth, whether it be physical growth, spiritual growth, or growth by maturity. So a simple answer to her question, in my opinion, is that the presence of a tree in all 3 stories is not a coincidence. -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I know this may sound like a silly question, but I've never understood why God created the earth. Discussion question 1 for the Genesis reading asks "How and why did God create the earth?", but I actually don't know. In Sunday school churches always teach about the creation though they do not provide a definate reason why. Did God create the earth just for "kicks"? Are there other scriptures that give a definate answer? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both of the Native American creation stories, both the Seneca and the Iroquois, seemed to be very negative. Both focused on the struggle between the two brothers, and I wonder if there is any parallel with the strugle the Native Americans faced with the colonist. <br />
<br />
Also I was wondering if the account of the Creek origin, told by Chekilli, was also trying to allude to struggle between Native Americans and colonist. Especially in the last paragraph on page 32, "they now know that the white path was the best for them: for , although Tomochichi was a stranger, they see he has done them good." And then he goes on to mention the King and Esquire Oglethorpe, who as described in the picture on page 32 invited Tomochichi and his wife to travel to England. I'm confused as to what in this story is fiction and what is actually based on historical events.--Helen Dinndorf--<br />
<br />
I found the Iroquois Creation Story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky, and the Book of Genesis all intriguing because each story shares similarities, as well as profound differences. Are these similaries mere coincidence or insight to some greater purpose? My question is how would a historian percieve these similarities pertaining to the different people, cultures, and societies? The stories remind me of a program I watched on the History Channel about the search for Noah's Ark and how multiple religions and societies have similiar stories of a great flood in their past, some documented, some orally past down from generation to generation, but it makes one think! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
In response to Landon James'question: "Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans?" I know of a one "benefit" (and I say that sarcastically) that the Native Americans recieve; they get tax exemptions on products they sell, such as tobacco products (Cigars and Cigarettes). I know this because my parents buy cigarettes at one reservation in New York. I heard that the government is displeased since many small local U.S. tobacco sellers cannot keep up with Native American low prices. The Native American my parents buy their tobacco products from told them with the profit he has made selling tobacco he plans to build a casino on the reservation, everything tax free! ---Nick Scott---<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with A. Zelin about the Seneca origin narrative, "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", it reminded me of Cain and Abel as well. I find it interesting because in the Bible it is the first time a human dies and I wonder, is the death of Othagwenda in the Seneca story the first mention of a human death in their spiritual history as well? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
While reading the passage from Genesis I noticed that there were two sentences where God is speaking and the word "us" and/or "our" is used. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." and "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." I just find it interesting that "us" and "our" are used when God is speaking. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that in "The Politics" by Aristotle, he says, "It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just..." For those Europeans who had actually read Aristotle, he is basically saying that it is good for those people who are slaves by nature to be enslaved and it is also not wrong to enslave them. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In response to the statement above about God referring to himself as "us", some people believe the "us" is the trinity, and others believe it is the angels with God, and all the heavenly beings. Still others believe it is kind of like a "royal" us. Like, showing importance, kind of in the way queens would say "We would like a sandwich and a pepsi." (not that she'd ask for those two specifics...)<br />
-- Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
A couple people have asked whether or not Native Americans are fighting back today. Over Christmas break there was a news story on how the Lakota people have withdrawn treaties made with the United States in the 19th century. They declared themselves independent. You can read the story at Fox News or CNN, just type "Lakota Indians" into the search bar.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Somewhat connected to what A. Zelin said, I saw an unmistakable link among three stories with 2 brothers each. Teharonghyawago & Tawiskaron (From the Iroquois Creation Story), Cain and Able (From the Bible's account of creation), and Romulus and Remus (From Greek Mythology). In all three stories, one brother killed another. It seems to support the fact that people travelled across the Bering Strait. Naturally all the people would start with the same version of creation long long ago, but over the years as it was orally passed down, it began to change in whatever way the story teller relayed it (whether intentionally or not). I found that interesting and exciting. :) --Jessica Lawrie <br />
<br />
A little off topic, but, in class we were asked what the plural for moose is. I was thinking maybe the reason there is no plural for the word is that they are solitary animals. Maybe because there were never more than one around, there was no need for a word for more than one word. I hope no one minds that this comment is not exactly about the reading. lol --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
Oh! It was also very interesting to me that it was believed the people were heavily tattooed. For a people so in tune with nature, it seems they would not want to harm their bodies, which are part of nature. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
<br />
The section that discusses how the Creeks came to where they are begins by saying the earth opened in the West "where its mouth is", and the people came out of it. It then says "The earth became angry." I'm wondering if this is originated with yellowstone and the active volcanics there. In the ancient Roman world at Cumae there is volcanic activity where the sulfur comes up through cracks in the earth. It was thought to be the mouth to the underworld. It's an interesting possible parallel. --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Jessica about the connection of the story of Genesis and the Iroquois Creation story. It gives evidence that while these people were separated by thousands of miles, their stories were still interconnected and must mean that they originated from the same place. At the same time there are very noticeable differences. I guess my question would be how did these peoples culture change so drastically that their stories would differ to such a large degree? Another question is why is there such a large gap between the Iroquois story and the Seneca story? Are they meant to be the same but translated differently or are there just that many variations in the story? –Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the Iroquois Creation Story, The Great Spirit ordered the Great Turtle to catch his daughter, pregnant with illegitimate child, on it's back, which is what she built the earth on. Yet in the Seneca Creation Story, the chief's ill daughter fell first on waterfowl, who wished to save her and were not ordered to do so. Finally, the chief's daughter was passed onto the back of the Great Turtle. Also, I was curious who both stories differed so in who created the earth, since the Seneca version, it is actually the animals and not the daughter. However, the Turtle being "the base" for the construction of the earth, is consistent in both stories, which ties into the close relationship between Native Americans and nature. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I also noticed what Jenna S. wrote about regarding the connection between Genesis, the Christian based Creation story, The Woman Who Fell from the Sky based on teh Seneca Creation story, adn the Iroquois Creation story. The fact that all three stories contained 2 brothers, one evil and one good, who end up fighting to the death provides a strong and important connection between the Native Americans and the Christians. This connection is vital because all three groups introduce death and struggle as a part of human life. Quincey Garcia</div>199.111.76.237 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