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: 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=71.191.138.77McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T01:24:00Z<p>71.191.138.77: /* 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 Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
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 />
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 />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== 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</div>71.191.138.77https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T01:17:54Z<p>71.191.138.77: /* Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
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 />
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 />
<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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>71.191.138.77https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T00:10:05Z<p>71.191.138.77: /* Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass' point of view. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said "Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me." It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation." The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals? Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King<br />
<br />
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend? If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality? Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals? I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar's account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It's funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon</div>71.191.138.77 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