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: 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=72.219.204.74McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T21:40:35Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 */</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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T21:40:23Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 */</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 />
== 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?<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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T06:33:02Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass' point of view. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said "Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me." It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
If Frederick Douglass knows, as a slave, he is not considered a person, he is considered property, then why does he use the Constitution to fight for his rights? He talks about the differences between people and objects and then argues that he has the right to land and property because of this.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
<br />
I am very confused when reading Douglass' accounts of slaves tellings truths and lies about their masters. I do not understand how, if their master treats them so cruelly, they stand up and "quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other". They've seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer's had whipped slaves raw, and persons of the house could whip a slave at any time, for virtually any reason. As there was a lot of traveling between plantations done by slaves, wouldn't they hear of "good" masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect? How can they "mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately", yet believe that their master is the best one? Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn't fight for their masters. Granted, they wouldn't talk terribly about them, yet wouldn't they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
When Douglas reaches the point that he can remember dates, he goes to live with Thomas Auld. Auld and his family pretty much starve their slaves and they resort to begging and stealing from the neighbors. Treatment and care of slaves was a big thing considering the fact that even the slaves knew they were being mistreated to other slaveholder standards. I wonder why they never set rules for slavery if they were so passionate about treatment of slaves even if they wouldn't flat out abolish it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Was it dangerous for Frederick Douglass to have published this memoir? Would his ex-masters have sent people after him, or was he completely safe where he was? It seems that his memoir would create a lot of enemies. --Gracie<br />
<br />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation." The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals? Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King<br />
<br />
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend? If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality? Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals? I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar's account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It's funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After reading this I began to wonder if to some people, church was not simply entertainment. Certainly it was quite dramatic but it was also a way for blacks and females to freely enter the public sphere. How many were really faithful? And how did this contribute to the cultural background of America, it was much like the traveling circuses and shows in my opinion.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, "At first they were taken with an inward throbbing of heart; then with weeping and trembling: from that to crying out, in apparent agony of soul; falling down and swooning away till every appearance of animal life was suspended, and the person appeared to be in a trance". In class, it was mentioned that usually the sinners were sent to stand in front of the podium. Could they have been faking these reactions, just to make people believe that they had converted? It's kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances. I don't doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations. You don't see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
How come, during the time of the greatest relgious revival in America, the government committed it's biggest crimes against humanity. This was the time period that the Indians were being removed from their original lands, and slavery was very prevalent. I'm sure some people had to be sincere in their conversions... --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-02T23:28:58Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-02T23:24:49Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:04:54Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T22:57:26Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<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 />
== 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-19T21:36:35Z<p>72.219.204.74: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
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 />
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 />
"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 />
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 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 />
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 />
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 "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 />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
<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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T01:58:47Z<p>72.219.204.74: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
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, which are the predecessors to the modern day Republican Party. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans, modern day Democrats. 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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I 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 />
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? 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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-20T20:34:22Z<p>72.219.204.74: </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</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-14T22:52:10Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Other Calloway */</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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
<br />
<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 />
== 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--</div>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-02-01T00:50:54Z<p>72.219.204.74: /* Arabella Sermon */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the John Winthrop reading, he speaks a lot of the poor and the rich. In the second paragraph he uses the phrase "poor and inferior sort," (page 56). This suggests to me to me, that in order for their to be Christian charity, some humans must be inferior and subordinate in every way to others. In the next paragraph, he states, "no man is made more honorable than another," (page 56). This seems very contradictory to me. Am I reading this out of context, or is this actually a contradtiction of two very important points in christianity? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I had the same thought as Katie did about Winthrop's quote from Matthew ~ if the Puritans hadn't included it in their communities, then would Americans try to instill the same values? I think that if the Puritans hadn't included their vresion of "the golden rule" into their communities and society, then the world--or at least America--would be a completely different place. The golden rule--doing unto others as you would have them do unto you--governs or at least holds precedence over a lot of institutions, including the honor code here at Mary Washington in that the university trusts the students to be responsible and upstanding citizens of the UMW community, while the students trust the university to act responsibly in the best interests for the community. Is it possible for anyone to imagine a country where the golden rule is not implemented--would there be more crime? More difficulty trusting superiors like the government or certain authorities? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, John Winthrop talks about the three conditions of love that the Puritans are expected to follow. He mentioned that after Adam betrayed God by going into the Garden of Eden, Adam sort of fell out of love with God because he disrespected him and the temptation Eve and the Garden imposed on him was too great. Winthrop mentions that as a result, Adam came to love and seek himself more than God. If Winthrop and the Puritans believed that women carried the burden of Eve's betrayal by experiencing the pain and impurity of childbirth (as Dr. McClurken lectured about), is it possible to believe or suggest that men carry the burden of Adam's betrayal by being somewhat self-interested, a little egotistical, or having too much pride of themselves? Or if not just men, then all women--all humans everywhere--as well in addition to bearing the retributions of Eve's seduction? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the Arbella Sermon, Winthrop talks about having to love each other and treat each other the way they would want to be treated in order to be united with peace. There must be a reason why he is talking about love and unity throughout the sermon. Before New England, did the Puritans not have any unity or love for each other? or is he saying that since they were discriminated against in England that they must be more united and have more love for each other to succeed as a community in the New World? -- Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I had always been led to believe that Jonathan Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" was the most famous sermon in American history. Do scholars debate the amount of impact the Arbella Sermon had over "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? If so, what are some of the grounds for their conclusions? - Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the quote “no man is made more honorable than another” contradictory, as did Laura, but for a different reason. When he said that no man was better essentially than another, this seemed to be a complete contradiction of the Puritan belief. If wealth and position is preordained by god and thus some are favored and more “honored” by god, then why would he say that no man is more honorable than another? -Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found the title of the Arbella Sermon is totally absurd and contradictory. It is titled, A Model of Christian Charity, but the piece comes across almost threatening and undermines those who don't follow their beliefs. This Christian Charity seems only to apply to those who follow Puritan belief; it fails to mention charity towards Indians. I feel as though this sermon was given less out of good will and more as a preemptive move to ensure that everyone would cooperate and live under Puritan guidelines. I suppose that giving a sermon like this could be a smart move considering the how poorly the establishment at Jamestown went. I wonder how influential it was in respect to the success of the Puritan colonies? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== 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>72.219.204.74https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-24T23:01:32Z<p>72.219.204.74: </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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
<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 />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<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</div>72.219.204.74 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