Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=MlemonMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T21:31:45ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T22:38:50Z<p>Mlemon: /* Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Is it possible to suggest that Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in order to gain inspiration for his poetry? Also, I took the liberty of wikipediaing Whitman and it says that he was in the wounded soldier camps to look for his brother, who was on a list of names of soldiers who had died or were wounded in previous battles. I think Whitman was in the camps looking for his brother, yet after arriving, he began taking notes on what he see and eventually maybe used his notes to write poetry about the war later on. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T22:33:51Z<p>Mlemon: /* New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I just watched the 70s musical "Hair" last night, so I was thinking about that movie as I read this report. Aside from the whole Bergman the draft-card-burning hippie shipping off to Vietnam instead of Bukowski the-enlisted-soldier thing that really twisted the whole movie (oh, Treat Williams!), the movie also played up to the burning of draft cards and protests. I wonder if it ever occured to the men during the Civil War that peaceful protests might be better than the extreme violent ones. That being said, the protesters seemed to be extremely violent. In the example of Franklin, they nearly killed him, military rescued him, but then the mob returned and mutilated him to make sure he was dead. Is it because of the very extreme/graphic/violent natures of the mobs like this that no one really hears about protests during the Civil War, and peaceful protests of the hippies during the 70s are somewhat glorified? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T22:24:37Z<p>Mlemon: /* Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Aside from the obvious lack of punctuation in addition to spelling errors, I agree with the others who say that this man comes off intelligent and educated. He writes in the third paragraph that man should have one master (am I correct in assuming that this master would be God?), yet the slaves have two masters. One is the rebel master and the other is the Union master. I don't understand this statement; why would any slave have two masters--they're either working on the plantation, or they have escaped and joined the Union army. Is it possible to conclude from the letter that some slaves remained loyal to their owners for whom they worked, even as the Union army confiscated them, like in Sherman's March to the sea? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_14_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T22:19:03Z<p>Mlemon: /* Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Lincoln’s letter to Greeley 1862; Emancipation Proclamation; Gettysburg Address ==<br />
First off, I thought it was interesting to here Lincoln's view on slavery and the Union in his letter to Greeley. So many assume that he was fighting to end slavery the whole time, but really he was fighting for the Union, and if it ended slavery, let it. It was neat to see how his view of slavery transformed from 1862 to 1863 seeing that by 1863 he wanted to completely abolish slavery.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln lists all of the parts of the state that are exempt from the freeing of their slaves, because these parts are not considered rebels. He makes it clear that the only places that are to free their slaves are the places of rebellion. I do not see the point in this because if the states are rebelling why would they listen to the government in which they are rebelling from? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
Lincoln states, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence." What did they do about the attacks on black men in the south, the punishment of whipping was not used on white men. Did the south justify themselves by saying state governments had more control over its citizens and the cases in their states and therefore believed they could punish whoever and however they saw fit? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the Emancipation Proclamation, I am a little bit confused. The war has not been won, and technically the South is still under their own control. How did Lincoln plan to free most (but not all, as there were some counties deferred from the law) of the slaves if they were technically under a different government? For example, we can't just claim that all slaves in another country are free and expect the leaders of that country to listen to us. Also, how did he plan on enforcing that "in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages" if he has no control over if they can be freed, and what their masters would expect from them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
While Lincoln was known to be staunchly in favor of keeping the Union together--most of his legislation and behavior seems to complement this goal, it seems like he has given up hope in the letter. However, in "The Gettysburg Address," Lincoln seems more determined than ever to keep the Union together. Is it possible that Lincoln could have predicted that if the Union were to lose the Civil War and the South would win, England could have possibly returned to American shores? I mean, the War of 1812 was essentially England trying to take back what they lost in the Revolutionary War, so is it plausible to think that if the Civil War failed or lasted longer, then England would have intervened again and we'd be speaking with British accents? A little far-fetched, I know, but I'm just curious. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Statement from an Anonymous Former Slave, New Orleans, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite his spelling errors this slave seems particularly intelligent when a large portion of the United States couldn't write, including whites. I don't understand why he would write this. It would be logical if the document was a pamphlet and used for propaganda purposes, but it’s not because in the book it states it is a letter. Do we know who it was intended for? It is definitely a good source of how possibly some/many slaves felt, but is it reliable since there doesn't seem to be too much information about the letter? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Johnson tells us that “A Former Slave’s War Aims” was a statement by a former slave to the police in New Orleans. Why would this former slave have been picked up by the New Orleans Police? Why would his statement be so long and look more like a declaration than a statement of what he was doing? –Emily King<br />
<br />
"A Former Slave's War Aims" was a very passionate statement, which contained citations to many American documents. The references to the Declaration of Independence was impressive because I was not aware that slaves were so familiar with these documents. I found it interesting that from his point of view, he did not seemed satisfied that he had to work with the Union Army. I know in class we mentioned how many wanted to get away from the plantations, but did many of the slaves share this slave's view that, "As long as theire is a Slave their will be rebles Against the Government of the united States So we must look out our white officers may be union men but Slave holders at heart the Are allways on hand when theire is money but Look out for them in the battle field liberty is what we want and nothing Shorter"(279). He also makes another statement showing dissatisfaction with fighting with the Union when he says, "there are three things to fight for and two races of people divided into three Classes one wants negro Slaves the other the union the other liberty"(279). Did many slaves feel so strongly, and felt that the Union was the lesser of the two evils? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised to see the black slave quoting numbers in his letter. Did white northerners actually trust african-americans enough at this time to tell them how many slaves there were and what they were worth? This slave seems to be surprisingly knowledgable on things that i was almost positive would have been kept from them at great lengths. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== New York City Draft Riots report, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
These documents of the brutal beatings of blacks by whites reminds me of when I was living in New York at the time of 9/11 attacks. This similar racial hatred and job competition caused New Yorkers to target individuals of Middle-Eastern descent. I remember on the news that the New York City authorities and police officers warned the public not to take retaliating actions against Middle-Eastern individuals. It’s sad how ignorant and apathetic people become after tragic events. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
My question is, was the influx of black labor into the north an unfortunate, but uniting event in American history? one of the best ways to bring people together is to create an external enemy, and the threat of financial instability was certainly a threat. Did this turn "white" hostility from targeting each other (i.e. Irish, Italian etc...) to targeting blacks?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found this document interesting. In every movie i had seen about war drafts were never favored but if a man disobeyed the draft or ran away so he didn't have to join the army, he was pretty much considered an outcasted and disrespected by most of his friends and family. I know nobody actually wanted to be forced into war but did any man actually accept the draft with pride, knowing that his time had come to do his duty to his country? Or was pretty much every person opposed to the draft, doing what they could to get out of it. Do movies just romanticize the war this way? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Sherman and the Hard Hand of War ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Walt Whitman, Specimen Days, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
What I don't understand is why Walt Whitman was visiting the wounded soldiers in the first place. Was there a specific reason he was doing this or was he doing it simply because he wanted to? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I too wondered what Whitman was doing that these camps, but at the same time, I would assume some, if not most, of the soldiers enjoyed having someone there. Like said in one of his journal entries, "I do what I can for him; at amu rate, stop with him and sit near him for hours". Being wounded and at a hospital of the time must have had many psychological effects on the soldiers. I was wondering if I am right with this statement, or if many of the soldiers didnt like visitors?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
== Mississippi Black Codes, November 1865 ==<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Black code talks about how free Negroes and mulattoes were allowed to intermarry with each other but it says nothing about blacks marrying whites. Was interracial marriage disallowed by society’s rules or was it ever based in law? –Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
I had the same question as Emily, but then i found "That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, free negro and mulattoes to inter-marry with any white person; nor for any white person to inter-marry with any freedman, free negro or mulatto; and any person who shall so inter-marry shall be deemed guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be confined in the state penitentiary for life..." I wonder why this mind-set lasted for so long, you would think that maybe a generation or two things would have evolved. But even looking back at the ancient Mesopotamian societies, lighter skin has always had a superiority. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Ads from the Christian Recorder, 1865-1870 ==<br />
<br />
Did these ads actually work? They contain so little information and the odds of the people they are looking for will read them are not very good. Was this just a last desperate plea or were these actually successful? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Advertisements from the Christian Recorder many of the people who are looking for a lost family member refer back to the last person that he or she belonged to. The Recorder's articles go until 1870 and in these articles the former slaves are still referring to the people who had once owned them or their loved ones. This shows that even many years after the end of the war freed slaves still had to identify with their former masters to be able to help identify themselves and their loved ones. They were not able to escape the title of once being owned by another person. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
After reading this I was wondering just how the newly freed population reconciled the fact that they were free, but others still weren't wiling to view them as free (as evidenced by how they identified them). How were they able to declare their freedom and yet still be viewed as captive by the whites?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== Black Convention in Alabama, 1867 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elias Hill’s testimony before the Congressional committee Investigating the KKK, 1871 ==<br />
<br />
I found this article inspiring because of all of the odds th at Elias Hill was able to overcome, crippling disabilities and persectution. This article fullyl examined the strong dislike toward republican ideals and thoughts in the South at this point. I think that this is important to note because the Civil War had been over for almost six years, and the white population is still trying to control and monitor the blacks in the population. This article demonstrates that the black population are still just as powerless as they had been, but it also shows the increase in violence toward them. Did this rising problems with the Ku Klux Klan cause the blacks to migrate further North, or did this encourage them to stay in the South to fight harder for equality? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Charles Nordhoff, The Cotton States, 1875 ==</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T01:52:45Z<p>Mlemon: /* Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T23:28:50Z<p>Mlemon: /* Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== 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>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T23:23:32Z<p>Mlemon: /* 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 />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
== 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>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T23:16:31Z<p>Mlemon: /* Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== 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>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-10T20:29:28Z<p>Mlemon: /* Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
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 />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation." The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals? Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King<br />
<br />
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend? If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality? Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals? I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar's account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It's funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T21:00:04Z<p>Mlemon: /* Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T20:52:36Z<p>Mlemon: /* 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 />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:29:14Z<p>Mlemon: /* David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Henry bellow says, "We are not prepared to allow that wealth is more valued in America than elsewhere, but in other countries the successful pursuit of it is necessarily confied to a few, while here it is open to all." I found this comment interesting, because when I read it, I understand it to mean that Bellow's wants an elite, a monarch to serve. As if he believes in the dominant controlling group that all of the commoners work to please. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating "grievances", listing what the women wanted. We've talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn't care or paid much attention. Given the history women's rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren't finished fighting for women's rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
Is it possible that Davy Crockett just exaggerated his hunting skills to become famous and well-known? Aside from that, the frontier generates an idea that the men are standoffish and mean, that they're kind of like Michael Caine and Robert Duvall's characters in "Secondhand Lions"--they sit on their front porch and shoot trespassers or things that annoy them. Davy Crockett's story here contradicts that by portraying the frontiersmen as being good neighbors and helping them when their food supply was low. Or maybe frontiersmen were nice to their neighbors and mean to everyone else... -- Meganne Lemon</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:25:05Z<p>Mlemon: /* Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I noticed right off the bat that Elizabeth Cady Stanton or the gathering at Seneca Falls used rhetoric of the Revolutionary War to push for their ideals. It seems that the Seneca Falls Declaration was modeled exactly as the Declaration of Independence and in fact used a similar structure: establishing intent, enumerating "grievances", listing what the women wanted. We've talked about other minorities using revolutionary rhetoric to push for equality and how the white men generally didn't care or paid much attention. Given the history women's rights, was the Seneca Falls Declaration particularly effective in getting the ball rolling? Even today, it seems that we still aren't finished fighting for women's rights (such as abortion or the constantly-proposed Equal Rights Amendment or women in high public office), so was the initial movement for equality still effective post-1920s? --- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King<br />
<br />
After reading the David Crockett story, i wondered about when dogs really began being used as hunting tools and then coined the term "man's best friend" -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
I found this narrative of David Crockett extremely fabricated. I know that it was known that quite a few of his hunting stories were fabricated, but were his stories even believable? I mean, were the amount of animals, mainly bears, that he claimed to have killed, even a realistic number based on the average number killed by his neighbors? Also, since he was the congressman for the area, did that drive him to elaborate on his hunting stories to make him appear the "invincible man"? Quincey Garcia</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:10:17Z<p>Mlemon: /* Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Eliza Farnham, A Farmer’s view of his wife, 1846 ==<br />
In Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, it is extreemly clear that the farmer sees women as property. Was this the view of many farmers at the time, or was he an exception? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
in Eliza Farnham's conversation with a farmer, I basically had the same question as Kristina. Was this common among farmers, or did some actually love their wife for who she is? And I also didnt get the "built a cage and went back for your bird" part, what does that mean??- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellows document he states in one part that "we call our country a happy country" but then later says "it is said that we are not a happy people"; isn't this a contradiction? Which one is it? It can't be both; either they are happy or they aren't. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
So I am completely ammused with the language they use in this passage. First off, their "small" talk is quite lame when compared to that which we use today. "A few words about the height of the water, the timber, and the prairies..." is not exactly the conversation that would win a spouse. And also, how did we make a new meaning out of "crapped" that once meant "planted with crops?" Just a thought... -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, 1848 ==<br />
<br />
Declaration of Sentiments: I was surprised while reading this source that it claimed that 150 women and 30 men met at Seneca Falls to protest male supremacy. This was interesting to me, i assumed at this early point in history that men wouldn't have agreed with women being their equals and would have kept their feelings of women equality to themselves even if they did agree with it. What kind of men were these 30 that showed up to protest male supremacy? Were they the husbands of some of the women? What kind of reaction did this have in the public when most rich and powerful men were very anti-women rights? I would assume these men would have been shunned after such a public display of agreeing with the protest for women's rights. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document written at Seneca Falls, I found it interesting one argument claimed that “most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners” had rights meaning women should also share these rights. When women were looking for their own equality they used a form of inequality of men to prove their point. It all just seems to be a little ironic. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
This article made me wonder why the Seneca Falls Convention was held in the year 1848. I know the time period itself was associated with the first questioning of women's role in society, but why the specific year? Was there a key event that occured within earlier part of 1848, or late 1847, that sparked the enthusiasm for women's rights? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
Basically I want to know how other women felt about the revolutionary arguments and resolutions that Elizabeth Cady Stanton made. Were most women in agreement? How much impact did it actually have during this time (especially considering that many men in this country today STILL don't view women as their equals)? How did this same women who fought for equal rights feel about slavery? or about the treatment of Indians? Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== David Crockett Hunts Bear, 1834 ==<br />
<br />
Davie Crockett sounds like nothing more than a hick (pardon the slang) in his narrative. It's weird that he has such a glorified name, but it seems that he was nothing but a country dude who became famous. --Gracie<br />
<br />
In Davie Crockett's document, I feel like the whole thing is really exaggerated and very story-like. I was wondering if they did this just to make him seem 'masculine'? I just feel like its extremely and almost impossible for one man to kill 47 bears one month.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In reference to David Crockett's narrative, it must be exaggerated. I don't understand how 1000 lbs of bear meat could be kept fresh long enough for only a few people to eat it. That seems very unrealistic. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
David Crockett's narrative: I also thought it was interesting the amount of bears David claimed to have killed. For one he seemed like a sadistic man whose only passion was to kill animals, proven by the fact that there is no way he could have killed 105 bears in less than a year and been able to eat them is there? It seems he did it more for sport than anything else, which i would have expected to have made his neighbors very angry, when surely there were people nearby him whose families were starving to death - and here is Davie Crockett trying to set the record for most bears killed in a month. Had i lived in that time i can imagine i would have disliked Davie Crockett, how did he become so famous/popular? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I also found issues with how many bears were killed, but for a different reason. If Crockett killed 105 bears in a year, and most likely there were other hunters who killed as much to survive off of food, wouldn't the bear population become quickly extinct? There is no way that a bear population can maintain itself if tens of thousands are killed every year just for human survival. How did other people find food besides farming? Especially their protein? It seems as if finding a bear to kill for meat would become extremely hard after a few years. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the narrative of David Crockett, I also thought the whole bear slaughter of 105 in a year was excessive. It was almost as if he was a compulsive hunter...also, on page 203 at the very top, he comments on how the bear meat made the other man he was hunting for feel "as rich as a Jew." Is this comment normal for that time peroid? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I’m not sure that I quite believe that Davy Crockett really killed over 100 bears in less than a year. I definitely think that he over exaggerated in his tails. I also don’t see how he became so famous in the first place by just hunting bears. Were the people that moved out to the west that incapable of taking care of themselves? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
David Crockett exaggerates his hunting ability in order to prove his masculinity, but why does the community care if their congressman is a good hunter? -Emily King</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_10_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T23:10:06Z<p>Mlemon: /* Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Henry Bellows, on the influence of “Trading Spirit” on morality, 1845 ==<br />
<br />
In Henry Bellow's document the quote, "Is it that our people are so much more miserly and earth-born than any other? No, not by any constitutional baseness; but circumstances have necessarily given this direction to the American mind," (Bellows 223). I found this interesting because it brings up the concept of nature vs. nurture. This quote ties in very well with everything else that he is saying, and this document helps to point out the beginning of an American identity shaped by circumstances. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In "The Influence fo the Trading Spirit upon the Social and Moral Life of America", its interesting how they call New England the "common mother" just how the New England settlement had called England their mother. Later in the reading there is a shift in the Revolution by morals, the virtues and morals are all of merchants, what influences their mindset of merchantilism, what is their basis? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This article could be published in the Post because of the huge parallels between working too much then and working too much now. It seems that even from the get-go our culture has centered around the material gain we get from hard work. It all relates back to the "American Dream" in which, if you work hard you can achieve happiness through your wealth. -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Walter Colton’s California Diary, 1849-1850 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Why did Walter Colton discuss the prices of the first importation on page 237? Was it because these goods (flour, sugar, coffee, and liquor) were very overpriced for the time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" seems to contradict everything that is known about the gold rush in terms of how much was actually found. He talked a lot about how everyone was finding thousands of dollars of gold. Is this because it was the beginning of the gold rush? Most accounts of the rush say that a lot of people went west, but no one really found any gold/made enough money to survive/support their families. I just found this account much different than other accounts of those who "went west". - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "Gold Fever" there is mention of the "golden dream". What exactly was the golden dream? Was it widespread or did it vary depending on what region you were from? Is it comparable to the American Dream? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The prices mentioned in the California Gold Rush Diary seem high for this time period – two dollars a pound for flour, four dollars for sugar and coffee, and twenty dollars a quart for liquor. Were the prices of these good higher because the people in the gold rush had more money to spend and the merchants knew this or was it because the goods had to come from a long ways away or a little of both? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary", he says that one man states(about gold) "they were some Yankee invention", What is the general feeling on the northern colonies? is it just a difference between where the gold minors moved from and their ties back home? And the point about not digging with slaves, there is no slavery in California, the diggers thought believed they were so much better than the slaves that they couldn't even dig for gold around them? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
“Gold Fever” reveals how whites in California did not want slaves by their sides when mining for gold. Could this be due not only to feelings of white supremacy, but also the fear of blacks becoming a threat with gaining wealth? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Colton's diary he describes the mass migration to California and the negative effects it had on individuals and small communities. I was curious to the effects it had on a larger scale, specifically the U.S. economy and individual states? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In addition to Lauren Hick's question/comment: "In Walter Colton's "California Gold Rush Diary," he says that one man states (about gold) "they were some Yankee invention." What is the general feeling on the northern colonies?" I also was curious as to when the term "Yankee" was used to describe the Northerners and how come it is used throughout many of the documents in this weeks reading? I know it is derived from the Dutch word "Janke," which means pirate. The British used it to describe the Americans during the Revolutionary war, but what event caused the South to disown themselves the name of Yankees? Is it because opinions between the North and the South are reaching the hostile point and eventually war? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Well, the Gold Rush seems more like a cross between "Beverly Hillbillies" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World" than the romanticized versions characterized by Hollywood, like in maybe a Mel Gibson movie if Mel Gibson made a movie of the Gold Rush. I think I just contradicted myself there. Anyway, I found it to be interesting. I know California came into the Union as a free state, but it never really occured to me why until now. Like several other people commented above, is it true that the white settlers didn't want slaves because of an increased likelihood of the slaves running away and eventually amassing the wealth that the white settlers digged for?<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>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-20T21:33:43Z<p>Mlemon: /* TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is a backstabbing hypocrite. At least that's what I gather from yesterday's discussion on his view of slavery and then reading about his view on Native Americans. However, I understand that this may be because he realizes the importance of promoting a new, united country and that he, as only the third president, may have felt a responsibility to his citizens and while privately believing otherwise, publicly agreed with the general population. (Things certainly have come a long way, haven't they?) I found it interesting how Jefferson called the Native Americans his "red" children, likening their relationship to father and son. I suppose it may have been so that the Indians could feel like they are included under the protection of the president, and could maybe make Jefferson and the government more likable. But then again, privately, it seems like Jefferson would rather the Indians all just go live on another continent. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_9_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-03-20T21:29:06Z<p>Mlemon: /* James Forten protests 1813 PA Law */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Peter Wendover, July 4th, 1806, A Jeffersonian Sailmaker ==<br />
A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address - While reading this source i was noticing the somewhat hypocritical this man's stance was on "liberty". He kept saying things like "not inured to the tactics of war, untaught in the practice of barbarity, not accustomed to the clang of arms" to describe his fellow countrymen, apparently forgetting the way they treated the Native Americans and the African Americans! He also said they should "do to others as we wish them to do unto us"...did the colonists actually not realize the hypocrisy in their so called "morals"? He was so blatantly saying how great America was for letting everyone experience liberty and freedom, obviously forgetting that they weren't actually doing that at all! - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
First of all, in "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" what are they talking about when they say "COLUMBIA IS FREE..."? Are they referring to D.C. because at this point the capital had been moved there? And also, it seems ironic how he uses the word slavery when he says, "death is terror, but slavery is death" because that is what they are putting African Americans through. If they realize how horrible it is to feel like a slave, then why would they have others be in that role? <br />
-Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address" why is Columbia a forefront of the article? I'm not really seeing the connection between the Revolution and Columbia? Why was Columbia even noteworthy at the time this was written? I don't see how Columbia has anything to do with the Revolution but maybe I'm just missing the point. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
As another student commented, while reading "A Jeffersonian Sailmaker's Fourth of July Address," I was surprised by how hypocritical it was. Wendover talks about the "Emancipation of a Nation," "Equal Rights," and "Rights of Man," but all of these apply solely to white males. It just amazes me how people could proclaim these republican ideals and yet refuse to apply them to African Americans and Native Americans. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James Forten protests 1813 PA Law ==<br />
Letters from a Man of Colour... - In this source i noticed how he said that many free black men had property that they earned upon becoming free. I was surprised that this was the case, i always assumed that free black men were still very discriminated against and would never have been able to aquire land after being liberated, he made it seem that many free slaves were well off. I'm sure this isn't the case? Did any free black men or women ever experience a comfortable lifestyle after being freed? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
In James Forten's Protest against Pennsylvania, I was wondering if his protest had any effect whatsoever on the Pennsylvania law? I feel like even though he is a wealthy free black, he really has no say because he is black. He makes some excellent and true statements, for example punishing a guilty black man with slavery will not make him better and that the Constitution of Penn said " all men are born equally", but I feel like Penn would just ignore him. Is this true or is part of the reason this law did not get passed because of black men protesting?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In “Letters from a Man of Colour”, James Forten writes how the state of Pennsylvania is a place where “African[s] have justly boasted of rational liberty and the protection of the laws.” Was this a state where free black men actually had more freedom or is this just a persuasive argument Forten is attempting to use to sway the senate? Were these liberties and protection of laws really something for free black men to boast about? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that both African-Americans and Native Americans used the jargon of the American Revolution when trying to get their own rights and freedoms. It makes me wonder if this lead to any guilty feelings on the parts of whites? Having their words and arguments used against them seems to me a to be a rather impactful way of getting the message across yet in most cases it doesn't seem to work. Is there anything to suggest that people found this equally compelling? -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found James Forten's Letters to be very provocative. While clearly showing how African Americans felt like they were a part of the new country, it still showed how jilted they were by things like "all men being created equal" like in the Declaration of Independence, yet still the African Americans are being treated like something not worthy of being human. What I found most interesting was how James Forten started out intending to lecture the Senate on the bill, to encourage emancipation, yet by the end of the letter, it seemed like he was shaming the senators for even thinking about this particular course of action. While the bill eventually failed and did not become an established law, it would be interesting to know why the Senators chose against passing it--maybe Forten really did shame them into thinking otherwise... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== TJ’s Private & Public Indian Policy as seen in a Letter to Gov. Wm. Henry Harrison, 1803 & a speech to Native Americans ambassadors in 1806 ==<br />
In his address to the Mandans, why would Jefferson put their relationship in the context of father and child? I would assume that since they just came out of a war where they were fighting to get out of a relationship like that, that in turn, the would be wary to utilize the same method? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After our discussion in class today about Jefferson's conflicting public v. private attitudes on slavery and his inability to take action one way or the other is further reiterated in comparing his private letter to Governor Harrison with his public address to the People of the Mandan Nation. In his private letter Jefferson speaks in a conniving manner and it sounds as if his plan to to trick the Indians into getting them to do what he wants. However, in his public address Jefferson speaks of the friendship between the government and the Mandan nation. Throughout his address Jefferson subtly asserts his superiority over the Indians by referring to them as his "children" and as his "red brethren". I know Jefferson was conflicted about emancipation but what were his feelings toward Native Americans? Also, we talked about how it was fairly common for slave owners to father children from their slaves so I was wondering if slave owners ever public or even privately acknowledged their sons or daughters? ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Meriwether Lewis Journal, 1805 ==<br />
The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition first mentions women being treated “with little rispect, and compel them to perform every species of drudgery.” Three days later, they wrote how women are seen as sacred in their society. Why is there this discrepancy within this short time period? Is there a possibility their first encounters and opinions were proven to be misinterpreted or are they describing two different groups of Indians? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cherokees Debate Removal, John Ross and Elias Boudinot, 1836-1837 ==<br />
<br />
In the Reply to John Ross 1837, Elias Boudinot talks about the whites intermarrying, did they have the same views as their children as they did slave children with white fathers, did the blood percentage give them a better stance in society? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
This was really interesting to me because it shows on a larger scale the impact of American Indian policy. Removal alone was a big enough impact on the Cherokees but also to look a little closer we see how removal not only tore them from their home but tore them apart as a nation. We see two men here who have different views one advocating resisting removal as a way to save their culture and another advocating removal as the means to saving the people and culture. The depth of damage inflicted on Native Americans seems to only increase with closer examination.-Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
== Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Jefferson's Enslaved Son, 1873 ==<br />
"Madison Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son" I was curious to how prevalent white slave owners fornicated with slaves? In Jefferson's situation there must of been certain individuals who knew of his relationship with Sally Hemings. How did they feel about it and what were the repercussions, if any? Also, how did his wife feel about this, if she knew at all? At the end of the document one of the questions states, how credible is Madison's testimony? I was curious as to others thoughts on this subject. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
To comment on Nick's comment above, I am not sure, but I think that Martha, Jefferson's wife had died. And remember in class today, Dr. McClurken said that it was very normal for slave owners to have relationships with their slaves. But I was also wondering, since he had so much power and was 'famous', was it then looked down upon? Also to try to answer your last question, I see both ways of it being credible and not. Credible because his story does actually fit to other research and I wouldn't doubt him to know a little of his family history. I can also see how its not credible because he could be playing this up, just to make Jefferson have a bad reputation, because there is almost no reason to believe it was not Jefferson.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found "Madison Hamings Recalls Life..." to be really interesting. Everything seems different when stated in the perspective of a slave's relationship with his family. I'm curious of what would have happened if Martha didn't die for another 5+ years. Would Jefferson have had relations with Sally Hemings anyways? Or would the secret have been harder to keep since his wife would have been still alive? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
In Madisons Hemings Recalls Life as Thomas Jefferson's Enslaved Son, He says Thomas Jefferson had his public life and his private life,how much did the Hemings children know about his public role in the government and did they know his stances on slavery and how he never wanted to make a statement against it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Madison Hemings’ Interview was interesting to read since we had just discussed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings in class. Madison seems to remember Jefferson as a nice person. He says that he treated the entire Hemmings family well and they were allowed to stay around the “great house” and not have to do heavy work, while most of the other slaves were out in the fields. He also says that Jefferson has a good temperament and is even seen among the slave mechanics, but that he was not interested in plantation work so he left that to the stewards and overseers. I feel like Hemings could have also had a partial view of Jefferson because it seems that he never really interacted with the other slaves who were working in the fields. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Interview with Madison Hemings, I found it interesting how well he reported him and his family being treated. All the memebers of his family just had small daily chores to do that did not require a lot of labor. It even sounded like they had a lot of free time once they finished their chores. We talked about the privledged position that the Hemings held in Jefferson's household during class, but I still thought they would have had a heavier workload. So, it surprised me to see how exceptionally the Hemings really were treated according to this interview. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
In Madison Heming's recollection he says that his brother Beverly married a white woman and his sister Harriet married a white man. Even if Beverly and Harriet could pull off being white because of their light skin, didn't the families of their spouses question their background or lack there of? Would they have made up stories to protect their true identity from being revealed? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789'''<br><br />
Joseph Brant "Indian vs. White Civilization, 1789. This document reminded me of a really good HBO documentary movie I saw a couple of years ago, "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." The experiences of Joseph Brant were similar to the main character in the movie. I know the setting for the movie was later in the 19th century, but if anyone has seen this movie, do they know if it is historically accurate to some extent? If it is I highly recommend the movie to get a visualization of what was occurring during this time period. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
After reading Joseph Brant's response to the question of Indian vs. White Civilization, i began thinking about how the different influences of the society made them no uniquely different. The indian society never had the mentatlity of individuality over the group while, the american society came over with that society. My question is then, after the colonists settled, was there an increase in crime and "individual-minded" behavior among the native american societies? Or did they always did they always find the things that the colonists to be innately evil?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In the comparison of Indians vs. White Civilizations by Joseph Brant, he says that he would rather die of Indian torture than to live a year in a colonist prison. He compares the two civilizations saying that there are not many villains and no robberies among the Indians and their crimes are impartially punished by judges. The Whites have horrible prisons that they keep people in but most of the people are in jail for debt which cannot be repaid if they are not working. He also talks about the Whites calling themselves Christians, but then treating their own people so badly. I think this passage is important because it shows a man who has experienced both cultures and points out that they Indians may not be as savage as the Whites make them out to be. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
'''Alexander McGillivray's letter'''<br><br />
Several small details caught my eye when reading Alexander McGillivray's letter. First of all in the introduction before the letter it mentioned that it was very common for Scottish and English traders to many Indian women but wouldn't there be a language barrier? Did this not matter and/or present a problem? Second why did he refer to the King of Spain as "his Most Catholic Majesty"? Lastly, where is the Extensive Territory? Again these are small details but sometimes the small details make the most difference. -Jenna Shevlin</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T18:58:35Z<p>Mlemon: </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<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-19T23:12:43Z<p>Mlemon: </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</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-19T20:32:35Z<p>Mlemon: </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</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-19T20:32:20Z<p>Mlemon: </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</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_5_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-02-14T19:01:14Z<p>Mlemon: </p>
<hr />
<div>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 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 />
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 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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
On Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of my life", he talks about how he taught and preached to the Indian children. He talks about how he was paid 180 pounds for 12 years of service, and then a missionary showed up and he was to be paid 50 pounds for 1 year. Occom says he is not under obligation and owes them nothing. I wonder why the Indians felt they would use the missionary for 3 and a half times what they were paying Occom, especially after being around for 12 years. - Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In 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 />
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 />
"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 />
"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 />
"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</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T19:19:27Z<p>Mlemon: /* Arabella Sermon */</p>
<hr />
<div>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 />
<br />
== 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 />
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 />
<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 />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I was also wondering about the banishing of Roger Williams. I feel like as a Christian, he is accepting of the Native American's and learns about their culture and lifestyle. I feel like because he did this, his knowledge could help out his colony. Wouldn't a colony want a peaceful and knowledge sharing relationship with the Indians? Is it the fact that he went past their boundaries and studied the Indians that makes this such a wrong doing? Williams, I feel, does a great job in expressing his Puritan beliefs, along with the insites he has gained from the Indians.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, he seems to take a different persepective on many aspects of English culture, more or less taking a more negative look on it than before. So I was curious, if he had become so bitter about England after being in America, why did he go back to England in 1643? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Compared to the readings in past weeks, there is a definite change of attitude from the Indians. At first they thought the Europeans were a sign from the heavens, but now they've begun to realize they aren't going anywhere. They now ask Questions on why have the come here and what are they doing? I wonder how long the Native Americans Believed the Europeans would remain in America with them. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In class this week we discussed the relationships and roles of men and women, I thought it interesting that Williams notes "Yet sometimes the man himselfe, will help the Woman which (by the custome of the Countrey) they are not bound to." does he note this because it was a big deal that the man helped the women with her chores? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if this is a reasonable question, but I noticed in almost all of the court records, the spelling of words is somewhat hard to read. Is this the way they spelled in this time period? Or was education not as big of an importance as status or religion? When I think of a judge, or anyone involved in court cases, I think of intelligent people. Do these cases have anything to do with justice, or are they mostly just based on the rights and rules of the Puritan beliefs?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I noticed a lot of accusations present in these court documents involved alcohol and drunkeness. I was curious though, with moral standards as high as that of the Puritans, and laws as strict as that of the Puritanist colony, I would think that any kind of alcohol would be strictly forbidden. Was it? It seemed that people had access to it, as long as they did not abuse it, but that seems very unrealistic. -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Suffolk County Court Records the Puritans seem very punishable for petty crimes such as cursing, but it still seems strange to me, and i frankly dont 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.-Paul Carter</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T00:43:49Z<p>Mlemon: /* Waterhouse's Declaration */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== 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 />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== 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 />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T00:30:06Z<p>Mlemon: /* Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people) */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== 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 />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== 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 />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
== 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<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T00:22:05Z<p>Mlemon: /* Robert Cole's Inventory */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== 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 />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
== 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<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf</div>Mlemonhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_1_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-01-17T21:34:35Z<p>Mlemon: </p>
<hr />
<div>I had read before that the concept of heaven and hell did not exist for Native Americans prior to European colonization. They believed in an after life but not one in which good and evil were separated. If this is the case then it is interesting that in the Johnson reader the Seneca Creation story "The Women who Fell From the Sky" refers to a place called "heaven." Although it states that it is now called heaven, and this was not recorded until after 1887, it is still evident that the European or Christian concept of heaven and hell had permeated Native American society. <br />
<br />
Additionally, it is clear that the Seneca origin narrative in the Johnson reader and the Iroquois Creation Story in the Calloway reader, are inherently the same story. Not only are there similarities, but the Seneca were once part of the Iroquois Nation, so it makes sense that they would have very similar stories. However, there are differences, such as how the twins' mother got pregnant, and the twins names. Is this because of the time in between the two recordings(1816 and 1887), or is there some other reason? <br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading Roark i learned that scholars have been in heated debates over the population of Native Americans in North America during the time of European colonization. Some say that the population is over 18 million and some say it was no more than one million. I was curious as to why the estimates are so varied, what evidence do scholars have to support their theories? Also, why did the textbook settle on a population of four million? - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I was interested also in the remark Roark made about the life expectancy of some Native American tribes. He mentioned that for some it was no more than 18 years old. The text didn't elaborate on this, but i was curious as to how this may have affected those tribes with their lives being so short. - Jessamyn Bright<br />
<br />
I feel that the oppression of the Native Americans of North America is one the most shameful acts of this nation's history. In fact, I feel that this oppression was more severe and brutal than most of the African American oppressions. I am not condoning slavery or African American racism and oppression by any means; however, we destroyed an entire culture that was 1,000s of years old and stole land that we had no right to. I was wondering if anyone else wandered why this severe oppression is not focused on more. Native Americans and descendants are still placed on reservations and seen as outcasts in many of today’s societies. Are there any new steps being taken to help give back part of the life we stole from the Native Americans? –Landon James<br />
Are there any aspects (major or minor) that American society and culture has adopted from the Native Americans? – Landon James<br />
<br />
Are there any Native American radical groups in today’s society? Perhaps fighting for more rights? –Landon James<br />
<br />
<br />
"The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", in "Reading the American Past", I was very quickly reminded of Cain and Abel. The vast differences between the two is comparable to the differences between Othagwenda and Djuskaha, up until the point of the murder of the brother. In "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky", the "evil" brother is killed, whereas in Cain and Abel, evil prevailed. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
I find it ironic that within only about 70 years, the story of creation as told by the Iroquois can change so drastically. In Norton's retold version, the Great Spirit's daughter was thrown from the "country above the sky", she was ordered to create land for herself, and the evil twin was beloved by the Great Spirit's daughter. However, in Curtin's version, the daughter was kicked from the sky by a man protective over his only source of fruit. The animals of the Earth helped her to survive and took care of her on their own good will, and the "evil" twin was the one expelled and constantly watched by the brother and Grandmother while growing up. - A. Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
The contrast between "The Woman Who Fell from the Sky" and the "Irquois Creation Story" is very similar. On one hand, the stories are similar in that they start out in the empire in the sky, the daughter of the Great Spirit had a daughter, and how the daughter of the woman had twins. The significance of the twins is that one is good and the other evil, yet in the story of "The Woman Who Falls from the Sky" the "evil" brother seemed to be made evil because his grandmother put him in a tree for the begining of his life. Was he just so evil that the grandmother could sense it, or was he made evil by his environment; by not having a loving family to care for him? It is kind of like the frequintly asked question today of whether man is born "bad" or if it is his environment that turns him that way.-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I also spotted a few significant features in both the stories: how there was a great tree in the sky and how the Earth is believed to have been created on a turtles back. Would the great tree in the sky be the same as the Genesis tree of life or the tree of knowledge of good and evil?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In the Seneca story of creation there is no mention of a connection between man and women while it was important to the Genesis and “The Politics” documents. In Genesis, woman is made as a companion for man and in “The Politics” unions are important for reproducing and status. In the 1887 version of the Seneca story, a father to the twins isn’t even mentioned. Does this show a lack of importance of a man and woman uniting in this culture or a status that is just not as treasured as in Christianity and the politics of early Greeks? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In “The Politics,” when explaining the “primary and simplest elements of the household,” the first connection mentioned was between master and slave, followed by husband and wife, and parents and children.(8) Is because master and slave are mentioned before husband and wife give the slave more status in the home than the wife? Or does it just level a wife with the stature of a slave? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the Seneca narrative of "The Woman Who Fell From the Sky" and in the Iroquois Creation Story, woman was the first human to put on the Earth, whereas, in Genesis man was the first human to be put on Earth, and then women was made from him. Could this have shown the differences in cultures and who was considered to have more divinity - man or woman? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
All three creation stories involve a tree as a main part of the story. In the Seneca and Iroquois creation stories this is how the woman first gets to Earth from heaven, and in Genesis this is how Adam and Eve learn of good and evil, by eating the fruit from the tree. Is there some significance as to why trees were included in all three creation stories or is it just a coincidence? - Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois story why would the evil twin enjoy the favour of his grandmother? Shouldn't it be the other way around, or is this supposed to show us our susceptible to evil but that it is a momentary state and that good will reign over, which is showed through the good brother having the support of the creater? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Why is the origin of the Creek Confederacy so much different from the other two? The Creek start out with the Kasihtas being spit out basically and the Iroquois and Seneca are dropped down from heaven in a sense, and the rest of the Creek story just seems to differ drastically. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Seneca Origin Narrative, Othagwenda could be considered the evil brother and Djuskaha was the savior. I think the story is representative of Native Americans sense of good overcoming evil through time. Since Native Americans believed that it was Djuskaha that made their lives easier would they ever worship or honor him in anyway? Or did they only ever worship nature? -Emily King<br />
<br />
Socrates argues that there is a difference between the rule of a statemen and the rule of a master. I don’t believe he is very convincing. He speaks of the “naturally ruled” element as being present in only slaves and women. Couldn’t one argue that everyone is ruled at some level excluding the very highest held position of king? And if this were the case, then wouldn’t people always have a mix of “ruled” and “ruling” abilities? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
The two Native American accounts of creation are very similar even after being told for many years and then having to be translated. There is a strong connection with nature which is the stereotypical ideal of the American Indian on preserving the land. The emphasis on nature surporting human life is literally explained with the turtle carrying the first island formation. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It's interesting about the twins how there is this conflict of living together, in both stories they could not live harmoniously with the others actions. It's also interesting that the "evil twin" was having bad/ negative thoughts since before birth in both accounts, since there has been a battle of good and evil since the beginning of time, will there ever be a resolution where everyone will be happy or at least content? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
<br />
While reading the two Native American accounts of creation, I noticed several similarities between them and the story of creation in Genisus. First, the tree that is uprooted in both the Native American accounts is reminiscent of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once the tree is uprooted, a young woman is cast down from heaven. In the same way, Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden once they have eaten from the tree of knowledge. Also, in both Genisus and the Native American accounts, first Earth was made up entirely of water and then land was created. Finally, the twin boys that are born in the Native American accounts remind me of Cain and Abel. Just as Cain killed Abel, in both Native American stories one of the twin boys kills the other. However, despite all these striking similarities, I noticed one major difference. In the Genisus creation story, a man (Adam) is the first person to inhabit the earth. However, in both Native American accounts a woman is the first to live on the earth. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
The Origin of the Creek Confederacy is very different from the other two Native American accounts of creation. Why are the two so different? Also, this account was a little confusing and I feel like there's a lot of symbolism in it that I'm not quite understanding. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought that it was interesting how in The Christian Origin Narrative, Adam and Eve only knew of good, but by the end they were tempted into evil. This symbolizes how evil comes into play, not over good, but at the same strength as good. In the Seneca Origin Narrative I agree with Emily King's first comment on how good overcomes evil when Djuskaha defeats Othagwenda. I thought that was ironic because the Origins are similiar in many ways but at the same time have different views on good and evil.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In both of the Native American stories of creation they both mention the Great Turtle. I was wondering the significance it has in their beliefs? Does it in any way relate to the snake in the Christian Origin Narrative because they both were the only Reptiles, let alone animals, that were on earth before the creation of the rest of the animals? -Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that I was able to find several similarities between the Native American accounts and the Christian account. In each story there were two brothers, one good and one evil. Could this possibly signify the struggle between the different tribes? There was also a tree in each one of them; could this have anything to do with the belief the Native Americans had of life being dependent on the Earth for nourishment among other things? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
While the names of the brothers were different in the two Native American accounts they had roughly the same meaning according to each of the translations. How can this be since they were written so far apart? Could the different language have anything to do with it? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the Iroquois Creation Story in Calloway's book, I found it interesting that the two brothers were fighting and the lands where they passed through as they fought ended up being areas where different languages developed. I didn't really understand the ending to the story--exactly what were they fighting over? Was it because the evil twin killed the mother and the good one was avenging her death? -Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
To Jenna's question about the names being similar: I think the difference in time the stories were written and translated has nothing to do with the meaning of the names. It could just be the sake of oral tradition and how spoken word changes; someone from one particular Native American tribe/culture told someone of another tribe the story either by a mixed marriage between different tribes as treaties or using women as pawns in feuds between tribes as part of a peace treaty. The names of the two boys could have been changed to better fit the different Native American people and their particular history, culture, or language. It could just be simple variations of the two names like how dozens of present-day modern names have different spellings in different languages, yet still the names have the same meaning. -Meganne Lemon</div>Mlemon 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