|
|
Post by hausmann on Jun 13, 2016 17:23:13 GMT
Hey everyone,
For convenience sake, please make your primary source posts in this thread. In doing so, clearly indicate which sub-section you are attaching your post to. If you've already posted yours in another thread, please be so kind as to copy and paste it here as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by madison on Jun 13, 2016 21:43:20 GMT
Topic: The Early Years of American Slavery Source 1: "AMERICAN SLAVERY." 1853.New York Daily Times (1851-1857), Apr 28, 3. search.proquest.com.libproxy.temple.edu/docview/95831539?accountid=14270. Source 2: "AMERICAN SLAVERY." 1854.New York Daily Times (1851-1857), Feb 03, 1. search.proquest.com.libproxy.temple.edu/docview/95871390?accountid=14270. The two sources that I have chosen are from the New York Daily Times, which is a newspaper that still exists. Both of the newspapers articles are letters from men, during the time period of American slavery. Professor Ansted wrote the first article that I choose, which is from 1853. Henry Ward Beecher wrote the second article that I choose, which is from 1854. Both articles were published in New York, New York. Beecher’s article was published on page 1, column 5, while Ansted’s article’s print location was not mentioned. Professor Ansted’s letter was written as a “letter to the editor of the London Times.” The letter’s main intent is to show the readers that slavery is unnecessary and should be abolished. As Ansted pointed out, in the 1850’s there were six Northern slave holding states. The Northern slave holding states were Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I believe that Ansted’s purpose for writing this letter was to point out why slavery was unnecessary and the damage that it has caused. In my eyes Ansted is an advocate for equality and is someone who believes no one should be treated as poorly as the slaves were treated. Whether or not Ansted believe whites were superior to blacks, he at least believed that no one should be treated so poorly. Beecher’s letter was written in respond to John Mitchel’s letter. The letter was written in a response to Mitchel’s letter, which was a defense of himself and his belief in American slavery. Beecher’s response letter’s intent was to pinpoint to Mitchel his disgust in his letter and why slavery is not a good thing. As this letter occurred during the same period as Ansted’s letter, which was the 1850’s, the same events were still taking place. The major event that occurred during this time period was the Compromise of 1850. The most relevant part of the compromise was the ban of slave trade in D.C. I believe that Beecher’s relevancy in all of this is his views that slavery should be abolished and that he stands for fair treatment of individuals. Both Beecher and Ansted’s letters focus on that fact that slavery should not exist and thus be abolished. If a historian was to look at both of these letters side by side the one thing that they would notice is the context of the letter. Beecher’s letter is written in response to someone else, and focuses more on his own opinions. Ansted’s letter is written to someone else, and includes multiple facts and information from the time period. What Historians would find in common with the two letters, is the strong believe that slavery is unnecessary and should be abolished. There is also much that can be learned from these two letters. From Beecher’s letter a historian can learn about both positive and negative viewpoints on slavery. From Ansted’s letter a historian can learn about the slavery states, the amount of slaves, and how the population of white people and black slaves has changed throughout the slavery period. While both of the letters came from the same time period, as they were only a year apart, one can see how the topic of slavery as highly important during this time period. I believe both letters are of much importance when talking about the issue of slavery. Both men pointed out multiple reasons as to why slavery should be abolished. As Ansted simply put, “I am prepared, however, to show that slave labor is at this time both unnecessary and uneconomical.” The two letters left me with just one question, I wonder after both of these letters were published, did both of the men, Beecher and Ansted, ever met and talk? |
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on Jun 14, 2016 0:39:05 GMT
Primary Source Analysis Native Americans and North American History Topic: Native Americans Lives Source 1 www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=1&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=1.115.1.0.0source 2 www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=2&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=1.115.2.0.0The two documents that I chose to do the primary source analysis on are both newspaper articles from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL. FREEDOM’S JOURNAL was a newspaper in New York, New York in the eighteen hundreds. The first one is titled “The Young Indian’s Song” published July 13, 1827. It is about a young Native American most likely around seventeen or eighteen years of age who talks about how the “white people” came to their land and he experience the “white world” for himself. It also talks about the young Indian revisiting some areas of his childhood. The second article is titled “Ordination of an Indian” published January 31, 1829. It is also from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL and talks about Indians coming and joining the settler’s society and faith. I remember reading about how the settlers were trying to educate the Indians and to teach them their ways to help “coexist” or as we have seen, take advantage of. The first article, “The Young Indian’s Song,” talks about the young man’s home with him riding across the land of his people on the back of a horse. He states; “I’ll hie to the west, to the land of my birth.” From what I have learned and read about the Native Americans, they are very spiritual people that have a deep connection to the land and certain places that special events take place. By the Young Indian stating that he rides to the land of his birth, means that he has some kind of connection to that place. The article also states how the Young Indian has seen the “white world” and will not go back to it. He also states that the hearts of the white people are as white as their faces meaning they do not care about the same things the Indians care for such as the land. The article does not include the authors name so one may wonder if it is the words of and Young Indian man or the words of a settler who observed the Native Americans. The article is just under two hundred years old and was saved most likely by the printing company. The second article is about Native Americans as well. It discusses an event that took place on December 27, 1828. It contains accounts of the ordination of a man named Sampson Burch, to the Baptist church at Great Crossings, Scott County, Kentucky. The man, Burch, is an Indian form the Choctaw nation and was being educated by the settlers for two years before his ordination. The article reminded me of the article written by William White, “The Colonial Virginia Frontier and International Native American Diplomacy.” It reminded me of White’s article because of the school that the Native American, Burch, attended. In White’s article, he talked about how the settlers tried to have some Indians to join their schools to educate them in their ways and to also help diplomacy with the Indians’ own tribe. While in the settlers’ schools, the Indians were exposed to the settlers’ faith and would often convert to the religion of the settlers. I thought the two articles were similar in some ways. This article from FREEDOM’S JOURNAL also does not have an author but one would expect that it was written by a settler and not an Indian. The article also, was most likely saved by the publisher and filed away. I chose these two articles because they are very close to the same thing and time in American history. I also chose these two articles because one gives you the perspective from a Native American while one gives you the perspective from a settler during the same time period. The fact that they give different perspectives is important when looking at a certain time period in my opinion. When two groups are involved in something and someone would like to find out what exactly happened, that person would have to get both sides of the story because both sides are going to bias to their side. The fact that both of the articles come from the same publisher is also interesting because one is the perspective of an Indian and the other is the perspective of a settler. After analyzing both of the newspaper articles, you can see the similarities in how the majority of Indians did not take the “white world” compared to the few Indians that did. The question of who the authors are is the biggest question for me. I searched online trying to find the authors but every website I clicked on did not contain any information about who the authors are. |
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on Jun 14, 2016 0:59:49 GMT
Vermont Phoenix chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn98060050/1836-05-13/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=05%2F13%2F1836&index=0&date2=05%2F14%2F1836&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&lccn=sn98060050&words=&proxdistance=5&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=&andtext=&dateFilterType=range&page=1Illinois Free Trader and LaSalle County Commercial Advertiser chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014968/1841-06-04/ed-1/seq-1/  Week 3: Native Americans and North American History Subsection: Indian History in Recent America The two documents can be found on Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. One document is from the Vermont Phoenix out of Brattleboro, VT and is dated May 13th, 1836. The other document is from the Illinois Free Trader and LaSalle County Commercial Advertiser out of Ottawa, IL and is dated June 4th, 1841. I am relying on an article from Slate to help put these documents into context and to explain some of the relevance of the term redskin. The article in Slate delves into some of the historical context of the word redskin, and it is considered to have been created by Native Americans. In the article, an Indian language scholar by the name of Ives Goddard, suggests that the term was benign, at least at the beginning of its usage. The Indians used phrases that were part of a racial vocabulary to describe not just themselves, but people of other races. It was first translated from French sometime in the 1760s, and later on it became an English term. Indians have been known to use the term in speeches in the early part of the 19th century, and both Euroamericans and Indians used the word redskin. The article in the Vermont Phoenix is a story where the narrator is tracking an Indian. The section that I cut out has the term “red skin” in it, but what stood out to me are the number of times that scalping comes into the story. The tracker wants to get a scalp, even if it is from a squaw or papoose. Although he prefers a warrior’s scalp, he states that “half a loaf is better than no bread”, where any scalp will do. The article in the Illinois Free Trader and LaSalle County Commercial Advertiser is another story that describes the kidnapping of a girl by Indians, and the posse that is out to get her back. Old Cross Fire is the Indian that they fear will scalp the girl. The cut out clip also shows how violent the “red-skin gang” is; there is the description of a ball that is pulled from a horse, and that the “old rascal” (Old Cross Fire) must have fired it himself. Both of these articles are from the mid-19th century, and the term redskin seems to have taken on a more violent context. These descriptions show the Indians as belligerent, and the stories are filled with heroic and dangerous circumstances for the hunters. In the reading on “The Catawba Experience”, there is a description of whites and the Catawba’s being “continually at variance”; the time of this description was from June 1759. During the time of these skirmishes it states that “the litany of intercultural crimes committed by each side disguised a fundamental shift in the balance of physical and cultural power”. And almost 100 years later, this shift in power is even stronger. In 1830, through the Indian Removal Act, Andrew Jackson was legally able to remove the Cherokee from Georgia. The use of the term redskin, in the context of frequent fighting, is also defined by the change over time of the Indians losing battles and much of their identity through Euroamerican expansion. Whether the term is offensive today cannot be answered purely by looking at its original creation and usages. As Goddard stated, it is the current feeling that people hold regarding whether the term redskin is used, that is relevant to its being offensive or not. I noticed in another article, the last reading for Week 3, that a Washington Redskins fan thought that the Redskin mascot was a “tribute to their warrior culture”. In WWII, the Germans were sometimes referred to as “Krauts”, a disparaging term that I think can be correlated to the use of the term redskin when describing Indians. If Germany were to have a professional football team locate in Berlin, and be called the Berlin Krauts, surely German fans would find the term offensive. And making references to their “Blitzkrieg fighting spirit” during WWII would sound just as harsh as when football fans refer to the Redskin mascot as having respect for their warrior culture. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to compare Indians to the Nazis of WWII; the Indians were no fascists and were never intent on world domination as their objective. But, as the Native Americans were subjugated over time by Euroamerican expansion, and in reference to violent skirmishes with the people who eventually came to dominate them, I think that the word redskin could be construed as offensive. Slate article www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html |
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on Jun 14, 2016 12:21:16 GMT
source one: 'Slave Hunting Law', Fredrick Douglass Paper, January 23 1851, accessed June 12th 2016 phw01.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_0829_14769_254.pdfSource two: "The Slave Hunting Law", Fredrick Douglass Paper, January 23 151, accessed June 12th 2016 phw01.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_0831_08574_621.pdftopic: African American History Subtopic: Slavery and Emancipation The two documents that I chose for my analysis are both articles from the Fredrick Douglas Paper, both published in Rochester New York in the early 1850’s. Both articles are published in the same month, a few weeks apart. One article discusses a meeting that was held in Syracuse, New York about the Anti-Fugitive slave law. The other article discusses the Slave Hunting Law that was introduced into the state assembly. The first article that I will discuss is “Anti-Fugitive Slave Law Meeting” which is about a group of people throughout the state of New York who met in Syracuse who were opposed the Fugitive slave law. The second article is about the “The Slave Hunting Law” which was a subsection in the Fugitive slave laws. Although both articles are written about the same topic, they express different viewpoints on a very difficult topic in our history period. The first article that will be analyzed is titled “Anti-Fugitive slave law Meeting”. The Fugitive Slave Laws were a set of laws that were passed between 1793 and 1850 to allow the return of slaves who escaped one slave state into another free state. The article was published by the Fredrick Douglass Paper in Rochester, New York in 1851, and accounts the resolutions that the abolitionists had against the law that was passed. Fredrick Douglass was an African-American abolitionist who escaped from slavery and later became the leader of the abolitionist movement, and was the leader of this meeting. The meetings was held for people throughout the state of New York whom held strong discontent for the Fugitive Slave laws. The members discussed how they would actively ‘resist’ the Slave Laws, how they would start marking slave catchers as “kidnappers” and “land pirates”. The article goes on to state how the members of the abolitionist movement were not trying to get rid of the law, their much bigger goal is to end the practice of slavery. Out of the whole article, the fifth resolve is the most important one because it shows that the abolitionists know they cannot change the law, so they say their most important goal is to end slavery all together and to grant freedom and rights to all people. Unlike the article that we will see next, this article shows a side of slavery that we don’t often see. When talking about the horrors of slavery, and the events that happened in the south, we tend to forget that there were people who were actively against the process, and fought the government for rights of all people. In the growing age of technology why would we keep newspaper articles from our early years as a country? This article shows a clear juxtaposition between the north and the south, the article shows that not everybody in the country was for slavery and there were people who would do anything to stop it. The second article is still about the Fugitive Slave Laws, but this talks more about the slave-hunting clause that was written into the bills. Within the first few sentences of the article, the author already shows that the slave hunting law is being used to protect the rights of American citizens. However the article goes on to show how not all of the laws in the Fugitive slave acts weren’t bad. In section 2 of the law it states that if any person escapes to a free state and lives there for one year, before they are captured, arrested, or removed, the courts will deem them free citizens of that state. Even though this article was more political, in that it actually talked about the law and listed all of the section, once you look at all of the sections, you can see that even though the law was passed, there was still some options if slaves did escape, and gained there freedom. Much like the first article I believe this piece was kept to show the different sides of a very difficult topic to talk about and to discuss. This article was more of a political piece then the first article, but it shows a clearer picture on what the laws where, and why some people would be opposed to them. When learning about history we cannot just learn one side of the story, we have to learn all sides so that we can have a clear picture. This article shows the other side of the story we talked about earlier. Throughout this summer we have been exposed to different aspects of revolutions in America. The reason I chose these two articles is because we had a section that we read about on slavery in America, and one of the books for our primary source was on African history. We haven’t learned about abolitionists in our readings, but we have learned about the way, we, as Americans view ourselves, and our county. In one of the first few weeks we know that we have an exceptionalism view point and we discussed why we might have that. I still believe it is because when we learn about our history, we aren’t learning both sides, we are only learning one side of the story. To truly know our whole history, and to make sure that we do not repeat our actions, we have to read everything that is presented to us, even if it comes in opposing views. Its when we are presented with opposite ideas, that we come up with the best options. (Word count 916) |
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on Jun 14, 2016 15:16:31 GMT
Subtopic: The Civil War First Source: phw01.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_1114_31772_664.pdf -- New York Herald July 11, 1863 Second Source: phw01.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_1113_23145_938.pdf -- Macon Telegraph July 11, 1863 The two documents I chose to analyze are two newspaper articles both released on July 11, 1863 and they both are discussing the events that took place at the battle of Gettysburg. The first article is from the New York Herald and contains information received in a report from a Captain John Downey and discusses incidents of the battle. The second piece comes from the Macon daily Telegraph which was a newspaper located in Macon, Georgia. These two articles discuss the events that occurred at Gettysburg and because they were published only days after the battle was finished there could be information left out but I wanted to get articles that were very close to the battle. I also wanted to be sure to get one from the North and one from the South so that I could better understand the differences on the reporting. As I said the first article was printed in the New York Herald and a lot of the information was being put down with the help of a letter from Captain John Downey whom it says was severely injured and would be returning home. This was a very dangerous time for both the North and the South because of the civil war and all information printed was being read with heavy hearts and baited breath because most people knew family or friends in the war. The article also tells of how Downey was in the hands of rebels but escaped before being almost burnt alive, he lost almost 160 men and was wounded but still in high spirits. You can read the badness and killing that is going on and this was important to show the nation what was happening in the war. The article continues on telling of some atrocities that rebels committed including walking African Americans through the fields at Gettysburg. It is important that this item was saved because it shows of the hardships men went through but also was informing the public on what was happening in their country. I do not know why it was saved but I believe because of the detail and stories that are involved in it. There seems to be less known about the article from the Macon daily Telegraph but there is still a lot of information contained within. It seems that the information was relayed from a one Judge Oald who was commissioner for the exchange of prisoners and it was summarized in the article. The headline begins with the battle renewed and major losses on both sides but also talks of the confederates attacking and many Yankee officers killed. Times were just as dangerous in the south and maybe even more so because they may have had more at stake. Southerners believed that they were fighting for what was theirs so some say the southerners put more into the war and had more to lose than the northerners. This caused them to pay very close attention, this article also gave great detail and showed the resiliency of both sides. This was shown in the last lines of the article as it read “it was the determination of our generals to fight to the bitter end”. You can tell by just reading the passage how passionate and determined each side was to fight and that is why it was one of the bloodiest and worst battles of the war. It seems the Judge who sent this information was merely there being a business man doing his job as prisoner exchanger but you cannot help notice some of his sentiments within the words he has written. To me he seems torn between continuing the war and believing in it but also wants it all just to end. This was an important piece to keep and one that deserved to be saved because of the great detail and lengths that were taken to explain what was happening in the war. This showed the toll the war was taking on the new country and that was crucial. Both of these documents contained a ton of information about the three days that was Gettsyburg. They were from different sides but that was important to me to make sure that I got a viewpoint from both sides, this helped me better understand each of the passages in their own way. The northern paper seems to keep it more to the factual standard while the southern paper may have added a bit more to energize the reader. The southern paper said Yankees officers killed trying to help the south gain confidence because at this time the war was not going very well. These two articles are a wonderful representation of a point in history viewed upon from completely different sides about the exact same thing. They both are great articles with loads of information but differ in their sentiments and really what they were trying to accomplish. Looking at two documents that oppose each other can help historians learn how to look at things from all angles and potentially gain a better understanding because of that. Both of these documents were wonderful to go over and read and really immersed you into the war and battle as you read them. The factual details and exact numbers of men and horses and many other things is what makes these articles so great to be still out there and able for people to read. Articles like this help us better understand not only what the men who were fighting were going through but maybe what the people at home were going th |
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on Jun 16, 2016 3:15:51 GMT
Shays' RebellionThe Cumberland Gazette.pdf (14.99 KB) phw02.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006152016_1644_05682_369.pdfThe New-York Packet.pdf (115.53 KB) phw01.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006152016_1648_14161_189.pdfShays' Rebellion was a series of protest between 1786 and 1787 by American farmers who were against unfair tax collections and judgment of debt. it was led by former captain of the Continental army, Daniel Shays of Massachusetts. The rebellion stretched from New Hampshire to South Carolina. It started in Massachusetts in the summer of 1786. The state militia, led by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, crushed the rebels in February of 1787. Most of the rebels fled to Rhode Island first, then to Vermont. This rebellion not only highlighted the weakness within the Articles of Confederation, it also set the stage for George Washington and his road to becoming the first President of America. The two documents that I chose for my primary sources analysis are two newspaper articles that was published after Shays' Rebellion. The one article is entitled "Worcester, March 10" from the newspaper The Cumberland Gazette. It was published in Portland, Maine on March 23, 1787. The second article is entitled "Extract of a Letter Dated Saturday, the 3d Instant at Springfield" from the newspaper The New-York Packet. It was published in New York, New York on March 9, 1787. Both articles barely talk about the rebels after Shay's Rebellion and if either they fled to a different state or surround. "Worcester, March 10" was an article in the newspaper The Cumberland Gazette. This article and newspaper was printed and published by Thomas B. Wait for the Friday, March 23, 1787 edition. This edition contained 4 pages of news from cities in Massachusetts, letters, Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings, and advertisements. This article or news is a small paragraph talking about the rebels of Shays' Rebellion who were captured in Berkshire County in Massachusetts. The article continues on saying that most of the rebel officials have reportedly fled to Canada after the rebellion. The Governor of Rhode Island, John Collins, told The Cumberland Gazette that declared that anyone who is in part of the rebellion who takes shelter in his state will "taken and delivered up", or arrested. During this time, rebels from Massachusetts to Rhode Island. After Governor Collins announced the arrest of any rebels in Rhode Island, the rebels started to go to Vermont to flee prosecution. "Extract of a Letter Dated Saturday, the 3d Instant at Springfield" was an article in the newspaper The New-York Packet. This article and newspaper was published every Tuesday and Friday by Samuel and John Loudon for the Friday, March 9, 1787 edition. This edition contains 4 pages of advertisements, letters, Legislative Acts/Legal Proceedings, news from cities in New York, and shipping news. This article or letter is a column long starts off stating that Gen. William Shepard of Massachusetts and the First Corps of Cadets, an infantry company in Massachusetts, caught about 100 rebels who to avoid being imprisoned took an oath which later was found wasn’t taken serious by those rebels. It is mentioned that many of the rebels had fled to Vermont after the rebellion. Protection have been given to the states of New York to Vermont probably just in case an remaining rebels decided to act merchants or government officials. Gen. Benjamin Lincoln sent the Governor of Vermont, Gen. Thomas Chittenden, on the subject of the rebels in Vermont. Gen. Lincoln wanted the Governor to be in favor of a proclamation that forbid any citizens of Vermont to aid or conceal any rebels. Governor Chittenden "was oppoled (opposed) to this proclamation" because at this time Vermont was considered independent from the other states and everyone knew that Gov. Chittenden himself was helping runaway rebels. The letter continues on with reports of capturing 80 rebels on the border of New York, a notes from Gen. Lincoln to Gen. Shepard ordering him to come back to Pittsfield in Berkshire County because the rebels are being held at Barrington, reports of outbreaks between troops and rebels along with death and wounded counts, and the hunt for Shays and his rebel officers who were last seen on route to Quebec, Canada. Even though both articles were published in different states and are a couple of weeks apart, they give a good insight what was going on after Shays' Rebellion. The articles are more informative then opinionated due to the fact these letters are accounts of what is going on. There is no "I think" or "in my opinion". It is cut and dry "this is what happen" or "reports have stated that". It also the newspapers give us an insight of what people read during the late 1780s and how it was to live during the aftermath of Shays' Rebellion. The second article gives its readers an insight on the early events that happen after Gen. Lincoln took down Shays and the rebels, and the accounts of the rebels fleeing to Vermont. The first article is a single report of rebels fleeing to Canada. Even though Shays' Rebellion happened more in New York then Maine, Maine is close to both the borders of Canada and Vermont and needs to be informed about rebels that could be going through their state to freedom. I found both articles to be interesting because no one really talks about the aftermath of Shays' Rebellion. All that is taught is that the Articles of Confederation was changed and George Washington became the first President. Nothing is ever said about what happen to the rebels. Did they all get captured and killed? Did they flee and if so to what state? I never knew that the rebels fled to Rhode Island then to Vermont with Canada in between. I believe that looking up primary sources not only answers some question, but it also makes more questions which involves more research. I had to look up names of generals and governors to see who they were and what part they played. I had to do the same to some of the places the letters and notes were coming from. Primary sources gives real documented accounts to what we read in textbooks and the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on Jun 16, 2016 21:51:14 GMT
Topic: Antebellum America and the Civil War
source 1: source 2:
The two documents I have chosen to focus on for the primary source analysis are two newspaper articles from Freedom’s Journal. This was a publication in New York, New York, debuting in 1827. My first article, Effects of Slavery, was published on March 16, 1827, and the writer talks about his encounter at a slave auction and his opinions of slaveholders from that experience. My second article, Abolition of Slavery, was another from Freedom’s Journal, published just over a month later on April 20, 1827 about the joyous and gracious response of African Americans for the official abolition of slavery in their state. The writer, signing his name as “Omega” starts off with how a particular event has took hold of “his feelings in a peculiar manner, and that [slaveholders] who engage in this nefarious practice are unworthy of a place in society and should be treated with cold neglect.” This event was a slave auction, and he was very taken back by a man named William who was sold to a detestable man. William was a very humble Christian and when he had submitted to his fate, he had said “Don’t cry for me; God is everywhere.” This statement touched the men around him, and especially Omega who says his heart feels heavy for him, especially when he thinks of how he may have “fallen into the hands of some hard, tyrannical master.” From our Frederick Douglass autobiography on slavery, we read of multiple accounts of the mistreatment and abuse of slave, which were only a few examples of the thousands of incidents. Mr. William was sold for a price of $265. The fact that a price is being put on a human being, exemplifies what they were considered to be worth back then. What is remarkable; however, is the faith of the slave, and of Omega. “Don’t cry for me; God is everywhere.” We know that religion and faith in God has been a foundational aspect for the nation, as we had read in “City Upon a Hill,” where it was said that loyalty to Him would be rewarded, and humbleness was expected for only He can judge. However, the “Corner Stone” speech remarks how God created the African Americans to be an inferior race, but you still see a steadfast appreciation for the faith through William. The focus of the second article is on Rev. Mr. Paul, who was a pious man who worked tirelessly to improve the morals and conduct of the colored people. Following the announcement of abolition of slavery in New York for July 4, 1827, he made an address that they must be grateful to God, and “maintain a virtuous course of conduct for their blessings.” Ironically, the independence of the white community is celebrated on July 4th, so it felt appropriate to recognize the same day, or the 5th to avoid conflict with the majority of the community who may not have agreed. The Emancipation Proclamation will not be delivered for another thirty-six years in 1863, but it is a remarkable and steady step leading towards equality. Unfortunately, it is situations such as this that aided into the dividedness of our nation that resulted in the Civil War. Effects of Slavery in conjunction with Abolition of Slavery pinpoints two very different behaviors taking place almost instantaneously. Each of the articles was published almost a month apart, but two sides of the picture are painted. With Effects of Slavery, slave auctions are held, families are torn apart and sold, and somber hearts fill African American community. Abolition of Slavery is a celebration and a blessing offered up to God for a step towards freedom. They are two opposing views that separated the North and South leading towards the Civil War in 1861. Freedom’s Journal was the first African-American owned and operated newspaper. Beginning on March 16, 1827, Rev. Peter Williams, Jr. and other free black men published an issue weekly. It is remarkable to see how different events in one nation can be only a few states apart. I really felt the raw emotion of the writers explaining the auction of William, or the feeling of happiness with the news of abolition. History is best felt through the experiences of the individual, which is what makes these newspapers and many other primary sources so important to our history. |
|
|
|
Post by wattsajengineer on Jun 17, 2016 18:55:06 GMT
Legacies of the Civil War and Reconstruction
The two documents that I have chosen for my analysis are newspaper articles reporting on the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln. The first is an article from San Francisco, California that gives a report from the Northeastern news reporters. And the second is a letter to the editor from Macon, Georgia. Both unfortunately have no documented authors, which leads me to believe that they either were anonymous, or just a reporter for the paper at the time. Due to the subject of them both being about the Emancipation, both of them are from late 1862 (when the Emancipation was initially proposed). The Emancipation Proclamation was initially proposed September 22, 1862 and was to be in full action by/on January 1, 1863. These two articles pose different sides of the opinions and were published around a month after the President made the proclamation.
The first source is an article from San Francisco and was published as part of the San Francisco Bulletin. It struck me odd that there was a newspaper in California at the time and it made me wonder whether or not California was around at the time. I did some supplementary research and found that California was not a state at the time, still a territory, but was indeed part of the country although many of the central states hadn't been defined yet. It was published on October 17, 1862, about a month after the Proclamation was made and it featured bits of news from all of the eastern news companies coming from cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. Each piece of the article included a small section of an article that the respective news company had published and mainly wrote the article to give a brief update and overview of what was really happening on the opposite coast. What I find interesting is that although many of the states that were indeed states, but not close to the fighting, had soldiers ready to fight but none of them saw action or really dealt with the war effort. For instance, the main population of people in California at the time were miners and other workers and frontiersmen that had traveled to make a name for themselves. They were part of the Union and supplied information from those newspaper, but they never saw the actual results of the Civil War. I think it may have been easily saved because it marked a pivotal point in the history of the states not only fighting in the War, but all the states and territories that were considered part of the United States.
The second source is one that I found really interesting. It is from Macon, Georgia and was published in the Macon Telegraph on November 3, 1862. I would like to assume that because this was a letter to the editor it was in relation to an article that the Telegraph reported, but there is not really a defined was of knowing that. And still although this was Civil War era Georgia, the comments and the questions in the letter seemed like they were from a different author. The author titled the article "Death Blow" leading me to believe that he would go on to explain how this new proclamation was a death blow to the southern community and how he was outraged at the idea. He starts his letter by saying that the President hasn't gone far enough with the Proclamation and that even though he has under the War Power the ability to do whatever he needs to break the enemy his only proclamation was to get rid of the relation of master and servant. I think it is interesting that throughout the article the author has an "Is that all you've got?" attitude. He goes on to say that the rebels would surely stop fighting if all the relations that were in existence were dissolved including man and wife, child and parent, creditor and debtor, and the list continues. But even though he would stop fighting, that would never stop the war. Through all the arguments that he proposed, he comes out with the final theme that there is nothing the President can do in his power that will stop the war, because there will always be something to fight for.
These two documents were interesting together because not only do they provide different views on a single subject, they also provide a different perspective of news reporting. The first was a general update of the East and what was happening to the course of the War, obviously agreeing and supporting the President's Proclamation. But the second challenged it and basically said that it would not be the turning point for the end of the war. Which this author was right because the war didn't end until three years later. These two articles I feel show that the Union and the Confederacy, although on different ends of the spectrum, were still just people fighting for a cause. And these show us that the cause was different for each end, making it difficult to eliminate the fighting. The President set the slaves free thinking it would break the rebels spirits, but the author from Georgia plainly stated that it will just cause them to fight harder. And even the author from Georgia didn't come out and say it was a horrible idea and that the President was a monster, he just said it wasn't enough to do anything. This is where we can learn that not all of the south was horrible and not all of the north was correct. Just because a few radicals from both sides became bullet sponges and started arguing doesn't mean the common people were in complete agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by robgallagher on Jun 17, 2016 19:27:45 GMT
Topic. United States Civil War Subtopic: Battle of Gettysburg chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1863-07-04/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1836&sort=date&rows=20&words=battles+Gettysburg&searchType=basic&sequence=0&index=5&state=New+York&date2=1922&proxtext=Battle+of+Gettysburg&y=10&x=1&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042595/1863-07-10/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1836&sort=date&rows=20&words=battle+Gettysburg+gettysburg&searchType=basic&sequence=0&index=0&state=South+Carolina&date2=1922&proxtext=Battle+of+Gettysburg&y=17&x=21&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1 The two documents I chose to analyze as part of my primary research assignment, are two newspaper articles both released in the days after the Battle of Gettysburg that described what happened there. I wanted to make sure I got articles from both sides of the conflict to see what differs between them. The first article is from the New York Herald which was published on July 4th 1963. This article talks about a lot of the actions that were taken at the battle of Gettysburg which led to the victory of General Meade’s army. The second article I chose was from the Camden Confederate which was a newspaper that was located in South Carolina and they published their article on July 10th 1863. This article, like the New York Herald, talked about the Battle of Gettysburg and its outcome for the Confederate side. The first article that was from the New York Herald had a lot of information for readers. It gave a play by play account of what happened at Gettysburg from the dispatches that General Meade’s sent to Washington. The article started by saying that General Lee and his rebel army attacked Mead’s Army of the Potomac in the afternoon on July 1st. It then went on to describe day by day accounts of the battle as it unfolded, reporting any major deaths that occurred like Generals dying on the field of battle. When it was confirmed that the Potomac army had one the battle for the Union, the author of the article went on describing General Meade as a hero who will lead his army, as well as the Union to more victories in the future. The second article from the Camden Confederate was similar to the New York Herald in many ways. Like the previous article, it gave a play by play account of the actions that occurred at Gettysburg however it only concentrated on the Confederate Army. The first part of the article talked about the actions that Robert Lee’s army had against the Union army. But the thing that was different from the first article is the ending. In the end, it doesn’t talk about how the Confederate army lost the battle but rather how it was victorious. The article talked about how it captured many prisoners and they routed the Union troops. Both of these articles contained a lot of information about the Battle of Gettysburg. Even though both sides played a part in the Battle, both sides had different accounts as to how it ended. The Union side gave more an accurate account of the battle compared to the Confederate side. Even though I know the true ending of the battle, it still amazed me that the Camden Confederate article said they won the battle. I don’t if this was purposeful saying this or it was misinformation they were given from the Confederate Army. The army could have misinformed the paper so they would look better in the eyes of the people in the South. But it goes to show that each side in a battle has a different view on everything which for a historian, is very important to get both sides of the story. Both these articles are good representations of a point of view of the Battle of Gettysburg. Both of these articles I thought were very useful to understand more about the Battle of Gettysburg then I had before. The details that I got about each sides actions during the battle allowed me to imagine how the battle turned out. Articles like this that come from the people that report on it are some of the best ways for people to truly understand both sides of a battle. |
|
|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on Jun 17, 2016 21:53:36 GMT
Topic: African American History Subtopic: Slavery and Emancipation Source One: “To Slaveholders…” from African American Newspapers 19th Century THE NATIONAL ERA. NEWPORT (KY) NEWS, "To Slaveholders..." Accessible Archives, September 27, 1855. www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=14&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=5.200.14.0.0. Source Two: “What Has the Negro Done to Develop America” from African American Newspapers 19th Century THE CHRISTIAN RECORDER. "WHAT HAS THE NEGRO DONE TO DEVELOP AMERICA." Accessible Archives, November 16, 1893. www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=7&AADocStyle=STYLED&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=4.2391.7.0.0. Both of my primary sources were found on the African American Newspapers: The 19th Century page on the Accessible Archives Database. For the first source, I found a newspaper article from The National Era entitled, “To Slaveholders…” from 1855. For the second source, I found a newspaper article from The Christian Recorder entitled “What has the Negro Done to Develop America” from 1893. The first article was created before the Civil War and was basically an announcement to slaveholders that some were calling for slavery to be abolished. The second article was created before the Civil War and addressed all of the positive attributes that Africans contributed to society during that time. The first source, “To Slaveholders…” was written before the Civil War in 1855 and was created by The National Era Newspaper in Washington, DC with information given by Newport (Ky.) News. During this time period, some people were beginning to advocate for the abolishment of slavery while others were not willing to let it go. Slavery of Africans was big during this time period, especially in the South, because of many different reasons. Many people believed that Africans were nothing more than commodities and should be used as property in order to maximize profit while others disagreed stating that they were people as well and should be treated as such. This is where the conflict erupted because many people were willing to change the rules on what race was superior while others were not in favor of that. In the case of this article, several slave owners in Kentucky were holding a convention in Frankfort to attempt to adopt a plan for the abolition of slavery and it was up to the Newport News to announce it to the public. The Newport News was the author of this article and from the tone of the piece, they seemed to be anti-slavery advocates. I believe this because of the language that they used when speaking about the abolition of slavery. I think this particular article was preserved because it was one of the first that showed the movement towards the abolishment of slavery that led to the Civil War. This piece was public and meant to adhere to a certain group of people to show their support. The other important factor that comes into play is that this pro-abolition article was featured in a newspaper in a southern state which was a big deal. Kentucky was a neutral state at the beginning of the Civil War but eventually became a state within the Northern Union. This article is an important part in history because it shows support for anti-slavery movements. The second source, “What Has the Negro Done to Develop America”, was written after the Civil War in 1893 and was created by The Christian Recorder in Philadelphia, PA. During this time period, the Northern Union won the Civil War giving African slaves their freedom by adding the 13th Amendment to the Constitution outlawing the institution of slavery. During this time however, it was still difficult for black people because they still faced racism and certain laws setting them back compared to white people. This article essentially talks about how the black man has been beneficial and built up this country just as much as the white man. The writers of this article intended to enlighten people on the fact that they are more than just profit-making commodities, they are intelligent, brave, people. They cite that they have fought in wars alongside whit people, they have enriched the land with agriculture, not to mention the insight they have given with agricultural knowledge. The Christian Recorder was an African American newspaper that pushed for equality among races. I believe this article in particular was preserved because of its call to see the black man as a human even after the Civil War was fought and won by pro-abolitionists. This article proves that there were still difficulties within the relationship between black and white people and there was still so many issues that needed to be dealt with. Looking back on history, we now see that while the success of the abolition of slavery did make a large impact, black people had a much longer way to go before they reached equality among men. This article shows the aftermath of the Civil War and where that left the “newly free” black man. I chose to do a source before and after the Civil War to show the impact it had on slavery and emancipation. I think the topic of slavery as a whole is fairly thick and the one changing point within that topic was the Civil War. Instead of finding articles specifically on the Civil War, I felt looking at the events leading up to it and the aftermath of it and how that relates to African American history was more interesting and had more of an educational impact. Comparatively, these two articles obviously provide a different perspective on slavery and emancipation. The first article highlights that people wanted to bring change and were supporting the slaves but the second article showed that there was still more work to be done with what “equality” needed to mean. They come from two different time periods to reflect the impact that the Civil War had on slavery and equality itself; while the institution of slavery was abolished, there was still little to no equality among races. Looking at these two articles side by side, a historian can not only learn the different tone and word usage between the publications but also the different topics that were important at the time when it came to equality. Slavery in America began when the Europeans settled in America and ended with the Union winning the Civil War; but with the emancipation of slavery came the newest obstacle to tackle: true equality among races. Even though they were from different times and had the Civil War separating them, both news articles showed that black people were not truly equal to white people. The Civil War plays such a major role in African American history by showing the starting point of their long list of victories in the fight for equality and civil rights. Three and a half pages total double spaced with 1-inch margins all around 1091 words total Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 18, 2016 13:17:49 GMT
Topic: Labor Reform Subsection: Recent Revolutions Source One: New York Tribune January 1, 1878 infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=T61R55POMTQ2NjI1NTgxOC45ODYzNjoxOjE1OjE1NS4yNDcuMTY2LjIzNA&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=37&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=37&p_docnum=1&p_docref=v2:1284B46450E6EE32@EANX-12E5FF82F4C50880@2406986-12E3F1BA879F9D48-12FABBD19FEE8CFF Source Two: The Irish World And American Industrial Liberator January 25, 1890 infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K67O5COVMTQ2NjIxMzkzNy40NTE4MzE6MToxNToxNTUuMjQ3LjE2Ni4yMzQ&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=7&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=7&p_docnum=202&p_docref=v2:11F1571C94BADC84@EANX-11FC4C00729080F8@2411393-11FC4C01335EBDD8@4-11FC4C03490069B0@The%20Eight-Hour%20Agitation The two documents I found are articles from newspapers about the working class. Both were written within 12 years of each other. The first is from the New York Tribune and focuses on what was going on in the transition into the New Year in congress and in the U.S. Part of this is about the railroad strikes that had happened in the previous year over wages. The second article is from the Irish World newspaper which talks about a John Thornton who encourages workers to march to congress to support a law for an eight hour work day. This first document comes from a more well-known newspaper, the “New York Tribune”. The article begins with the headline “Riots” which sets the stage. The article describes the many workers who were rioting and striking against the major railroads for dropping their wages. “The reduction of 10 per cent in the wages of laborers, which was made by a majority of the railway managers during the first half of the year, had evoked earnest protests.” The article also describes the railroads using militiamen and police to stop the strikers, with deadly fights between the two. What was going on in the 1870’s was obviously riots and strikes, but more importantly the beginnings of the labor reform movement. The article shows the bloody encounter between workers and employers, and the fight for rights. The 1870’s was the decade after the Civil War where the industrial revolution began to flourish at an unprecedented rate. A technology that had been on the rise since the 1830’s was the railroad. The Civil War proved that the railroads were important to the industrial nation, and by the 1870’s the railroad industry was getting bigger and bigger. To maintain and help keep the railroad functioning required a great deal of workers. In an effort to make money, the railroad tycoons cut the workers’ wages. This led to the strikes and riots, because the workers felt that it was unfair and wanted to exercise their rights. The second article, written 12 years later, describes a similar situation, except this time rioting is less appropriate and striking is more appropriate. The article coming from the “The Irish World And American Industrial Liberator” is a lesser known newspaper, but still comes out of New York City. The title of the newspaper in itself shows a change from the 1870’s. The Irish were disliked in America during this time, and used for heavy labor, but the newspaper shows that things are changing. Now by the 1890’s you have newspapers on the subject of labor and rights, and the Irish are (I assuming) running the paper to discuss these issues. What is important to see in this article is a transition of the times, showing the development of union organizations, and organized efforts to legislate the working atmosphere. Having an eight hour work day is now in discussion. The people and the workers have more rights and want to exercise it by the 1890’s. What the articles show together is a small portion of a larger timeline of the development of unions and justice for workers in the United States. The New York Tribune shows the earlier stages of the development and the Irish World shows the early to middle development. The content and notoriety of the papers also shows whose side the paper was on. The New York Tribune writer describes the Molly Maguire murders, who were violent Irish coal miner protesters, as, “the most gigantic demonstration against capital, law and order in the history of mankind.” One gets the sense that the riots should be taking as unbeneficial to the industry of the country. After describing all the significant riots that had happened in the country versus how the police dealt with them, the article seems to have a bias towards the police and maybe even to the railroads. “The rioters, save for in a few instances, have gone unpunished. A grand Jury at Pittsburg even went so far as to hold the troops and police responsible for the murders and pillage.” In stark contrast is the Irish World article, which was most likely created for labor reform minded readers and writers. “There is no doubt but that eight-hour laws could be secured ad enforced in regard to public works in nearly every State of the Union if the workingmen of the country were to make an organized and persistent effort in that direction.” While the article doesn’t support violent riots to make change, it does support change that will be beneficial to the workers, and also shows a strong bias towards organization. Again, the article shows a clear change from the 1870’s to 1890’s. One being that working hours need to be fixed instead of wages, and two that this can be done peaceably through other forms of protest and legislation. What a historian can learn from these articles is how the struggle for equality and quality for a workers life has evolved from these early years. A historian can see the beginnings of the eight hour work day and the formation of the minimum wage debate. These articles are just a fraction of the larger works that encompass the discussion and history of what makes a worker rich or poor. These articles are foundations to Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. These articles are snippets that remind us of the larger battles that have been going on between the worker and the employer, middle class and upper class, and how the battle can be won the right way or the wrong way. I think that these articles relate to recent revolutions because the struggle between a common everyday worker and a wealthy owner of a cooperation has evolved from the tycoons and monopolists of the late 1800’s, the Rockefeller, Carnegie, like figures, to the struggle that can be called the 99% against the 1%. In a way it shows that groups of people need to fight in order to make change. 1001 words- two pages |
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on Jun 18, 2016 13:43:11 GMT
Primary Source AnalysisChris DiGiuseppe Week 5: Recent Revolutions? Or Revolutionary Legacies The (2nd) ReconstructionSource #1: bplonline.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4017coll2/id/2524/rec/479Source #2: bplonline.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4017coll2/id/2442/rec/497 The two sources I chose for my analysis are both articles from Alabama newspapers. The first, titled “Lawyer group blasts Wallace school stand”, was published on September 13, 1963 in the Birmingham News. No author could be found. It explains the objective of The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law and focuses mainly on the committee’s stance and response to the 'stand in the schoolhouse door'. The second article, titled “An Inglorious Stand In”, was published June 14, 1963 in the Montgomery Advertiser. Written by Theresa Fuzessery only three days after the stand at the University of Alabama. She offers her view about the matter as well as the civil rights movement and the treatment of others in general. “Lawyer group blasts Wallace school stand” talks briefly about the stand of Alabama governor George Wallace blocking the entrance to the University of Alabama to deny entry to two newly enrolled black students. It focuses more on The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law and how it responded to the stand in. A little background: in 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Brown v Board of Education that separate public schools for white and black students was unconstitutional as it violated the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court didn’t establish a plan for desegregation but said that the states with segregation laws must integrate without idleness. This was pivotal point in time and the civil rights movement. Even though the ruling established federal law, many southern schools made it impossible to integrate for almost a decade until force had to be met with force. When three admitted black students went to register for classes at the University of Alabama, Governor Wallace along with state police stood in their way—literally in the doorway, hence “the standing in the door.” The US Deputy Attorney General had to go down to the university with US Marshals and then have President Kennedy mobilize the National Guard because the Alabama State Police followed Wallace’s orders to prevent the few US marshals from enforcing the court’s order. The article explains that because of the state government not adhering to federal law, President Kennedy organized The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law which resolved civil rights disputes through talks or the law in courts. The committee called out Wallace and stated that “we [sic] condemn this unjustifiable course of conduct.” 1 It’s important because this was one of the first times, along with events that occurred in Little Rock a few years before, where the federal government had to come down on state to enforce integration—literally enforce, with federalized national guardsmen. Years and years and racial hardening led to the literal forcing of the law upon the governments of the south. “An Inglorious stand in” also focuses on the stand in at UA but also civil rights in general. This article is also more opinion based than the first article which was more informative. Theresa Fuzessery wrote “[t]he pent-up atmosphere caused by the Birmingham situation had to give somewhere and it did, and will continue to do so until reason, love, understanding and humanity supplant the fear, prejudice, greed and hate fostered by segregation.” 2 It is comforting to know that a white person in the south didn’t just disagree with Wallace’s stand because he defied federal law, but realized and recognized that the condition created by segregation could not just be dismantled by a federal law. To destroy the condition would take a large effort to change the mindsets of so many people. She points out, although not directly, the unrest, protesting, and rioting that had been occurring at a high rate during the time should not be blamed on African Americans. I think we can relate it to the violence of the Revolutionary War that was needed to free the colonies from the grip of England. The same applies to this period of time; to bring change there must be action taken and there must be a demonstration that the oppressed are not okay with the condition created for them. This demonstration is, more often than not, most successfully executed with civil unrest and violence. Fuzessery shows no opposition to the use of unrest and violence because those who “come from segregated areas, deprived of the human rights and human dignity” 3 have no option but to “retaliate in the only way they know how.” 4 Both articles have context in the “Stand in the schoolhouse door” incident in Alabama. Both denounce Governor Wallace’s ‘stand’ in the door, 1) because he defied federal law and used state police to prevent federal agents from enforcing the decision of the court and 2) because he was advocating for and basically demanding that the same condition be kept in place that clearly was motivated by racism and inhumanity. The articles do differ though, one offering a denouncement of the ‘stand’ coming from the eyes of the law and the other coming from one individual with an opinion. The article about the committee was obviously less geared towards the personal side of the issue. The lawyers have to maintain professional advocacy for the law; however, the law in discussion was one that supposed to help dismantle oppression. So while the lawyers on the committee never gave any personal opinions in their recorded statements, we can infer that because of the nature of the law that they specifically were to resolve issues of, that they did indeed have personal feelings about the matter. It may just not have been expressed because they are lawyers and they are obligated to put law before personal feelings. The second article is way more of an expression of personal views. Both articles came from Alabama papers, both were published in 1963 right around the ‘stand in’ incident. Historians, especially those who specialize in the history of African Americans and the civil rights movement, would get a lot out of both these articles. There was the double element of the law and personal feelings that would either have contested the law or cohered with the law. They offer two different views of the matter and that is something important when explaining history. Things are never one-sided, even if there is no disagreement about it. The articles were not all inclusive. There is no information about whether or not Wallace would be charged for breaking federal law (of course there are plenty of other articles that dive into this matter). Fuzessery’s article makes me wonder how many other articles similar to hers were published in southern newspapers. She offered her own thoughts and views which probably conflicted with those of a lot of other people. Overall, the event in discussion was the ‘stand in’ which violated the decision in Brown v Board. This made me think that because it was violation of federal law, I should include an article that focuses on the law side of the issue. The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law was the perfect fit. I thought it would be appropriate to use somewhat more of a personal opinion piece. One that expresses the understanding that the ‘stand in’ was not just a legal issue, it was a defining issue in the entire civil rights movement—that the governor tried to prevent black students, who a federal judge forced the University to accept, from registering for classes because he believed in segregation. This event showed that it was never about states' rights to govern themselves without much federal intervention, it was and always had been about race.
1 Lawyer group blasts Wallace school stand (Birmingham News, 1963) 2 Theresa Fuzessery, An Inglorious Stand In (Montgomery Advertiser, 1963) 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.
|
|
|
|
Post by tue62487 on Jun 18, 2016 17:09:57 GMT
Stephanie Weiner Primary Source Topic: Civil War Era Primary Sources: Diaries Primary Source 1: solomon.nwld.alexanderstreet.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/nwld/getdoc.pl?S321-D003![]() Primary Source 2: solomon.nwld.alexanderstreet.com.libproxy.temple.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/nwld/getdoc.pl?S890-D016 For the primary source analysis, I have chosen two documents dating back to the year 1861- the Civil War Era. These documents are similar as they are both diaries of two females living in the war era, Anna M. Ferris and Amanda McDowell Burns. Although their accounts of the war vary in content, both of their individual diary entries allow readers to truly embrace the feeling of what it was like to live during the Civil war-era. Both diaries came from the North American Women’s Letters and Diaries site, which provides primary source documents dating back to colonial times to 1950. The Diary of Anna Ferris tells of the accounts of a Quaker woman who resided in Wilmington, Delaware during the Civil War. Anna’s diary provides monthly updates on political news and updates, and personal accounts of how the war affected her daily lifestyle in the year of 1861. Second, the Diary of Anna McDowell Burns provides personal accounts about Anna’s war-experience as a teacher, and beloved sister and daughter for the month of May 1861. The Diary of Anna Ferris was published in 1961 in a Delaware History Journal. Anna was a Quaker woman living in Wilmington, Delaware during the Civil War era. Anna’s diary is uniquely written from a Pro-union, antislavery perspective. Starting off her first diary entry in January 1861, Anna stated, “We are in the midst of a revolution that must decide the future of our country and is most important to the destinies of humanity” (Ferris, 1861). This first sentence of her diary truly set the tone of Anna’s feelings about the war. Anna’s intense, active engagement in the war matters clearly allowed her to see that this war will not only affect the current state of the country, but moreover the future as well. Following, Anna’s diary entries often vary in 3-5 sentences of either war developments, key events, or her personal thoughts of the war. Key events that occurred in 1961 in which she mentions include Lincoln’s inauguration, the attacking of Fort Sumter, and the President’s Proclamation. However, her diary entries do not give a summary or timeline of the events, but instead how these events have affected her daily lifestyle. For instance, on April 30th Anna had stated that no one was interested in the usual Quarterly meeting, because more importance was stirred to what affairs were going on in the country. Furthermore, living in this time war-era, Anna shows that it is hard to focus on and carry-out what used to be “normal” everyday activities. I also noticed that as the year progresses, Anna’s diary entries revealed more fear had been installed in her, simply due to the war. On July 6th, she states that “its frightful to think of...” regarding the President’s decision to send out an army of 400,000 men. In entries to follow during the month of July, Anna expressed her anxiety, dread, consciousness, doubt, and suspense of the occurring war events. With that said, Anna’s diary entries truly give a first-hand experience on how it was to live life during the Civil War. Her diary entries allow a reader to step into her shoes and relive Anna’s life during the war. Furthermore, instead of conducting a “normal” daily routine, Anna’s diary revealed the story of a woman whose life had changed solely due to the Civil War. The Civil War made it extremely difficult hard for Anna to focus on anything else but the war. She finds herself consumed by the newspaper articles, creating packages for wounded soldiers, and in constant fear of what was soon to come in war development. Second, the Diary of Amanda McDowell Burns was published in 1943 in a booked titled Fiddles in Cumberland. Amanda was a teacher at the Cumberland Institute in White County, Tennessee. Amanda’s diary entries are from May of 1861, a period of Civil War development. At the time of Amanda’s diary entries, President Lincoln was calling for nearly 42,000 men to volunteer for service in the Army. Amanda is deeply affected by this, as her family is split between fighting for the Confederacy and the Union. Her family choosing to fight in the war, especially for different opponents makes Amanda extremely upset. She stated on Saturday of May 4, 1981, that the Christian men in her family are leaving their once peaceful homes to, “rush into a fight in which they cannot possibly gain anything and in which they may lose their lives.” She continued to write, “I do not think killing of one another is going to better it any, but, on the contrary I fear it will make it worse.” This particular entry that Amanda revealed that she was a bit torn apart about her family splitting to get involved in the war. However, she also makes it very clear that she understands the reality of this wartime era, serving duty for your country and the possible unfortunate results of doing so. Furthermore, right before Amanda’s eyes her life is changing, solely due to the Civil War. At the same, she wrote of her own health problems and difficulties that she was having. She expresses that she is weak, nervous, and had a trembling hand, making it even harder for to continue enjoying her profession as a teacher and also write in her diary. As a result, Amanda’s diary is much shorter than Anna’s. The diaries of Anna M. Ferris and Amanda McDowell Burns both exemplify how the Civil War impacted many lives, not only those who were directly fighting in the war. Although they lived in different geographic regions, they both were faced with similar emotions, reactions, and changes due to the war. Feelings of fear, anxiety, stress are depicted in both of their diaries. Anna expresses her personal emotions and reactions to the war openly in her entries. She writes of the war events occurring and reacts to them in her entries. Often, she does not only speak of her own personal feelings, but the community as well. Instead of saying “I”, she uses “we” and “us” to describe how the community as a whole is affected by the war. Amanda’s entries also express her emotional and physical state of mind during the war. Similarly, she also focuses on how the war has affected the people around her such as her family members and students. Alike, both are living through a time of great distress, and have developed their own opinions of the war and how they will be involved in what is happening around them. Anna follows the newspapers, events, and volunteers creating packages for soldiers. On the other hand, Amanda is faced with her own health problems which limits her involvement. However, she does help in making clothing for family and friends who are volunteering the war. Furthermore, in the year of 1861, it is evident from the diary entries that both woman saw changes in their daily lifestyle, emotional and physical state of mind. These diaries are primary sources that truly depict what it was like to live during the Civil War era. Total Word Count: 1183 Citations: Burns, Amanda McDowell, 1839-, Diary of Amanda McDowell Burns, May, 1861, in Fiddles in the Cumberland. McDowell, Amanda and Blankenship, Lela McDowell, eds.. New York, NY: Richard R. Smith, 1943, pp. 310. [Bibliographic Details] [5-4-1861] S890-D016 Ferris, Anna M., 1815-1890, Diary of Anne M. Ferris, January, 1861, in The Civil War Diaries of Anna M. Ferris. Hancock, Harold B.. Wilmington, DE: Historical Society of Delaware, 1961, pp. 44 in Delaware History. [Bibliographic Details] [1-1-1861] S321-D003 Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by blweaver215 on Jun 18, 2016 19:38:24 GMT
Primary Source Analysis Week 4: Slavery and Emancipation Subtopic: Antebellum America and the Civil War Source 1: infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=P61E56WPMTQ2NjIxMzQ1My43MTY5NToxOjE1OjE1NS4yNDcuMTY2LjIzNA&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=34&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=34&p_docnum=2961&p_docref=v2:110C9BFA1F116650@EANX-1127F8B531994BD0@2400780-1127F8B610653C30-1127F8B955468498 Source 2: infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=P61E56WPMTQ2NjIxMzQ1My43MTY5NToxOjE1OjE1NS4yNDcuMTY2LjIzNA&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=12&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=12&p_docnum=2961&p_docref=v2:110C9BFA1F116650@EANX-1127F8B531994BD0@2400780-1127F8B610653C30@3-1127F8B955350FD8@The%20Progress%20of%20Revolution%20and%20Conciliation The two documents that I choose are both from the Philadelphia Inquirer and are written just a few months before the Civil War begins. The first document is titled “The Horrors of War” and was written on December 25, 1860. The second document is titled “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” and was written on January 4, 1961. Both documents are considered newspaper articles and begin to outline the fear and danger of a possible Civil War in the United States of America. “The Horrors of War” brings to light a certain ignorance that Americans have towards war. While “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” begins to present the true and present danger of the upcoming Civil War and the intensity in both military and political matters. The first article “The Horrors or War” was written before the Civil War and called out the American people for not understanding war. In the beginning of the article it shows how other than the Indian Wars of 1812 and 1846, the American people have only seen or heard about two wars, the Revolutionary War and the Mexican War. The article paints the Revolutionary War as a series of military prizefights and a war that “roused the spirit of the country”. The Mexican war is painted differently. Not a naval war, but rather a ground war that was controlled by the press. If nobody read the newspaper they would have thought that we were never at war with Mexico in the first place. Unlike Europe, America had a “fight first, discuss later” attitude. An attitude that America not only had towards other countries, but within its own borders as well. Perhaps the only aspect of war that frightened Americans was that trade alliances could be damaged depending on who we fought. However, the most important note of this article is that Americans were no longer afraid of war. Peace and calmness were no longer uttered because nobody shuddered at the thought of going to war. With southern states succeeding there was only a call to war, not to peace. The second article “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” has a more definite tone to war. Written just 10 days after “The Horrors of War”, “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” begins to talk about how war is on our doorstep. The article begins by listing off states that have left the nation and those who are beginning to leave the nation. These states include South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, and Virginia. With the Civil War just about three months from officially starting, this is a startling time in American history. What this article does well is that it gives the war a sense of urgency. The article describes the actions of America as a “terrible vortex” with “fearful rapidity”. Compromises with the south will not be made, as the majority of the people in the north believe in their rights and the rights of slaves. During this time it was clear that northern and southern states did not see eye to eye on slavery. The north wanted slavery abolished and the south wanted slavery to be kept. The continuous momentum of both the North and South’s ambitions snowballed into events that led up to the Civil War. Both parties believed in what they stood for and when reaching a political stalemate, a war took the place of words. When putting “The Horrors of War” and “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” side by side, the issues that led up to the Civil War seem clear. Both documents are written close to one another, just 10 days apart. They both lead into one another; one describing how terrible and dehumanizing war can be, with another one outlining the events that have led up to a possible Civil War. Neither article tries to justify the war; rather the articles focus in on the emotions of the American people. Considering the time and events of when the articles were written, emotions were high in America. Southern states were leaving the United States, slavery was a topic of high debate, and northern states were not willing to concede to the southern states’ will. By looking at these two documents side by side, historians can learn about the fearful, naïve, and personal emotions that played into the Civil War. Between America not understanding war and its true horrible potential and all of the events that led up to an inevitable Civil War, it would have been much too late to stop a war even if either side did. I have always been interested in the Civil War. After declaring our independence and winning a war against Britain, what could have stirred our nation so much that we would turn against each other in less than 100 years of our own birth as a United States of America. While I do believe that slavery was a focal point and horrible stain on American history, I was more interested in the emotions of the American people as war became more evident. This is why I chose “The Horrors of War” and “The Progress of Revolution and Conciliation” because it highlights the emotions of the American people and examined the events that led up to the Civil War. Attachments:
|
|
