|
|
Post by micathcart on Jun 18, 2016 20:15:30 GMT
On 1 January 1863, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation came into effect. While today, the executive order is widely celebrated as the first steps to realizing the founding principles of the United States for all of its citizens; it was quite the controversy in 1863. How controversial the proclamation was had depended largely upon geographical location. I have consulted two newspaper articles, both of which published on 4 January 1863; three days after the Emancipation Proclamation took effect. Both articles were published in the major city of their ideologically different states.
The first article was published in the New York Times and appeared on the sixth page of the paper. It contained an extensive write up about an African American community in Brooklyn celebrating the (relative) abolition of slavery in the United States and the extension of “the principle of liberty for all mankind.” The article acknowledged the racial and gender heterogeneous crowd at the Bridge-street African Methodist Church. The article also continued to reference a speech delivered by Rev. J.H. Gloster. “ He then alluded to the proclamation—rejoiced at it as a boon of freedom but regretted that it did not extend to all who are held in Southern bondage. The only hope of rescue from the perils that environed us was by conforming to the moral of the proclamation.”
The second article was vastly different from the previous one in all but its publication date. The article appeared on page four of The Sun of Baltimore, MD. It was incredibly brief and only really dealt with possible constitutional conflicts of the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as the House Judiciary Committee’s reluctance to investigate the constitutionality of President Lincoln’s order. The entirety of the article reads as: “The judiciary committee of the House, to whom was referred the resolution to confirm the President’s proclamation of emancipation, have agreed to indefinitely postpone action on the subject—Washington Republican.” This article is remarkable not for what is written, but for what was not. Baltimore was (and still is) the largest city in Maryland. In 1863, Maryland was a significantly hostile state toward abolitionist sentiments. It was under Federal martial law and many pro-Confederate journalists were jailed by the Lincoln administration in the name of maintaining order. This article from The Sun represents this very well. The article takes, at best, an indifferent view of the proclamation. However, it would be more accurate to describe the tone and covertly defiant. In its few words, the article manages to undermine the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation as well as assure the opponents of abolition that it was not going to affect Maryland slave owners.
These two articles represent the complicated political climate in the United States during the Civil War. More specifically, they exemplify the disparity between ideological sentiments within Union States. One depicts blacks and whites celebrating the landmark proclamation in a church in Brooklyn. The other, in an esoteric way, announces a challenge to the constitutionality of the President Lincoln’s order.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on Jun 18, 2016 20:43:13 GMT
Primary Source analysis Jack Sharkey Topic: the Civil War Subtopic: Secession and Declaration of War Document 1: infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive?p_product=EANX&p_action=doc&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=K62B56JPMTQ2NjI4MTE3Ni42MDg1NDY6MToxNToxNTUuMjQ3LjE2Ni4yMzQ&p_clear_search=&s_search_type=doc&s_category=none&d_refprod=EANX&s_browseRef=&d_refshell=CivilWar&p_docref=v2:11A254F4684BA0C8@EANX-11A834E3992F6B10@2400844-11A7E541F3269EA8@0-11FC42640FD723FD@Inauguration+Of+President+Davis%2C+Of+The+Confederate+States+of+America.+The+Inaugural+Address&d_collections=EANACWDocument 2: infoweb.newsbank.com.libproxy.temple.edu/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EAIX&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=N6AE5EDXMTQ2NjI4MTMyMC43MTY2Mjg6MToxNToxNTUuMjQ3LjE2Ni4yMzQ&p_action=doc&p_queryname=1&p_docref=v2:10D2F64C960591AE@EAIX-10F454548767C080@10928-10E0CBD30EB215C0@1The first document I analyzed was a newspaper article published in the Clarksville (Texas) Standard from March 9, 1861 regarding the inauguration speech of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. The second document I analyzed was published by the Confederate States of America’s government on May 6, 1861. This article is an act which recognizes war between the United States and the Confederate States. while I could not find the exact source of this act, I presume that it was published by the Confederate government at the onset of the war, after the attack on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The first document: the newspaper regarding the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis was created after the secession of the Confederate States and election of Jefferson Davis as the president of the new nation. After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it was clear to the southern states that there was going to be no way that they could continue their slave based economy and society under the direction that the rest of the country was taking, feeling that they had no other choice, these states left the union and formed their own nation: The Confederate States of America. This subject is covered in depth in Davis’s speech, as he discusses that the Southern states wished to remain peacefully within the union of the United States, yet they were unable to do so due to the perceived attacks on their way of life by the rest of the country. Davis discusses the importance of each state having its own well regulated militia, very similar to what was outlined in the Constitution of the United States, however he also mentions that he has been advised that the Confederate States will also need a powerful army because it is not likely that the United States will allow their nation to exist. The second document: the act recognizing war between the United States and Confederate States seems to expand upon the highlights of Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address. The beginning of the document recognizes that despite of efforts made to to exist peacefully alongside the United States, such actions will not be possible, and war is the only certainty which exists for the future of the country. The act sounds very similar to what was written about the War of Independence between the United States and Great Britain, with the author writing that the United States will not allow for the Confederate States to continue their quest for equity, freedom, and justice. I find this section to be very ironic given that the reason for the secession of the Confederate States occurred over the issue of slavery, yet this act is written as if the United States were attacking the very freedom of southerners, even though they sought to continue to profit at the expense of the massive amount of suffering that occurred to the slaves in these states. The rest of the document continues into declaring that war exists between the two countries, and gives an ultimatum of thirty days for any vessels or soldiers of the United States to vacate from all Confederate ports and waterways. When analyzed side by side, both of these documents come from the same perspective, as they were both published within the Confederate States of America. The newspaper article gives the account of Jefferson Davis’s inauguration as president of the new nation, and the act of war shows that the Confederate States recognized that war was necessary in order to legitimize their status as a nation, as their secession from the Union was considered an illegal action. While one of these documents was published by an independent newspaper, and the other one is an official government document, both of them hold similar viewpoints and are sympathetic to the Confederacy, as well as the inevitable war which would follow. |
|
|
|
Post by rheajain on Jun 19, 2016 3:31:10 GMT
Doc 1:http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.temple.edu/docview/95831539?accountid=14270
Doc 2:http://www.accessible.com.libproxy.temple.edu/accessible/print?AADocList=11&AADocStyle=&AAStyleFile=&AABeanName=toc1&AANextPage=/printFullDocFromXML.jsp&AACheck=1.200.11.4.1
The two documents that I chose to do the primary source analysis are the letters from Professor Ansted (the second one) published on April 28, 1853, and the paper titled Abolition Onward! from the African American Newspaper on April 7, 1849. The paper titled Abolition Onward! is about the fact that the North has resolved the issues about slavery and the South has not solved the issues about it. The letters from Professor Ansted (part 2) are about the same thing except it talks about the political issues about the slavery and the Civil War that was going on at the point in history.
The first document is the letters from Professor Ansted in 1853; it talks about the political issues about slavery in the United States. One of the quotes that stuck with me was the first sentence of the second paragraph. “But no one should lose sight of the fact that the present political condition of the United States really does not admit immediate emancipation.” That doesn’t surprise me because the people didn’t really pay attention to the political issues. This is because everyone wanted to be free from the political oppression against the other side. No one was paying attention to the political society because the war was going on and people were worried about their family and friends. Additionally, they had no idea “how to estimate progress.” The people were growing and behaving as though the future was there. Coal and natural elements were being used to make new things and build the future.
The second document was published in The North Star in April 7, 1849. The author, who is not listed, is trying to say that the issue of slavery is politically hard to explain because it is different in all of the United States because some places (the South) didn’t like the fact that they had to abolish slavery and other places (the North) wanted to abolish slavery. It says “In the Bay State we’ve resolved, To the South no More we’ll bend; That freedom against slavery, in future we’ll defend.” This states that the author didn’t like slavery and believed in the fact that in the future everyone will hate slavery and will fight to be against it. He or she didn’t really like that slavery was an issue and believed that everyone will be against it. Another part of the quote is that “As Slavery’s dismantled ship shall strike on Freedom’s rock.” This means that the rock is freedom and the fact that the ship breaks on the shore of freedom. Now the fact that the ship is dismantled represents the fact that slavery is almost done or over.
I chose these two articles because they similar to each other. The two are about the two different slides in slavery; the two are very similar in the ending. However, the two talk about political issues very differently. The poem is about a non-politician and how he or she looks at slavery in a non historical perspective yet still a historical point of view. The first one is in depth about the Civil War and the professor is talking about all of this because he believes in the government and the system that he is a part of
After analyzing both of the newspaper articles, you can see the similarities in the two documents because they both are arguing against the practice of slavery. It is very informing because one is a poem and one is a document in a letter format.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on Jun 19, 2016 18:20:49 GMT
Topic: Native American History Subtopic: Cherokees and the Removal Act First document: (Address to the Whites - 1826) nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/triumphnationalism/expansion/text3/addresswhites.pdfSecond document: (Documents in relation to the validity of the Cherokee treaty of 1835: Letters and other papers relating to Cherokee affairs: being a reply to sundry publications authorized by John Ross) acdc.amherst.edu/view/asc:480594The two documents I chose were both of Elias Boudinot, an Cherokee leader throughout the 1820s and 1830s. As editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, the first newspaper for Indian tribes, people regarded Boudinot as a powerful and influential man and his elegant writings truly reflected his education and status. However, you will see in these two newspaper, at just a couple years apart, that Boudinot's hypocrisy made a devasting effect on the Cherokee Nation. The first document is Elias Boudinot's letter "Address to the Whites". Throughout this letter, Boudinot talks about how the Cherokee Indians are just like his and anyone else's ancestors. However, Boudinot believed that the survival of the Cherokee people and their culture greatly depended on the Indians' willingness to abandon their Cherokee traditions and adopt the white ways. Boudinot believed that the Cherokee could survive and that it was not necessary remove them. In this letter, he emphasized on humanity, that he had faith in the progress of his people towards civilization, and the defense of human rights. Like Boudinot said in the letter: "What is an Indian? Is he not formed of the same materials with yourself?". The Cherokee society underwent dramatic response to the "civilization" of the US. At an uncanny pace, the Cherokee began adapting to white customs. They permitted missionary schools in their Nations so that their children could learn the language, customs of the whites. The Cherokees even stopped hunting, and converted their lifestyle into the manner of the whites, they started living by farming, raising corn, cotton, cattles, horses, hogs and sheeps. However, regardless of the advances the Cherokees made, they were not looked upon with joy. The State of Georgia still believed that the Cherokee Nation in their territory, regardless of how much of their own land the Cherokees were willing to sell to the State of Georgia. And so by the time of Thomas Jefferson's administration, the idea of removing the eastern Indians to be "empty" was born. The second document shows the hypocrisy and controversy of Elisa Boudinot. Before 1832, Boudinot were hand in hand with his effort to protect the Cherokee Nation agaisnt US incursions. However, in 1831 and 1832, away on a fundraising trip, somehow he changed his mind, and turned to the support of removal. Boudinot signed his name on a petition calling for Cherokees removal. In this second newspaper, Boudinot argued that the Cherokees should agree to set aside their land base. The Cherokees and many others viewed Boudiot as a traitor, or a tragic figure. Why he changed his mind reminds controversial. However, it has been suggested that when he was away on his fundraising trip, Boudinot adopted an "elitism" attitude about his own race. Now that he had occupied a less conflicted position in life, as a product of his original environment, raised to be nationlist and learned the trations of whites, he was born into a bi-culturalism life. However, eventually towards 1833, Boudinot believed in the superiority of the white civilization. His later campaign for Cherokees removal was to be understood as stage in developing strategy rather than a revolutions of principles. After analyzing both articles, you see the drastic change in Boudinot's point of view of the Cherokee. At first he was keen and confident in protecting the community, the second, he made excuses and justified his action through saying that he was entitled to his opinion and that it was his job to protect the people (as in the white people). Also, Boudinot surrendered in 1832 was partially due to John Ross preventing Boudinot from expressing his opinions. Though Ross had a removal tactic that was "harmless and non-violent", the opposite happened regardless. Somehow his presence, and who knows what else he did, he was able to successfully change the behavior and view of a powerful and influential man like Boudinot. |
|
