What Social Classes owe to Each Other, 1883

This article by Sumner has an angry tone to it and when he states “A man who is present as a consumer, yet who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden,”  he is making a statement that anyone can achieve wealth if they just stop being lazy.  Sumner does not seem to have any sympathy for those who are in unfortunate positions in life and may need a boost of help to get them on the right track, he believes that it is possible for each man to earn his own way and if he is not then he is taking from the man who does have money.  Sumner states “The man who has done nothing to raise himself above poverty finds that the social doctor’s flock about him, bringing the capital which they have collected from the other had to work for.”  This statement says sums up Sumner’s view on the poor and weak of society. 

Our society has a duty to those who are unfortunate for whatever reason to care for those who cannot care for themselves and to assist those who need it to a position that they can become self sufficient not stick those who are poor all in one category and call them lazy money grabbers. 

CDL:  Why Did So Many Soldiers Die?

1. How did technological advances, tactical shortcomings, and inadequate medical support combine to produce astonishing casualties?

The technological advances of weapons made it so that a battle where soldiers were shoulder to shoulder they would fall like dominos from the powerful well aimed guns that had a range of about 300 feet.  The tactical shortcomings really caused a lot of deaths as generals did not anticipate such brutal showdowns and the loss of thousands of soldiers in their armies took a huge toll on the power they had.  The inadequate medical support caused a horrendous amount of casualties as there were no medics on the field, ways to move wounded soldiers for medical care, use of antiseptics to clean wounds to avoid massive infection, and disease control took out many thousands of soldiers. 

2. What caused more Union soldiers to be killed overall than rebel soldiers?

The inadequate disease prevention for things like typhoid and dysentery killed many Union soldiers.  The surgeons were like butchers and amputated limbs of soldiers in sometimes piles of severed limbs and then did not take antiseptic steps to clean the instruments used for the surgery, their hands or surgical clothes, and many of those that had limbs amputated died as a result.  Your chances of survival were about 50/50 after having a limb amputated.  The lack of transportation for wounded soldiers left many laying in battlefields to die for days starving and lacking water and wound care.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

3. How could such great loss of life been prevented in the Civil War?

The great loss of life could have been prevented by not having soldiers shoulder to shoulder on the battlefield with the advanced weapons having the range they did.  This field battle tactic was virtually suicide for the soldiers as they approached the enemy.  Having disease control such as immunizations, clean surgical tools and procedures with germ control, and adequate medical facilities could have prevents thousands of deaths. 

4. The article says that a century later in Vietnam only one in four-hundred wounded died as to the one in five wounded that passed in the Civil War, what factors changed over the years to alter that statistic so drastically?

The factors that changed between the two wars included immunizations against diseases being dispensed and medical care being greatly improved so that prevention of disease was huge.  The adequate medical training and staffing of the Vietnam War gave wounded and dying soldiers a huge advantage for survival.  The addition of germ control was huge in preventing deaths.  The ability to have air and ground transport with vehicles, planes, and helicopters for wounded soldiers saved many lives in the Vietnam War. 

First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln, 4 March 1861

This inaugural address was spoken with true patriotism from Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was very much in favor of keeping the union of the states intact and allowing the citizens of the individual states to decide their rights regarding slavery.  Although Lincolns personal and political views were against slavery and he was quoted as saying that “Slavery is wrong because a man has the right to the fruits of his own labor.”  In this inaugural address Lincoln was speaking to the people to try and avoid a racial war.  Lincoln spoke in this address of the need to hold up the constitution for its meaning and that it was not specific on details of slavery.  When Lincoln stated “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” he was boldly telling the states that he had no real power to do anything about slavery.  He goes on in this address to speak about how the military power was not going to invade any state to try and free slaves that this would not be in the benefit of the country and would not be a workable solution because it would only turn the people of our country against each other. 

Lincoln is arguing for a calming of people to his election and to let them know that the constitution is an important thing to their freedoms and future.  There is no real argument here and no real solutions given to the divided nation.  What Lincoln is stating in this address does not really seem so much of an argument as it is a leader telling his people the importance of the constitution and the importance of keeping the country united.  Lincolns address is logical although it seems to be written mainly for the people of the south to hear.  The pathos (emotional quality) of this address seems like it is that of a father trying to sort out quarreling children by stating reason and asking for calmness and thought.  The ethos (writers perceived character) is that of a leader. 

I am not sure that this address could be called convincing because it just doesn’t seem like it offered any real solutions to the divided country at the time.  The address just seemed to present his stance to both sides without really taking a side.  Even though we know that he was against slavery there is nothing here in this address that really seems to say that. 

Compared to other Presidential inaugural addresses this one is much wordier than our modern day Presidents but it is very similar in that it is just a President taking office and boldly stating what he will lead our country to do or not do, but no real course on how to get those things done. 

Letter to an English Abolitionist, 1845 James Henry Hammond

I had sort of the same response to your TA as Amy.  I didn’t really understand how you perceived the article, although the TA is written well, I was confused on whether you thought it was a good bad argument for a pro-slavery in that time period.  This article gives a unique heart wrenching account of how slave owners were rationalizing their actions in this time period and I though Hammond did a magnificent job in writing his true honest thoughts.  I find it interesting how people in all time periods and in all religions can take a piece of religious scripture and twist it into what they want to rationalize monster behavior to their fellow man. This was obviously an intelligent man who was egotistical and had no kind thought for any individual who did not have the intelligence or means of living that he had been given.  I found this article to be argumentative, angry, but I have to say that Ben has done a great job of presenting us with an excellent account of the mindset in this time period.  This really created a true picture for me about how someone in this time period could try to rationalize this ownership of other humans, even though it is a tough read.

Text Analysis - "The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848"

The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848 is a declaration of independence written by women of the convention who wanted to demand equality for women in the United States.  This document states the feelings of women who at this time had no legal rights in our country.  The right to own property, vote, earn wages, own business, own land and other rights were beyond their reach.  Women of this time were in a difficult position of having to be subservient to their husbands and fathers in their daily lives.  The most influential passage in this document in my opinion is “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's on the part of man toward woman, having a direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.  To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”  This passage in the document is worded very strongly to suggest women were objects of mistreatment by man and women were not going to allow this to continue if they could do anything about it.  This document gives a strong argument towards the equality of women in our country by stating the individual injustices and reasons why these injustices are of grave concern to women and how they should be a concern to all.

The authors appeal to logic by stating examples of specific disgraces made towards women and stating the equalities that faced them in the country.  The pathos (emotional quality) is very frank and bitter sounding yet eloquently worded.  The ethos of this document (the writer’s perceived character) is that of women being at their wits end with the way they are had to live their lives with the inequality that affects their family.  The authors argument is very convincing due to the fact it lays out specific examples of the ways women are treated and the rights they are denied in a country ruled basically by men. 

As a woman in this country it makes me very proud to read how our previous generations spoke with such eloquence when even in a situation that must have been very disheartening and difficult to bear.  I cannot imagine the amount of thought and time the women who wrote and signed this document must have taken in order to word it with grace.

Who Rushed for California Gold?

 

--

Oneal, Malynda

7/2/2011

0

 

 

 1.  What impact did the gold rush have on the Native Americans?
The Native Americans were hunted and killed by the forty-niners.  The Indian population declined dramatically between 1848 & 1856.  The forty-niners wanted to eradicate the Indians and the Indians eventually found a remote part of California to basically stay out of the way.

2. What were some reasons the Chinese faced extreme prejudice?

 The Chinese faced extreme prejudice because they were known as devious and were not liked by the Anglo-Americans.  Anglo-Americans feared the Chinese would undercut labor and drive it from our country.  Any Chinese that showed up in mining communities were attacked.  There were even lynchings of Chinese in small mining camps by forty-niners. 

3. How did the gold rush change California?

The gold rush brought many people to California.  The crowds of people that came to California included many nationalities from all over the world.  Businesses sprang up from the new population and also to extact the gold with machines.   California for the first time was becoming populated instead of being a remote place with mostly Indians. 

 4. Did the gold rush cause more harm and debt than it did riches? Was it ultimately good for the development of the western United States or detrimental?
The gold caused more ham than good because very few people became rich.  The gold rush created a very greedy and monster like behavior in people.  The gold rush was good in one way, because it brought a diverse population to California and a large population which was able to then settle this remote area.  The population in some way was harmful as in the mistrust that people had for each other because of the gold rush.  This new population of people was far from a community that could work together but instead a mistrusting group that would to this day create small areas within large cities where they would stick together by nationality. 

CDL:  The Telegraph:  The “Wonder Working Wire”

Samuel F. B. Morse invented the telegraph, or was given the credit for it, because he obtained a patent June 20, 1840.  Samuel combined the ideas of several scientists in order to create the telegraph device.  The telegraph consisted of a code that Morse created where tapping into the device went through wires to another location in the form of dashes and dots.  The dashes and dots that resulted at the end of the wire were then translated from a language named” Morse Code” to create messages and letters.  The device was first tested by the U.S. in an experiment between the Supreme Court to Baltimore, 41 miles away.  This communication tool was so effective that soon there were lines all over the country paralleling the railroad lines.  Fifty thousand miles of telegraph wire were in place by 1861 when the telegraph reached the west coast.  The telegraph was an effective and speedy communication device that changed the way Americans conveyed business, news, and other information. 

Questions:

Why was the telegraph such a successful invention for Americans?

How was Samuel F. B. Morse able to develop the technology for the telegraph?

CDL: Transatlantic Abolition

1.  How/why did Americans view slavery as acceptable during the early decades of the republic?

The African slaves were cheap labor for the Americans on their farms.  Americans viewed slavery as acceptable in the early decades of the republic because they had a view that anyone with darkened skin was a lesser being and therefore could be enslaved.

2. If the end of the slave trade was considered a critical first step in abolishing slavery, why were the southern states in favor of banning the slave trade?

The southern states favored banning the slave trade because it increased the value of the naturally born slaves in the U.S. that were sold and transported west. 

3. What were some future consequences of banning the importation of slaves into America?

One positive consequence was that the ban of slaves into America was a cooperative effort with multiple nations.   One negative consequence was that the southern slave owner were profiting with an increased value for natural born slaves being sold and transported west. 

This was a very big step in equality in America and even though it would take decades for all U.S. citizens to have equal rights it was a step in the correct moral direction for our country. 

How Did Washington, D.C., Become the Federal Capital?

1.     Why was not an existing city like Boston, NYC, or Charleston chosen for the national capital?

An existing city was not chosen due to the fact there were jealousies, problems with access, private interests.  The decision to put the capital in place that was not within a state avoided all of those issues.

2. How did political struggles of the time--the "assumption bill" debate--influence the decision to place the capital on the Potomac?

The assumption bill votes were the trade off for the votes to put the capital on the Potomac River.  Hamilton went to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the three agreed to the deal.  Madison rounded up enough votes in the southern states for assumption in exchange for the Potomac River site which was closer to those southern states and that is what they were interested in.

3. What was significant about the location chosen for Washington, DC?

The location of Washington D.C. was significant because it was located on a site which was rural and the land could be purchased from Maryland farmers.  The location was strategic to the rivers and mountains in the area.  George Washington also liked the site because of his own interests being located near it. 

4. Explain George Washington’s obvious conflict of interest over the site for the capital. Why didn’t this conflict of interest raise any concerns back in the 1790s?

George Washington owned the Potomac Company which built canals and he was the president and principal investor who would benefit the Potomac River site for the capital.  Washington owned an extensive amount of land near this site.  This location for the capital could be potentially a great investment for the President.  This probably did not raise any conflict of interest concerns because he was the first President and there was no previous history of this sort of problem and because George Washington was very well liked no one thought it was any problem. 

CDL: France, England, & Women’s Rights in the 1790s

1.        What reasons did the people have against women’s rights in this time period?

Women did not have many rights in this time period.  Women had a duty to their husband and were deemed to be not intelligent enough to have positions of authority or vote.  Women were to take care of the home and the children and be submissive to their husbands.

2.        Why did Mary Wollstonecraft call marriage legalized prostitution?

Mary Wollstonecraft called marriage legalized prostitution because women had to marry a man in order to survive financially.  The wealthier the potential husband the better so that the wife could be taken care of.

3.        Why was the idea of having rights to a formal education so important to women who supported feminist ideas?  How could having a formal education give women a better sense of equality?

Rights to a formal education were important to the women who supported feminist ideas be the education would open the door to positions of authority.  Women with education would be more intelligent and there would be more respect from men which would make them feel like they are more equal to men. 

4.        Why did most women of the 1790’s prefer a moderate stance rather than an influential stance when it came to Women’s Rights?

Women wanted a more moderate stance on Women’s Rights because they wanted it to be more family focused.  Most women wanted to not have a radical stance like the French with situations like single mother living situations.  Women wanted the family unit to stay intact but in addition to their role within the home they wanted to be heard politically and to be able to share and express their ideas. 

CDL: Was the New United States a Christian Country?

1. Why did Madison want the Constitution to say little about religion, and how did people react to it?

 Madison wanted the Constitution to say little about religion because he did not want the government to have the power to choose for the people one religion over another.  Madison wanted to take the ideas of Thomas Jefferson in that people had the right to choose their religion.  Some people were very confused that the constitution did not use language of religion and at one point Alexander Hamilton said jokingly that they had just forgotten it. 

2. Why does the first amendment grant equal rights to all religion?

 The first amendment grants equal rights to all people that they can be free to choose their choice of religious belief and the U.S. Government would not be able to force citizens to a specific religious following.

3. If a substantial majority of the individual states had constitutions that assumed the primacy of Protestantism why doesn't the Constitution of the United States invoke Christianity as the State Religion?

 Invoking Christianity as the state religion would take away the religious free right of the people to have faith in whichever they choose and this would cause the U.S. Government to meddle in the private affairs of citizens and they needed to be concerned only with governing not religious views.

4. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Why did the founding fathers feel they needed to enumerate Freedom of religion. (In addition to speech, press, peaceable assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.)?

The founding fathers probably had in mind the religious bickering that had occurred over the years between the British .The founding fathers also I am sure thought of the people that had settled in the U.S. and of the many different religious faiths. The founding fathers wanted a government that was not about religion but that was about maintaining laws and freedoms which could include all people of all faiths and backgrounds equally. 

CDL: How Long Did the Seven Years' War Last in Indian Country?

1.        How was the relationship between the British and American colonists during the war?

The colonists fought with the British soldiers against the Indians but the British leaders treated them badly with torture and executions.  The American Colonists volunteered in great number to fight the Indians and the French and the colonists were grateful for the British military presence.  At the end of the war the British took credit for all of the winning the battle and the American Colonists felt as if they had been the ones who had actually sacrificed with lost lives. There were some colonists who attacked Indians putting aside the British leadership; this large group of colonists was never punished for their attack by the British.

2.        Explain the tension between the British and Americans, on one side, and Indians, on the other side.  For what reasons were these three groups—the British, the colonists, and Indians—fighting?  Why did more Indian tribes side with the French than with the British?

The tension between the American Colonists and the Indians was over their continually moving westward onto Indian land.    The tension between the British and Indians was because for one thing the British could not seem to communicate with the Indians well.  The French understood the Indians and their need to exchange gifts as a sign of respect.  The British were very stubborn and seen the Indian gift exchange as a weakness.  The Indians sided with the French more than the British because the French communicated well with the Indians and were more respectful of the Indian traditions of communication. 

3.        How did Indians, led by Pontiac, justify their “rebellion” again British forces and forts?

The Indians were tiring of the French backing off and the British taking over; they felt as if the French had deserted them.  The Indians made a pact to fight for Indian tradition and for the land their ancestors had left them. 

4.       What were the outcomes of the Seven Years’ War and how was that result important to British colonists and Indians?

The war left the Indians out of ammunition to fight and left the British broke.  The British military leader who had scoffed at Indian tradition and had been unwilling to attempt meaningful communication with the Indians was sent back to England and a new leader was sent who gave many gifts to the Indians in an attempt to be able to have more of a friendship with them.  For the Indians this probably was not really and end of the war but more of a break since the fighting continued for many years later.

CDL: Newspapers: “The Spring of Knowledge”

CDL:  Newspapers: “The Spring of Knowledge”

1.        Why would the governor want the colonial’s newspaper copy submitted for “official approval: and what did the colonists gain by not yielding to that demand?

The governor wanted the newspaper submitted for “official approval” to hold power over the publishers and watch the content to not have any information they might deem unfit for publication.  The colonists gained more freedom of press which would enable the publishers to write about government officials and politics in general which kept them more informed of what was happening with their leaders and neighbors. 

2.        Why was the New England Courant paper successful even though it turned its nose up at the religious and government institutions that the majority of the people followed?

The New England Courant paper was successful because it was a new form of communication that dazzled and excited the people with its rumors, criticisms, and news of the community.  The papers were printing things that in the past had only been shared in private conversations which was astounding to the people.

3.        List some of the influences these newspapers or printings had on the population?

Some of the influences the news papers or printings had were spreading of gossip and rumors among the people, political opinions expressed, and a new awakening to a world of things they may not have been aware of.  What also started to change with the printing of news was the ability for information to reach the population in a timelier effective manner. 

4.        How did what James Franklin do by starting another paper help what is published in the news now?

James Franklin publishing a newspaper that was open and humorous in regards to writing about the government and religious institutions was the beginning of the free press that we have today.  Today the press is free in the United States to write about whatever they wish whether that information is opinion, the truth, or even if it is not a proven fact.  The press has the ability to inform the world today of events that are taking place within seconds of it occurring and has a lot of control over society, this is especially true when you consider political campaigns or natural disasters occurring. 

Text Analysis - Preface to the Frame of Goverment of Pennsylvania, William Penn, 1682

Text Analysis – Preface to the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, William Penn, 1682

William Penn has written a very heartfelt document giving an opinion of what he sees as the correct way for man to govern Pennsylvania and is showing hope in the power god has given man.  Penn states in the preface that he believes god has given man the intelligence and capability to govern well and make good laws.  It seems that Penn is pressing the idea that men that govern are to be of the utmost obedient to God and if they are then will be given the guidance to govern well and protect the people from those that are evil.  Penn also speaks of no government being perfect that he has seen and one is to do his best to provide a stable government making sound choices for the people with constructive arguments amongst each other.  Penn speaks about it is up to men to either govern good or bad that it is in their hands and can go either way.  There is text in several places noting the need for people to have liberty and freedom but to adhere to the laws created by the government.

The historical significance of this document is that it shows the feelings of a man who lived in this time and place and foreseen with hope a great prosperous free state of Pennsylvania.  Penn wished to see the people of his region be lawful, work hard, and obey god. 

Penn was a very intuitive to what lawmakers will be accomplishing with their choices, good and bad, and the effects those can have on people.  Penn was logical and seemed to have a very strong sense of how people are all different and we should respect everyone in their choices but do our best to see the good in everyone.  Penn seems like a righteous person who speaks with compassion and dignity.  He writes as if to send a message to future lawmakers and people of Pennsylvania land hope and an idea of the goodness they should bring to the table when making laws to govern the people.  He writes an idea of how lawmakers should consider those in their care and protect them. 

I found William Penn’s writing to be very convincing that he thought deeply of his religion, of his fellow man, and he wanted a descent government created for future generations. 

CDL #5 - Why were some New Englanders accused of being witches?

CDL #5 – Why were some New Englanders accused of being witches?

In 1641 a law was passed stating “If any man or woman be a witch…they shall be put to death.”

Although people had such supernatural ideas earlier in the 1600’s, even as early as 1650, they did not voice their opinion and kept it to themselves.  It was not until later in the 1600’s that the Puritan’s got frustrated in trying to control people that were not living the Puritan ways and found guilt by accusing individuals of witchcraft. 

The people of North America felt that the supernatural was the cause of bad luck or injury.  Those that believed in the supernatural included the Native Americans, slaves, and colonists.

New Englanders accused individuals who seemed to cause the incidents as being witches who were either doing the handy work of the devil or were being controlled by satan.  Those individuals being accused of witchcraft were people who were outspoken and not shy with their feelings and may have made a comment that was taken as out of the ordinary where for the most part people said very little negative and did not speak about what they thought may have been an unfair situation.  This act of people turning on their fellow neighbor and accusing them of being a witch was their way of dealing with anyone that was different and did not follow the scope of how they expected people to behave.  Most of the accusers were adult men and most of the accused were older women.  This article even speaks of some children accusing individuals of being witches. 

The outbreak of the Salem witch trials in 1691 and 1692 was a period of frustration for the Puritans with their need to attempt to control those individuals that were not following the Puritan ways and to do away with the sin and devil worshippers.  New England puritans needed to find others who were committing sin in order to feel that they themselves were the devoted godly saints instead of sinners. 

Question #1 -   What percentage of individuals accused of witchcraft were women? Men?

Question #2 – Do you think that the accused witches being executed made the Puritans felt remorse or regret?   Why or why not?