Archive for November, 2010

Choose your small topic for 4 minute drill presentation

Your topics have now been assigned to you, mostly based on your requests if you gave them tto me. They are posted on the front whiteboard. Get your project done early.

What you are eventually going to produce is a four minute presentation (not more or less), with either an audio or visual prop, and a sheet of paper suitable for posting with ten important or interesting facts about your topic.

This will be due December 9 and 10.

Examples of some weirder topics:

What naval battle was fought off the coast of France during the Civil War?

In what battle did the Confederates resort to throwing rocks at the enemy?

What were the deadliest 20 minutes of the Civil War?

Was Wilmer McLean the unluckiest man in the Civil War?

How did Stonewall Jackson die?

How did the US Sanitation Commission change medical practices on the battlefield?

Who was Stand Watie, and what did he do during the Civil War?

What improvements to weaponry were influential during the Civil War?

How witchy was Lincoln’s wife?

What role did Clara Barton play, and how has her impact continued?

Who was Jesse James?

What was Missouri’s role in the Civil War?

What role did Irish troops play in the Battle of Fredericksburg?

What do General James Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson have in common?

What are some firsts about Abraham Lincoln as president?

How was Arlington National Cemetery created?

Who were the TWO Jefferson Davises of the Civil War?

How was Mary Todd Lincoln’s family involved in the Civil War?

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it–all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war–seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Chapter 22 questions

Chapter 22 questions

These are due — complete– Monday, November 29.

1. Why did some freedmen find themselves re-enslaved? (Just for fun: how do the last four words on page 479 constitute a pun?) In what ways did former slaves repudiate their slave life?

2. How did “emancipation… strengthen the black family?”

3. What were exodusters, and why did they go to Kansas? (Think: What does the name signify?)

4. What evidence shows that the freedman who wrote the letter to his former master will not consider returning to his former master? What did freedom literally mean for former slaves as hinted at in this letter?

5. What did the American Missionary Association do? Why was this task so significant?

6. What was the goal of the Freedmen’s Bureau (research what the full title of this organization actually was)? Explain whether it was effective or not, and whether white Southerners were right to resent it? Think: how does this agency establish an important precedent in terms of the growth of the federal government? Why did Johnson veto renewal of this agency in 1866?

7. What factors worked against Johnson’s success as president? Include his attitudes in your answer. How had he become an acceptable running mate for Lincoln?

8. How had Reconstruction actually begun before the war was over? What was Lincoln’s plan like, and why was it criticized? How did congressional leaders counter this plan?

9. Contrast Lincoln’s legal argument regarding secession with that of the Radical Republicans. Make sure you use specific terms.

10. How did Johnson’s ascendance to the presidency throw Reconstruction plans into further turmoil? Did Johnson’s version of Reconstruction demand real change from the South? Justify your answer.

11. How did the Black Codes work? How did sharecropping help the South “solve” its labor problem?

12. What were “whitewashed rebels?” (You may need to research what “whitewashing” means.) How did emancipation threaten to INCREASE the political power of the South in the House of Representatives? What specific programs were threatened if Democrats regained political power by reuniting?

13. What was the Civil Rights Bill passed, and what did it eventually become? Think constitutionally: Why was this change in status important?

14. What was ultimately the importance of the 14th Amendment, then and now? What are its two most important phrases today?

15. Examine the quotes of Southerners scattered throughout the chapter. What emotional response did they refuse to give in the wake of their military defeat? How did their “10 percent” governments reinforce this impression?

16. What did Johnson hope to accomplish with his “Swing ‘Round the Circle?” How did that turn out?

17. What political realities seemed to ensure that the Republicans would vanquish “Old Andy?” How was the Republican party divided? Who were the radicals’ leaders? How did the radicals’ plans clash with those of the moderate Republicans?

18. How did the Reconstruction Amendments disappoint those who supported women’s rights, and how did they respond?

19. How was the 15th Amendment more radical than the 14th?

20 How did African Americans flex their political muscle during the Reconstruction era? Why were these called “radical regimes?”

21. What’s the difference between scalawags and carpetbaggers? What offense were they accused of by Southerners?

22. Describe the creation of the Klan. What was their agenda?

23. What methods were used to disenfranchise blacks after the Civil War? (And how did they get away with it?

24. What trap did the radical Republicans lay to try to get rid of Johnson as president? What role did Edwin Stanton play in this trap?

25. How close did Johnson come to being removed from office? Why would the president of the Senate have been next in line to become president if Johnson had been removed?

26. What was “Seward’s Folly?” Did it pay off?

27. Some historians have called the Civil Rights era a “Second Reconstruction?” Why was this second reconstruction necessary?

28. What are Eric Foner’s views of Reconstruction?

Walt Whitman’s “Beat! Beat! Drums!”

(Written after the 1st Battle of Bull Run/ Manassas)

Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Through the windows—through doors—burst like a ruthless force,
Into the solemn church, and scatter the congregation,
Into the school where the scholar is studying;
Leave not the bridegroom quiet—no happiness must he have now with
his bride,
Nor the peaceful farmer any peace, ploughing his field or gathering
his grain,
So fierce you whirr and pound you drums—so shrill you bugles blow.

Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Over the traffic of cities—over the rumble of wheels in the streets;
Are beds prepared for sleepers at night in the houses? no sleepers
must sleep in those beds,
No bargainers’ bargains by day—no brokers or speculators—would
they continue?
Would the talkers be talking? would the singer attempt to sing?
Would the lawyer rise in the court to state his case before the judge?
Then rattle quicker, heavier drums—you bugles wilder blow.

Beat! beat! drums!—blow! bugles! blow!
Make no parley—stop for no expostulation,
Mind not the timid—mind not the weeper or prayer,
Mind not the old man beseeching the young man,
Let not the child’s voice be heard, nor the mother’s entreaties,
Make even the trestles to shake the dead where they lie awaiting the
So strong you thump O terrible drums—so loud you bugles blow.

The poet, photographed during the war, by famous photographer Matthew Brady

Review of Sectionalism and Expansion

Review of the various compromises made to accommodate territorial expansion and the question of slavery, etc. from our beloved Mr. Wallace!

Chapter 21 Outline

Due Monday, Nov. 22.

Chapter 21 Outline for notes

I. Phase One; 1861-1862: The Confederates in Control
—–A. Bull Run and “Stonewall” Jackson
—–B. McClellan’s bungling
———-1. Peninsula Campaign
—–C. Lee’s mastery
———-1. Seven Days’ Battles
—–D. Total War and Blockade Running
———-1. Merrimack and Monitor
—–E. 2nd Bull Run
—–F. Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation
———-How does this change the purpose of the war? What impact, real and philosophical, does it have?

II. 1863: The Tipping Point
—–A. Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville
———-Death of Jackson—impact
—–B. Gettysburg
———-1. Meade
———-2. Pickett’s charge
———-3. Peace delegation
———-4. Address
—–C. Rise of Grant in the West
———-1. Shiloh
———-2. New Orleans
———-3. Vicksburrg

III. 1864-1865: The Union Gains Momentum
—–A. Grant goes East
———-1. Chickamauga
—–B. Sherman Burns through Georgia
—–C. Wilderness Campaign and Cold Harbor
—–D. Appomattox

IV. Politics of War
—–A. Weakness of Democratic Party
———-1. War Dems
———-2. Peace Dems
———-3. Copperheads
———-4. Vallandingham
—–B. Radical Republicans push Lincoln
———-1. Salmon Chase
—–C. Election of 1864
———-1. Union party
———-2. McClellan for prez
—–D. Assassination
—–E. Why is the Civil War a tipping point in US history? What did it all mean?

terms for chapter 21

Apparently, I omitted the terms for chapter 21 in your packet, so look under the tab above that says “Terms for semester 1 chapters” and they will be there at the bottom of the page where they should be.


Important reminders

1. Make sure you have prepared for your test tomorrow over chapter 17-19.

2. Make sure you have read and reviewed the blog posts and the reading you received over Manifest Destiny.

3. I will not be here on Friday. Please bring your textbooks so that you can start your outlines for chapter 20 after you finish your test. I have already published the outlines below this post, and you will receive a copy in class tomorrow as well.

Chapter 20 outlines

Chapter 20 Outlines– due Monday, November 15, 2010

I. What would it take for the South to Win?

A. Advantages

1. Military leadership (name and identify leaders) 2. Defensive War 3. Psychological– what were they fighting for?

B. Disadvantages

1. Population  2. Economy–lack of diversification 3. Military– navy, willingness to fight away from home 4. Foreign relations  5. How to pay for war/debt

C. Government– how is the Confederate government organized?

1. Effectiveness of Jefferson Davis/political leaders

2. Effectiveness and features of Confederate constitution

3. Unity of states?

D. Would King Cotton let them down? Explain.

E. What about the Border states?

II. What would it take for the North to win?

A. Advantages

1. Population and immigration  2. Economy (petroleum, millionaires, diversity)– why does it boom? 3. Foreign relations 4. How to pay for war  5. Navy

B. Disadvantages

1. Military leadership (name and describe)  2. Dislike of slavery/Lincoln 3. Must win offensive war 4. What were they fighting for?

C. Government– how effective was the Union government?

1. Effectiveness of Lincoln/political leaders

2. Lincoln and civil liberties– how far is he willing to go to save the Union?

3. Unity of states/public opinion

D. What about the Border States?

III. Johnny Reb versus Billy Yank

A. Brother versus brother

B. Volunteers versus draftees– how and why did it happen for each side, and when?

1. Who was exempt from service? 2. Bounties and substitutes 3. Resisters– Irish and “mountain whites”

C. Effects of war on soldiers

D. Effect of war on African Americans on both sides

E. How were the first shots fired at Ft. Sumter?

IV. Advances during wartime

A. Economic

1. Banking system  2. Millionaires and coal oil johnnies

B. Sanitation and health

C. Role of women expanded

Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” other-wise called “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “squatter sovereignty” and “sacred right of self-government.” “But,” said opposition members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a Negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the district of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The Negro’s name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly 400,000 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument.

The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to endorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.

Under the Dred Scott decision, “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitution — upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas’ “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any state in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the Negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Second, that, “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Third, that whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the Negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois or in any other free state.
Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough, now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough, now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a senator’s individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough, now, the speaking out then would have damaged the “perfectly free” argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the endorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.