Kontan.

Populism: politics or political ideology based on teh perceived interests of ordinary people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite (farm reform)

Progressivism: (beliefs of progressives) any of 3 political parties that favored social reform and were active in the presidential elections of 1912, 1924, and 1948.

Progressive Era:
goal of progressives- end BIG business and corruption. period of the muckrakers.

still reading notes and will put together more tomorrow. *blah* (yes, that was intelligent wasnt it)

Were there reasons other than ability (or lack of) that made the East more successful than the West?

The size of the area of operation in the East was smaller. Lee’s job was to keep Richmond from falling.

The strategy defending particular positions rather than going after particular armies (Jominian Strategy: Do the greatest damage to enemy with least to self, concentrate all forces in strategic place, then go against enemy keeping interior lines of communication open.)

Government policy: Jefferson Davis concerned with saving capital, the West was not his priority.

Geography: Mountains in the East, rivers in the West. Union controlling rivers and Confederates had no navy or control. Confederates tried to defed rivers from land. The challenge was how to defend without a navy.

Navy factor: Union navy attacks from gulf up and down MS river. Confederate trying to build ironclads in NOLA, but no time to concentrate on navy. Confederates had the Arkansas as an ironclad. The Arkansas fended off Faragut in Vicksburg. CSS Arkansas was sent to Baton Rouge, but couldn’t make it, the Confederates blew it up.

Logistics: Lee has secure RR in rear around Richmond going south. Does not have major logistic problem. A lot of food was sent to Lee and not in the West who really needed it. The RR was down in the West. Rivers were tenuous at best, and ran east to west, and subject to raids. Also an expansive territory, so they could not guard all rail lines. Furthermore, n o standard guage.

Communications: not just telegraph. Due to distance from Richmond, many Confederate generals didn’t communicate with Richmond or each other.

Civil Support: For Confederacy in West (as opposed to VA). Because troops couldn’t defend all areas people were left vulnerable, less support for Confederates in the West. Lee had support in VA.

State government support: As long as Lee inn VA the state government offered support. In West, had to move government frequently to avoid capture. Some Governor’s protested because vulnerable. Not as much support in the West.

Decline of morale among Confederate soldiers: Happens to army of VA at Seige of Petersburg. Starts a lot earlier in Western theater. Desertion was a problem.

taking a little jump tonight for civil war info….

“The major cause of the U.S. Civil War was slavery, pure and simple.” Discuss.

There are several catalysts to the Civil War and each can be tied to slavery. I have previously discussed the Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Act. For the sake of continuity I will paste it here and pick up with Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid. Others include the writing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Dred Scott decision.

To begin with, in 1820 the Missouri Compromise dealt with the Louisiana Purchase territory. The compromise attempted to solve the problem of slavery in the LA Purchase, stating that in LA Purchase territory and only in territory draw a line at 36*30′, the southern boundary of MO. Slavery would be allowed south of that line, not north, except in MO. The suggestion was to draw that line all the way to the Pacific.

The question still remained, what to do with all new territory? The Wilmot Proviso tried to attach an amendment to appropriations bill that would support the Mexican War if territory obtained would not allow slavery.

The Compromise of 1850 proposed to solve several issues regarding admittance to the Union. The question most addressed is slavery and the determination of slave or free states. Some proposed the question be answered by popular sovereignty. This opened questions as to when the people decide. Should they decide before being admitted as a state? Should they decide with the adoption of a Constitution? Or, should they decide with a vote after statehood?

With the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in California it became necessary to create a formal government there. the New Mexico area also needed proper government organization. Recommendations were made for both areas to create a constitution and apply for statehood. The question was whether they would be slave or free. New Mexico faced other challenges as well.

New Mexico was involved in a border dispute with Texas. There was also the Mormon question. The Mormon’s had proposed their own state status near the Great Salt Lake. Although not pro-slavery they did accept polygamy, which was just as deplorable as slavery to some members of Congress. Therefore, the focus was drawn to California.

California quickly embraced the opportunity to become a state. A consitution was created, but did not allow slavery. This was frightening to Southerners due to the vast size of the area. To solve the issue the compromise of 1850 was proposed.

The Compromise sought to appease both the pro- and anti-slavery factions. California would be admitted as a free state. Texas would be excused from war debts if they would settled with the New Mexico border. All new territory below the 36*30′ line could enter the Union as slave states and that above as free which would in part allow slaver into new territories. The least debated issue, the stronger fugitive slave law, would become the most explosive.

It is believed Stephen Douglas had an ulterior motive for proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Although he was pro-expansion he also served to make money from the new trans-continental railroad in development. Douglas owned land in the Chicago area. The railroad was being constructed from California through the Kansas-Nebraska area to Chicago. Creating the new territory would hasten the railroad completion.

Again the question in the territory was slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for the determination of slave or free to be by popular sovereignty. It also divided the territory into two. Having two territories would allow a slave/free balance in Congress.

Many in Kansas did not desire to be a slave state. However, Kansas would be bordered on three sides by slave states. As Kansas is created as a territory and creates a Constitution leaving slavery to be voted on by the people, Missouri gets involved. At the first electon of a Congressional representative 1700 Missourians cross the border to sway the vote, choosing a pro-slavery candidate. In March 1855 a territorial legislature had to be selected, 4-5000 crossed the MO/Kansas border for this vote. Over 5000 pro-slavery otes were cast. Almost 5000 were fradulent but President Pierce did nothing. A pro-slavery legislature passed a strict slave code restricting office holding to only those with proslavery views, imprisonment for anyone questioning pro-slavery views, death for anyone supporting slave rebellion or runaways.

Free state settlers began to organize. Henry Ward Beecher suggested sending “Beecher Bibles”, or rifles, in support saying sharps rifles would do more than Bibles as that time to enforce morality. Free state settlers organized a free state party and held a constitutional convention to create a constitution prohibiting slavery. They established their own legislature in 1855-56. Pro-slavery voters boycotted. To prove themselves as not sympathetic to blacks they adopted an ordinance banning the entry of free blacks as well as slaves.

James McPherson describes the two Kansas legislatures, one legal but fraudulent, the other illegal but representing a majority of settlers. The Democratic Senate recognized the first along with the President. The Republican Senate recognized the second.

November of 1855 each side mobilized several hundred armed men along the Wakarusa river. This “Wakarusa War” consisted of only a few skirmishes. Following a harshly cold winter 700 pro-slavery men rode into Lawrence destroying offices, businesses and the newspaper, throwing its press into the river. The house of the free state governor was burned as well as a nearby hotel.

The actions here lead to Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid.

Bleeding Sumner took place about the same time as Bleeding Kansas.

May19-20 Charles Sumner speaks to the Senate regarding “the crime against Kansas”, using sexual metaphors of a rape against Kansas. Sumner also made abusive references to Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Two days later in retaliation for his cousin Andrew Butler, Preston Brooks enters the Senate Chamber and proceeds to beat Charles Sumner with a cane.

Why a cane? When someone is insulted, to get revenge they either challenge the person to a dual if he is an equal, or cane/whip them if they are an inferior. Caning Sumner was symbolic.

Brooks continued beating Sumner, who was trapped at his desk, until other members pulled Brooks away. Sumner was unable to return to his Massachusetts Senate seat for 3 years. It had been saved for him as a symbol of the barbaric nature of slavery.

Southern moderates denounced Brooks for his actions. However, others applauded him.(There were some who actually sent him engraved canes.) Due to Southern vote the necessary 2/3 majority needed to expell him could not be reached. Brooks resigned, but was unanimously re-elected in his district, and he returned.

John Brown believed an “eye for an eye”. He had organized a militia for the Wakarusa War. After learning of the caning of Sumner, Brown led a raid along the Pottawatomie Creek. They seized five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them by splitting their skulls with broad swords. This launched a guerilla war in Kansas. About 200 men died in Kansas fighting in 1856. A truce and strained peace was finally brought to Kansas after the replacment of Kansas Governor Shannon with John Greary.

According the James McPherson, the “violent conflict (at Harpers Ferry) climaxed more than a decade of rising sectional tensions.”

John Brown planned to capture the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, seize weapons, and supply slaves he thought would join him.

October 16, 1859: Brown rented a farm in Maryland across the river from Harper’s Ferry. He had 17 white and 5 black recruits to help. (He tried to get Frederick Douglas to join in, but Douglas refused, thinking the attack would be futile.)

Brown made several mistakes:

• failed to inform slaves of his intentions
• had no escape route
• had no extended supplies
• had no defense for counter attack
• ultimately he had no plan, but attack.

October 17: Local citizens and militia responded to the raid. They cut off bridges across the Potomac, blocking escape. The raid was put down by Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart. Brown would be tried and hanged for his insurrection.

No slaves voluntarily participated.

The actual raid was a failure, but the effects were tremendous. Brown was almost revered as a martyr for the cause of abolition. His trial and post-trial behavior was respected. People felt he acted with dignity. He accepted his fate and almost embraced it, telling friends and family he was worth more to the cause hanged. Brown gained Northern sympathy. Although many disagreed with his method, they embraced his teaching.

John Brow’s Harpers Ferry raid was sectionally divisive. The North sympathized with the cause. The South, according to McPherson, identified Brown with abolition, abolition with Republicans, and Republicans with the North.

War was the result of this polarization because no compromise completely settled the issue of slavery. Each compromise postponed the inevitable. Upon the deaths and destruction, public emotions became involved. The morals of people would not be subject to political compromise.

Who was more successful at manipulating the machinery of government to shape American society? Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson? Why?

Thomas Jefferson:

• Jeffersonian
• Secretary of State
• Cautious about enhancing power of federal government
• Favored yeomen farmer
• Sympathized with French
• Policies continued that of Washington with westward expansion (Irony is the Louisianna Purchase. Jefferson was dedicated to strict interpretation of Presidential powers but seized the opportunity to double the size of the US with purchase of LA.)
• Explicit powers, strict interpretaion of Constitution
• Agrarian
• Jeffersonian Republicanism: self-sufficiency. If everyone is independent they are likely to behave in a maner that will sustain the republic.

Alexander Hamilton

• Federalist
• TreasurySecretary
• Had agreement of Washington with regard to broaden economy and strengthen national government for purpose of national growth.
• Concerned with development of material resources to make nation self-sufficient
• Tended to favor Great Britain in foreign affairs
• Pressed for larger regular army as a means of expanding the power of national government (justified by need to deal with Indians)
• Implied powers proponent
• Believed corruption of government is what makes it work
• Commercial, not agrarian
• Pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts
• During Era of Good Feelings his ideas take hold (develop military, internal improvement, charter national bank)

winner: Alexander Hamilton, father of the national debt. America develops a national bank, develops on credit, establishes a standing army, US still allies with Britain, and continues on the path of governmental corruption.

i am me. take it or leave it. gender roles out the door. if it needs to be done, somebody has to do it. rock, paper, scissors? what do people expect me to be? i guess i dont do the expected. sometimes i do though. although sometimes the expected is conflicting with personal goals. a little of both on that aspect. i do get along with people, male or female. i feel like i can get along with anyone. at least i can if they are not antagonistic. i dont like pious people. some people believe themselves better than another only because they know they are not. jealousy is a driving force, insecurity too.

Republicanism
- the view that allowing the government to govern with the consent of the governed is best.
- sometimes refers to anything in opposition to monarchy.
- can also refer to any government with a system of law protecting individual liberty.

The goal is to further the common interest of society. (Majority rules.)
- must have a constitution
- must be representative of the people- selected
- must have limits, periodic elections
- rule by law and consistency
- division of power
- checks and balances
- active citizenry willing to make changes when they see necessity

It is a theory of freedom and a theory of government, a theory of non-domination. Choices are restricted but only in a manner of keeping with civil society.

Federalism
A system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (states). The levels are interdependent and share sovereignty.

There are two necessities: a closely connected area, desiring to unify

Distribution of power is necessary. Liberty can be restricted and government limited by process to create means of checks and balances.

Federalism was a movement to change the Articles of Confederation and also refers to the Federalist party.

1780s Federalists:
They wanted to change the Articles of Confederation because they believed them to be too weak and advocated a stronger Federal government witht the ability to protect, collect debts, and sustain a military.

Shay’s Rebellion played a role in the push for change.

Shay’s Rebellion was an uprising of small farmers in Massachusetts (1786-87). The American Revolutionary War had created a debt problem. Debts were being called in and small farmers were experiencing a trickle down effect. They were forced to sell land to meet debts and were not getting market value. They first began to protest in the political realm which escalated to full rebellion.

The Federalist Papers:
These were a series of 85 articles, written under the pseudonym Plubius, by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. They were intended to explain the Constitution to residents in NY in an attempt to secure ratification.

They serve as primary source for interpreting the Constitution and outline the philosophy and motivations of the proposed system of government. Author’s influenced ratification as well as future interpretations. Most influential are #10 and #51.

#10 advocates large strong republic
#51 explains the need for separation of powers

Federalist #10
Argues for strong, large republic, which would better guard against the dangers of factions. (political parties)

Hamilton addresses dangers of factions breaking up the republic in #9. Madison in #10 discusses how to eliminate the negative aspect of factions. One way is to remove causes that provoke faction development by either eliminating liberty, which is unacceptable, or creating a homogenous society, which is not practical.

Madison concludes that we can’t remove the causes of factions but can control effects. Popular sovereignty is key. To solve the problem of overpowering majority, Madison believes a larger republic will elect better delegates with greater diversity of interest. These interests will compete allowing for difficult development of a large majority, leaving checks and balances within government to be effective. However, too large of a republic will leave representatives out of touch. It is necessary to leave some issues to states.

The Anti-Federalists did not believe diverse republic would survive. They believed a republic the size of the states could survive, but not one the size of the union. This beliefed developed from economic concerns. Most states were focused on one industry. This disparity would lead to controversy.

Some historians have argued that there is no “early American history” because everything that happened in North America before 1763 was essentially an extension or variation of European history. To what extent do you agree?

It was an extension of European history, but it was also “early American history”. There is an overlap. As the colonists arrived they held to their native land/culture. Over time they developed an American identity, a colonial identity. Despite being answerable to the monarchy, they were pretty much on their own to operate as they saw beneficial to colonial life.

To have a democracy it is necessary to have a group with a “say” in the activities of government. My students would argue that they are not free, and they are correct. They do have freedoms that non-democratic nations do not have. I think that Americans are born free and democratic, but must earn the right to participate in the free and democratic process. It is arguable about the point of freedom. However, with maturity comes freedom. Some would still argue there is no freedom. But, I am not discussing freedom. I am discussing democracy. Citizens have the ability to lobby for change, and have representatives speaking on their behalf. These same representatives represent even those who have not yet reached the age of participation. Therefore, yes, one in America is born into a free and democratic society.

Now taking a different stance, were Americans, the Colonials, born free and democratic in a modern sense? No. Despite maybe being born in the colonies they were born into a monarchy, subject to the King. In a democracy people are independent. Although the people of the colonies did their own thing, they were not independent of the monarchy.

Some of the best readings and resources for this program were done last summer in our Civil War study. Marszalek was a great prof and his writing is interesting as well. Sherman’s Other War was the first book of the program that I read cover to cover and really enjoyed. The most interesting research paper was done in this class as well, a historiography review of Civil War prisons.

The first two works are from James McPherson, preeminent Civil War historian. I had the pleasure of interviewing him for historiography. Very interesting. He writes in such a way that is appealing to both the historian and history buff.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era McPherson argues that the issue of slavery drove the country into war. His book analyzes the issue over the spread of slavery into the western territories following the Mexican War and how this issue was never resolved and ultimately ended with war. His ideal of freedom comes into question, because the end of slavery did not yield, freedom.

McPherson, James M. Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction
The general theme of this book is the rise of a consolidated, industrial America, hastened by the war, and unobtrusive and unmistakable for the moral earnestness of righteous Yankees. Three things: The war and its aftermath were a product of modernization, this modernization emerged in New England, and the Republicans became the voice of the modernization expression.

Marszalek, John. Sherman’s Other War
Marszalek presents Sherman and his battle over the issue of First Amendment freedoms during war time. Sherman blamed the media for his personal defeats earlier in life as a businessperson. Sherman feared that the media would relate strategic information to the enemy and that criticism of military leaders would hurt soldier war. He is portrayed as sympathetic to the South and carried racism toward free blacks. It is referred to as a psychobiography. Sherman’s peace treaty with Johnson is examined and again puts Sherman in the aim of the negative press as being too lenient to Southerners and guilty of treason. Depicts his “total war” was due to him wanting a quick end to the war by breaking the spirit and support of those in the south.

Marvel, William. Andersonville: The Last Depot
Portrays the reality of the Civil War prison camps. Marvel argues Henry Wirz and the Confederate captors did not intentionally contribute to the brutal life Union prisoners faced at Andersonville. Wirz, who Marvel considers the scapegoat for Andersonville atrocities, was in reality the victim of indifferent commanders, as well as the failing Confederate economy.

Ripple, Ezra Hoyt (ed Mark Snell). Dancing Along the Deadline: The Andersonville Memoirs of a Prisoner of the Confederacy
Divided into two parts, the first section describes Ripple’s imprisonment at Andersonville and the second describes experiences at Florence. Ripple describes his experiences within the gates of Andersonville as well as out.

Stampp, Kenneth. The Era of Reconstruction
Viewed Lincoln as a politician that hoped to unite moderate northern Republicans and Southern Whigs into a national moderate political faction. Johnson is presented as weak, and the Radical Republicans are the last of the romantic reformers.

Berberoglu, Berch. Turmoil in the Middle East: Imperialism, War, and Political Instability

Berch Berberoglu examines Middle East conflict from the perspective of social forces driving the continuing strife, presenting the origins, nature, and contradictions of regional conflict, as well as the impact of western involvement. Berberoglu first addresses the impact of Western imperialism on the Middle East beginning in the late nineteenth century and names oil as the driving force of continued interest. He then highlights the political and social impact of continuous coups and revolutions. In his evaluation of Middle Eastern affairs Berberoglu covers the influence of external forces such as Europe and the United States

Brands, H.W. Into the Labyrinth

According to Brands the three factors promoting American involvement in the Middle East included oil, the Soviet Union, and Israel. Brands clarifies that these were merely influences on America and did not entirely determine American actions.

Gerges, Fawaz. America and Political Islam

Gerges examines the preservation of American foreign policy development through changing administrations, from Carter to Clinton, and America’s interaction within the Middle East, while focusing on elitist thinking regarding Islamist states and movements. He outlines the development of policy as it relates to the culture and historical developments in the Middle East. Influenced by public opinion, media, private interviews, policy oriented academic programs, think tanks, Congress, and institutional sources, Gerges analyzes perceptions of religious Islam as related to terrorism.

Hadar, Leon. Quagmire; America and the Middle East

Hadar examines the political divergence of the region and the reaction of the United States to it. According to Hadar, Mid East instability is derived from the lack of legitimacy of political institutions. Ethnic and religious groups compete for power and achieve victory status by gaining control of media outlets. Outside interventions have continually failed. Hadar compares external influence to the “Butterfly Effect”, in that it achieves variable and unpredictable outcomes in a society lacking liberal or democratic traditions. He concludes such legitimacy can not be achieved as external powers foster dependency on military and economic aid and assumes the wrong lessons have been taken from U.S. actions in the 1990 Gulf War. In Hadar’s opinion, involvement in the Middle East entails unpredictable and immense costs which are assumed by those involved, mainly the United States.

Kaufman, Burton. The Arab Middle East

Kaufman offers a general introduction to Arab/U.S. relations since World War II. According to Kaufman, the distinguishing factor of The Arab Middle East is his attention to the Arab side of U.S./Arab relations. Understanding such a relationship is dependent upon the proper understanding of the nature of Arab states, their rivalries, history, confrontations, ethnic and religious differences. Kaufman thematically examines such internal divisions, as well as the impact of the Cold War. He refers to the U.S. concern with communist expansion and influence as a malignancy on the nation’s relations with Arab states.

McAlister, Melanie. Epic Encounters

McAlister describes America’s involvement in the Middle East as literal and metaphorical. She explains America is involved in physical conflicts in the region, while also encountering Middle East issues in television and media, discussions of ancient history, and religious debate.