HST 201 Module #11
Module Eleven: When the Levee Breaks (1854 CE - 1861 CE)
The years from 1854 to 1861 were a critical period in United States history. During this time, the nation grappled with the issue of slavery, and tensions between the North and South grew. This period ultimately led to the American Civil War, which had a profound impact on the country and its people. It is crucial to study this subject today because it sheds light on the causes and consequences of the war, and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and social justice in the United States.
The year 1854 saw the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed for the expansion of slavery into new territories. This act was a major catalyst for the growing conflict between the North and South. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case that African Americans were not citizens and had no legal rights. This decision further inflamed tensions and helped to set the stage for the Civil War.
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and many in the South saw this as a threat to their way of life. In December of that year, South Carolina seceded from the Union, followed by several other southern states. These secessionist states formed the Confederate States of America, and the stage was set for a bloody and protracted conflict.
The American Civil War began in 1861, and it would last for four years, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the near-destruction of the South. The war was fought over the issue of slavery and the fundamental question of whether or not the United States would remain a unified nation. The Union ultimately emerged victorious, and slavery was abolished.
The period from 1854 to 1861 was a time of great strife and conflict in the United States. The positives of this period include the eventual abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union. However, the negatives include the tremendous loss of life and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and social justice in the aftermath of the war.
Studying this subject today is crucial because it helps us to understand the roots of many of the social and political issues that still exist in the United States. The legacy of slavery and racism continues to shape the country in profound ways, and it is only by grappling with this history that we can hope to create a more just and equitable society.
THE RUNDOWN
QUESTIONS
Sources:
Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Oakes, James. The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.
Chicago Manual of Style. 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
The years from 1854 to 1861 were a critical period in United States history. During this time, the nation grappled with the issue of slavery, and tensions between the North and South grew. This period ultimately led to the American Civil War, which had a profound impact on the country and its people. It is crucial to study this subject today because it sheds light on the causes and consequences of the war, and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and social justice in the United States.
The year 1854 saw the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed for the expansion of slavery into new territories. This act was a major catalyst for the growing conflict between the North and South. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case that African Americans were not citizens and had no legal rights. This decision further inflamed tensions and helped to set the stage for the Civil War.
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and many in the South saw this as a threat to their way of life. In December of that year, South Carolina seceded from the Union, followed by several other southern states. These secessionist states formed the Confederate States of America, and the stage was set for a bloody and protracted conflict.
The American Civil War began in 1861, and it would last for four years, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the near-destruction of the South. The war was fought over the issue of slavery and the fundamental question of whether or not the United States would remain a unified nation. The Union ultimately emerged victorious, and slavery was abolished.
The period from 1854 to 1861 was a time of great strife and conflict in the United States. The positives of this period include the eventual abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union. However, the negatives include the tremendous loss of life and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and social justice in the aftermath of the war.
Studying this subject today is crucial because it helps us to understand the roots of many of the social and political issues that still exist in the United States. The legacy of slavery and racism continues to shape the country in profound ways, and it is only by grappling with this history that we can hope to create a more just and equitable society.
THE RUNDOWN
- The period from 1854 to 1861 was a critical time in US history, marked by tension between the North and South over the issue of slavery.
- The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857 were major catalysts for this conflict.
- Abraham Lincoln's election as president in 1860 and the subsequent secession of several southern states led to the formation of the Confederate States of America and the start of the Civil War in 1861.
- The war was fought over the issue of slavery and the question of whether the United States would remain a unified nation, and it resulted in the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the Union.
- However, the war also resulted in a tremendous loss of life and had ongoing implications for civil rights and social justice in the United States.
- Studying this period is crucial for understanding the roots of many current social and political issues in the US, including the legacy of slavery and racism.
QUESTIONS
- What were the main causes of the tensions between the North and South during the period from 1854 to 1861?
- How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott v. Sandford case contribute to the outbreak of the Civil War?
- What role did Abraham Lincoln play in the events leading up to the Civil War?
Sources:
Foner, Eric. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Oakes, James. The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.
Chicago Manual of Style. 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
#11 Avoid Pseudohistory
In examining the vast and complex tapestry of human experience, history has emerged as a vital tool for comprehending our past, illuminating our present, and shaping our future. But let us not be blinded by the illusion that all historical narratives are equal, for there exists a dangerous phenomenon known as pseudohistory. Pseudohistory is a deceitful form of historical writing that perverts or obfuscates the truth, often masquerading behind the guise of legitimate historical inquiry. Its tentacles can be found woven throughout the pages of books, articles, and speeches, and its influence has the potential to warp our understanding of the past.
Indeed, the danger of pseudohistory cannot be understated. To fully appreciate this dangerous force, we must examine its defining characteristics, scrutinize its insidious methods, and recognize its historical manifestations. From the whitewashing of genocidal campaigns to the romanticization of brutal colonialism, pseudohistory distorts the past and undermines our capacity to learn from it. Therefore, we must be vigilant in our pursuit of historical knowledge, perpetually wary of the seductive allure of pseudohistory. Only through a clear-eyed appraisal of our past can we hope to shape a better future.
Pseudohistory is Unfalsifiable: The thing about pseudohistory is that it's as slippery as a greased-up eel. You can't pin it down, can't prove it wrong, can't verify it, no matter how hard you try. It's like trying to catch a ghost with a butterfly net. Take the case of Christopher Columbus. Some folks still swear up and down that he was the first cat to look at America. But come on now, let's get real. There were already people living in these parts long before he showed up. It's like saying you discovered a party that's been going on for hours before you arrived. It doesn't add up, and you can't argue with the facts.
Pseudohistory relies heavily on anecdotes: Here's the thing about pseudohistory - it's like a bowl of soup made entirely of stories. These so-called writers, they'll grab a juicy tale or two and use them to prop up their grandiose claims about history. Take, for instance, the notion that extraterrestrial beings cruised down to our humble planet and lent a hand in constructing the pyramids. Now that's a tale as tall as a camel's hump! But let me tell you, it's based on hearsay and completely disregards the solid evidence that skilled human workers were behind those significant structures. Don't be fooled, my friends - true history is about facts and critical thinking, not just a bunch of wild tales thrown together.
Pseudohistory cherry picks: It's a lot like going to a fruit stand and only picking the cherries while ignoring all the other fruits. Pseudohistorical writers do the same thing with evidence to support their claims. They'll grab onto the bits that fit their narrative and disregard anything that doesn't. Take, for instance, the Holocaust deniers. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence proving the occurrence of this horrific event, these individuals will cherry-pick their sources, taking only what they need to support their twisted view of history. But that's not how the truth works, and it's not how history works. We need to take a more nuanced approach that accounts for all the facts, even the uncomfortable ones.
Pseudohistory uses obfuscation: These pseudohistorical writers they're crafty little devils. They don't just sling malarky; they try to make it sound like they know what they're talking about. They'll toss around big words, technical terms, and jargon like it's confetti at a parade. And why? To confuse you, to bamboozle you, to make you think that their wild claims are somehow legit. But don't be fooled, folks. This obfuscation tactic is just a smokescreen for their lack of evidence. They can't prove their theories, so they try to hide behind fancy words and confusing language. Take, for instance, the flat-earth loonies. They'll spout nonsense, but what do you find when you strip away the linguistic camouflage? No scientific evidence, that's what.
Pseudohistory lacks plausible mechanisms: These scribblers of pseudohistorical tomes often make grandiose claims without evidence to back them up. Nay, they offer no reasonable explanation for the extraordinary happenings they speak of. Behold, some of these fanciful folk would have you believe that beings constructed the great pyramids, not of this world, ancient aliens who traversed the vast reaches of space to aid us, mere mortals, in our quest to build monuments to our greatness. But tell me, pray, how did these extraterrestrial entities travel to our world, and for what purpose did they choose to assist us in such a manner? Verily, there is no sound reasoning behind these outlandish assertions. Some among us are so enamored with the mysteries of the past that they would rather cling to fanciful tales than confront the hard truths of history.
Pseudohistory is unchanging: The peddlers of pseudohistory are notorious for their reluctance to entertain alternative interpretations or fresh evidence that might challenge their claims. Even with overwhelming proof, they tenaciously cling to their pet theories. Take, for example, the case of William Shakespeare. Despite a mountain of evidence attesting to his authorship of the great literary works that bear his name, some argue otherwise. These pseudohistorians remain steadfast in their convictions, refusing to acknowledge any new evidence or alternative explanations that support the widely accepted view that Shakespeare did indeed pen his plays. This stubbornness, often found among those who traffic in pseudohistory, is a warning. It reminds us of the dangers of willful ignorance and the importance of critically evaluating evidence and considering alternative viewpoints in our quest for historical truth.
Pseudohistory makes extraordinary/exaggerated claims: Pseudohistory is when people make bold, wild claims without proof to back them up. These so-called "pseudohistorical writers" like to spin tales that don't have enough evidence to hold water or require a mountain of proof even to begin to make sense. Take, for instance, those who claim the Illuminati run the whole dang world. But ask them for some solid evidence, and you'll likely get a lot of hot air instead.
Pseudohistory professes certainty: In history, there have been a lot of snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. These pseudohistorical scribes strut around, promising certainty and spewing absolute truths like a carnival barker hawking their goods. But the thing is, history is rarely so clear-cut. It's a complex tapestry of events, people, and ideas, woven together in ways that often defy easy categorization. For instance, the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It's a claim usually made with great conviction by those who would rewrite our past. But scratch the surface, and you'll find that it's a gross oversimplification, ignoring the nuanced views of the founding fathers, many of whom were deeply skeptical of organized religion. This kind of reductionism gives pseudohistory a lousy name and cheapens the richness of our collective heritage.
Pseudohistory commits logical fallacies: So you've got these pseudohistorians, right? And they're out there making claims that don't have any factual basis. And to make matters worse, they're using all these logical fallacies to try and distract you from the fact that they don't have any evidence to back up what they're saying. It's like they're trying to pull a fast one on you. Take the climate change deniers, for instance. They'll throw out all these straw man arguments, trying to make it seem like the science behind climate change is flawed or incomplete. But really, they're just trying to deflect attention away from the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change. It's a classic case of smoke and mirrors, and it's just not cool.
Pseudohistory lacks peer review: One of the telltale signs of pseudohistory is the absence of peer review. Now, I'm not talkin' about no ordinary peer review; I'm talkin' about the kind that separates the true scholars from the phonies. In science and academia, peer review is the holy grail, where experts scrutinize a study or research paper and tear it apart like hungry vultures. But these pseudohistorical writers don't have the stones for that kind of heat. They publish their outrageous claims in some self-published book or sketchy online forum without even one external review or critique. And that's how the lies and the nonsense start to spread like a disease, infecting unsuspecting minds with their baseless claims.
Pseudohistory claims a conspiracy: In the murky world of pseudohistorical scribblers, a common refrain echoes throughout their ranks: a sinister plot conspires to quash their ideas. Their plaintive cry, oft-repeated, seeks to elucidate the lack of support their fanciful notions receive from the academic fraternity. Their proclamations bear witness to this dark mindset. Verily, some avow that the scientific community is the puppet master behind a grand deception, withholding evidence of Bigfoot's existence from the eyes of the world. This claim, bereft of proof, only diverts attention from the lack of empirical data bolstering the claim of Bigfoot's reality.
In examining the rule of history, we must be vigilant against the scourge of pseudohistory. This is a matter of utmost importance for several compelling reasons:
Pseudohistory is nothing but a load of baloney. It's like a fake scholar trying to bend the truth to their will. And how do we know it's pseudohistory? Well, it's full of unprovable stories, little snippets of evidence plucked out of context, and tough talk that makes it hard to see what's happening. There needs to be an accurate method to the madness, no clear path to understanding the past. Instead, it's a mishmash of half-truths and wild claims without any logical basis or sound reasoning. And don't forget those crazy conspiracy theories! If you want to avoid getting caught up in this nonsense, you've got to be smart about it. You've got to know the signs and pseudohistory markers that give it away. Watch out for claims that can't be tested or proved, for stories that don't make sense, and for people who resist new evidence or different explanations. In short, folks, if you want to be an accurate historian, you've got to learn to tell the wheat from the chaff. You've got to seek out the peer review, logical arguments, and hard facts. Only then can you truly appreciate the beauty and rigor of genuine historical research.
THE RUNDOWN
THE STATE OF THE UNION
In examining the vast and complex tapestry of human experience, history has emerged as a vital tool for comprehending our past, illuminating our present, and shaping our future. But let us not be blinded by the illusion that all historical narratives are equal, for there exists a dangerous phenomenon known as pseudohistory. Pseudohistory is a deceitful form of historical writing that perverts or obfuscates the truth, often masquerading behind the guise of legitimate historical inquiry. Its tentacles can be found woven throughout the pages of books, articles, and speeches, and its influence has the potential to warp our understanding of the past.
Indeed, the danger of pseudohistory cannot be understated. To fully appreciate this dangerous force, we must examine its defining characteristics, scrutinize its insidious methods, and recognize its historical manifestations. From the whitewashing of genocidal campaigns to the romanticization of brutal colonialism, pseudohistory distorts the past and undermines our capacity to learn from it. Therefore, we must be vigilant in our pursuit of historical knowledge, perpetually wary of the seductive allure of pseudohistory. Only through a clear-eyed appraisal of our past can we hope to shape a better future.
Pseudohistory is Unfalsifiable: The thing about pseudohistory is that it's as slippery as a greased-up eel. You can't pin it down, can't prove it wrong, can't verify it, no matter how hard you try. It's like trying to catch a ghost with a butterfly net. Take the case of Christopher Columbus. Some folks still swear up and down that he was the first cat to look at America. But come on now, let's get real. There were already people living in these parts long before he showed up. It's like saying you discovered a party that's been going on for hours before you arrived. It doesn't add up, and you can't argue with the facts.
Pseudohistory relies heavily on anecdotes: Here's the thing about pseudohistory - it's like a bowl of soup made entirely of stories. These so-called writers, they'll grab a juicy tale or two and use them to prop up their grandiose claims about history. Take, for instance, the notion that extraterrestrial beings cruised down to our humble planet and lent a hand in constructing the pyramids. Now that's a tale as tall as a camel's hump! But let me tell you, it's based on hearsay and completely disregards the solid evidence that skilled human workers were behind those significant structures. Don't be fooled, my friends - true history is about facts and critical thinking, not just a bunch of wild tales thrown together.
Pseudohistory cherry picks: It's a lot like going to a fruit stand and only picking the cherries while ignoring all the other fruits. Pseudohistorical writers do the same thing with evidence to support their claims. They'll grab onto the bits that fit their narrative and disregard anything that doesn't. Take, for instance, the Holocaust deniers. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence proving the occurrence of this horrific event, these individuals will cherry-pick their sources, taking only what they need to support their twisted view of history. But that's not how the truth works, and it's not how history works. We need to take a more nuanced approach that accounts for all the facts, even the uncomfortable ones.
Pseudohistory uses obfuscation: These pseudohistorical writers they're crafty little devils. They don't just sling malarky; they try to make it sound like they know what they're talking about. They'll toss around big words, technical terms, and jargon like it's confetti at a parade. And why? To confuse you, to bamboozle you, to make you think that their wild claims are somehow legit. But don't be fooled, folks. This obfuscation tactic is just a smokescreen for their lack of evidence. They can't prove their theories, so they try to hide behind fancy words and confusing language. Take, for instance, the flat-earth loonies. They'll spout nonsense, but what do you find when you strip away the linguistic camouflage? No scientific evidence, that's what.
Pseudohistory lacks plausible mechanisms: These scribblers of pseudohistorical tomes often make grandiose claims without evidence to back them up. Nay, they offer no reasonable explanation for the extraordinary happenings they speak of. Behold, some of these fanciful folk would have you believe that beings constructed the great pyramids, not of this world, ancient aliens who traversed the vast reaches of space to aid us, mere mortals, in our quest to build monuments to our greatness. But tell me, pray, how did these extraterrestrial entities travel to our world, and for what purpose did they choose to assist us in such a manner? Verily, there is no sound reasoning behind these outlandish assertions. Some among us are so enamored with the mysteries of the past that they would rather cling to fanciful tales than confront the hard truths of history.
Pseudohistory is unchanging: The peddlers of pseudohistory are notorious for their reluctance to entertain alternative interpretations or fresh evidence that might challenge their claims. Even with overwhelming proof, they tenaciously cling to their pet theories. Take, for example, the case of William Shakespeare. Despite a mountain of evidence attesting to his authorship of the great literary works that bear his name, some argue otherwise. These pseudohistorians remain steadfast in their convictions, refusing to acknowledge any new evidence or alternative explanations that support the widely accepted view that Shakespeare did indeed pen his plays. This stubbornness, often found among those who traffic in pseudohistory, is a warning. It reminds us of the dangers of willful ignorance and the importance of critically evaluating evidence and considering alternative viewpoints in our quest for historical truth.
Pseudohistory makes extraordinary/exaggerated claims: Pseudohistory is when people make bold, wild claims without proof to back them up. These so-called "pseudohistorical writers" like to spin tales that don't have enough evidence to hold water or require a mountain of proof even to begin to make sense. Take, for instance, those who claim the Illuminati run the whole dang world. But ask them for some solid evidence, and you'll likely get a lot of hot air instead.
Pseudohistory professes certainty: In history, there have been a lot of snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. These pseudohistorical scribes strut around, promising certainty and spewing absolute truths like a carnival barker hawking their goods. But the thing is, history is rarely so clear-cut. It's a complex tapestry of events, people, and ideas, woven together in ways that often defy easy categorization. For instance, the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It's a claim usually made with great conviction by those who would rewrite our past. But scratch the surface, and you'll find that it's a gross oversimplification, ignoring the nuanced views of the founding fathers, many of whom were deeply skeptical of organized religion. This kind of reductionism gives pseudohistory a lousy name and cheapens the richness of our collective heritage.
Pseudohistory commits logical fallacies: So you've got these pseudohistorians, right? And they're out there making claims that don't have any factual basis. And to make matters worse, they're using all these logical fallacies to try and distract you from the fact that they don't have any evidence to back up what they're saying. It's like they're trying to pull a fast one on you. Take the climate change deniers, for instance. They'll throw out all these straw man arguments, trying to make it seem like the science behind climate change is flawed or incomplete. But really, they're just trying to deflect attention away from the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change. It's a classic case of smoke and mirrors, and it's just not cool.
Pseudohistory lacks peer review: One of the telltale signs of pseudohistory is the absence of peer review. Now, I'm not talkin' about no ordinary peer review; I'm talkin' about the kind that separates the true scholars from the phonies. In science and academia, peer review is the holy grail, where experts scrutinize a study or research paper and tear it apart like hungry vultures. But these pseudohistorical writers don't have the stones for that kind of heat. They publish their outrageous claims in some self-published book or sketchy online forum without even one external review or critique. And that's how the lies and the nonsense start to spread like a disease, infecting unsuspecting minds with their baseless claims.
Pseudohistory claims a conspiracy: In the murky world of pseudohistorical scribblers, a common refrain echoes throughout their ranks: a sinister plot conspires to quash their ideas. Their plaintive cry, oft-repeated, seeks to elucidate the lack of support their fanciful notions receive from the academic fraternity. Their proclamations bear witness to this dark mindset. Verily, some avow that the scientific community is the puppet master behind a grand deception, withholding evidence of Bigfoot's existence from the eyes of the world. This claim, bereft of proof, only diverts attention from the lack of empirical data bolstering the claim of Bigfoot's reality.
In examining the rule of history, we must be vigilant against the scourge of pseudohistory. This is a matter of utmost importance for several compelling reasons:
- Comprehending the distinguishing traits of pseudohistory empowers us to identify and avoid false or misleading assertions about the past. This proficiency is of particular significance in an era marked by the epidemic of misinformation, where spurious claims can spread like wildfire on social media and other online platforms.
- The study of pseudohistory offers insight into the limitations and obstacles that beset historical research. History is not an exact science; historians must navigate through intricate sources and prejudices to uncover the truth about ancient events.
- Examining pseudohistory enables us to value the rigorous standards of academic research and peer review.
- Peer review is an indispensable component of academic research and guarantees that propositions are founded on evidence and sound reasoning. By grasping the process and protocols of academic research, we can develop a greater appreciation for the scientific method and the meticulousness that it demands.
Pseudohistory is nothing but a load of baloney. It's like a fake scholar trying to bend the truth to their will. And how do we know it's pseudohistory? Well, it's full of unprovable stories, little snippets of evidence plucked out of context, and tough talk that makes it hard to see what's happening. There needs to be an accurate method to the madness, no clear path to understanding the past. Instead, it's a mishmash of half-truths and wild claims without any logical basis or sound reasoning. And don't forget those crazy conspiracy theories! If you want to avoid getting caught up in this nonsense, you've got to be smart about it. You've got to know the signs and pseudohistory markers that give it away. Watch out for claims that can't be tested or proved, for stories that don't make sense, and for people who resist new evidence or different explanations. In short, folks, if you want to be an accurate historian, you've got to learn to tell the wheat from the chaff. You've got to seek out the peer review, logical arguments, and hard facts. Only then can you truly appreciate the beauty and rigor of genuine historical research.
THE RUNDOWN
- Pseudohistory is fake history that lies or confuses what happened. Sometimes it pretends to be actual history.
- Pseudohistory changes the past and makes it hard to learn from it.
- It can be proven right and mainly relies on stories.
- People who write pseudohistory only pick evidence that supports their ideas and make it hard to understand. They only like to think about other ideas that might agree with them.
- To learn real history, we must be careful and consider the evidence. We should always try to find the truth by looking at things carefully.
THE STATE OF THE UNION
January 9, 1861 - Mississippi proclaimed its secession from the Union, withdrawing from Congress.
HIGHLIGHTS
|
|
We've got some fine classroom lectures coming your way, all courtesy of the RPTM podcast. These lectures will take you on a wild ride through history, exploring everything from ancient civilizations and epic battles to scientific breakthroughs and artistic revolutions. The podcast will guide you through each lecture with its no-nonsense, straight-talking style, using various sources to give you the lowdown on each topic. You won't find any fancy-pants jargon or convoluted theories here, just plain and straightforward explanations anyone can understand. So sit back and prepare to soak up some knowledge.
LECTURES
LECTURES
READING
This class utilizes the following textbook:
Carnes, Mark C., and John A. Garraty. American Destiny: Narrative of a Nation. 4th ed. Vol. 1.: Pearson, 2011.
Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty are respected historians who have made notable contributions to American history. First, we've got Carnes - this guy's a real maverick when it comes to studying the good ol' US of A. He's all about the secret societies that helped shape our culture in the 1800s. You know, the ones that operated behind closed doors had their fingers in all sorts of pies. Carnes is the man who can unravel those mysteries and give us a glimpse into the underbelly of American culture. We've also got Garraty in the mix. This guy's no slouch either - he's known for taking a big-picture view of American history and bringing it to life with his engaging writing style. Whether profiling famous figures from our past or digging deep into a particular aspect of our nation's history, Garraty always keeps it accurate and accessible. You don't need a Ph.D. to understand what he's saying, and that's why he's a true heavyweight in the field.
- Carnes Chapter 14 “The Coming of the Civil War”
This class utilizes the following textbook:
Carnes, Mark C., and John A. Garraty. American Destiny: Narrative of a Nation. 4th ed. Vol. 1.: Pearson, 2011.
Mark C. Carnes and John A. Garraty are respected historians who have made notable contributions to American history. First, we've got Carnes - this guy's a real maverick when it comes to studying the good ol' US of A. He's all about the secret societies that helped shape our culture in the 1800s. You know, the ones that operated behind closed doors had their fingers in all sorts of pies. Carnes is the man who can unravel those mysteries and give us a glimpse into the underbelly of American culture. We've also got Garraty in the mix. This guy's no slouch either - he's known for taking a big-picture view of American history and bringing it to life with his engaging writing style. Whether profiling famous figures from our past or digging deep into a particular aspect of our nation's history, Garraty always keeps it accurate and accessible. You don't need a Ph.D. to understand what he's saying, and that's why he's a true heavyweight in the field.
Howard Zinn was a historian, writer, and political activist known for his critical analysis of American history. He is particularly well-known for his counter-narrative to traditional American history accounts and highlights marginalized groups' experiences and perspectives. Zinn's work is often associated with social history and is known for his Marxist and socialist views. Larry Schweikart is also a historian, but his work and perspective are often considered more conservative. Schweikart's work is often associated with military history, and he is known for his support of free-market economics and limited government. Overall, Zinn and Schweikart have different perspectives on various historical issues and events and may interpret historical events and phenomena differently. Occasionally, we will also look at Thaddeus Russell, a historian, author, and academic. Russell has written extensively on the history of social and cultural change, and his work focuses on how marginalized and oppressed groups have challenged and transformed mainstream culture. Russell is known for his unconventional and controversial ideas, and his work has been praised for its originality and provocative nature.
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
Zinn, A People's History of the United States
"... It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system. If a rebellion, it might get out of hand, and turn its ferocity beyond slavery to the most successful system of capitalist enrichment in the world. If a war, those
who made the war would organize its consequences. Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later-end slavery.
With slavery abolished by order of the government-true, a government pushed hard to do so, by blacks, free and slave, and by white abolitionists-its end could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation. Liberation from the top would go only so far as the interests of the dominant groups permitted. If carried further by the momentum of war, the rhetoric of a crusade, it could be pulled back to a safer position. Thus, while the ending of slavery led to a reconstruction of national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction, but a safe one- in fact, a profitable one..."
"... It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system. If a rebellion, it might get out of hand, and turn its ferocity beyond slavery to the most successful system of capitalist enrichment in the world. If a war, those
who made the war would organize its consequences. Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later-end slavery.
With slavery abolished by order of the government-true, a government pushed hard to do so, by blacks, free and slave, and by white abolitionists-its end could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation. Liberation from the top would go only so far as the interests of the dominant groups permitted. If carried further by the momentum of war, the rhetoric of a crusade, it could be pulled back to a safer position. Thus, while the ending of slavery led to a reconstruction of national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction, but a safe one- in fact, a profitable one..."
Larry Schweikart, A Patriot's History of the United States
"... John Brown illustrated exactly what Lincoln meant about respect for the laws, and the likelihood that violence would destroy the nation if Congress or the courts could not put slavery on a course to extinction. Lincoln, who had returned to his legal work before the Urbana circuit court, despised Brown’s vigilantism. Mob riots in St. Louis had inspired his Lyceum Address, and although Lincoln thought Brown courageous and thoughtful, he also thought him a criminal. Brown’s raid, Lincoln observed, represented a continuing breakdown in law and order spawned by the degrading of the law in the hands of the slave states. More disorder followed, but of a different type.
When the Thirty-fifth Congress met in December, only three days after Brown had dangled at the end of a rope, it split as sharply as the rest of the nation. The Capitol Building in which the legislators gathered, had nearly assumed its modern form after major construction and remodeling between 1851 and 1858. The physical edifice grew in strength and grandeur at the same time that the invisible organs and blood that gave it life—the political parties—seemed to crumble more each day. Democrats held the Senate, but in the House the Republicans had 109 votes and the Democrats 101. To confuse matters even more, more than 10 percent of the Democrats refused to support any proslavery Southerner. Then there were the 27 proslavery Whigs who could have held the balance, but wishing not to be cut out of any committees, treaded carefully. When the election for Speaker of the House took place, it became clear how far down the path of disunion the nation had wandered..."
"... John Brown illustrated exactly what Lincoln meant about respect for the laws, and the likelihood that violence would destroy the nation if Congress or the courts could not put slavery on a course to extinction. Lincoln, who had returned to his legal work before the Urbana circuit court, despised Brown’s vigilantism. Mob riots in St. Louis had inspired his Lyceum Address, and although Lincoln thought Brown courageous and thoughtful, he also thought him a criminal. Brown’s raid, Lincoln observed, represented a continuing breakdown in law and order spawned by the degrading of the law in the hands of the slave states. More disorder followed, but of a different type.
When the Thirty-fifth Congress met in December, only three days after Brown had dangled at the end of a rope, it split as sharply as the rest of the nation. The Capitol Building in which the legislators gathered, had nearly assumed its modern form after major construction and remodeling between 1851 and 1858. The physical edifice grew in strength and grandeur at the same time that the invisible organs and blood that gave it life—the political parties—seemed to crumble more each day. Democrats held the Senate, but in the House the Republicans had 109 votes and the Democrats 101. To confuse matters even more, more than 10 percent of the Democrats refused to support any proslavery Southerner. Then there were the 27 proslavery Whigs who could have held the balance, but wishing not to be cut out of any committees, treaded carefully. When the election for Speaker of the House took place, it became clear how far down the path of disunion the nation had wandered..."
Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States
"... Without a doubt, selling a slave that broke apart a family was one of the most difficult aspects of being enslaved. There is disagreement over exactly what percentage of families were disrupted this way. Still, during the lifetime of slavery in America, at least tens of thousands of people were forcibly removed from their loved ones. Whatever the exact number, however, it is undoubtedly smaller than the number of free people who were forced from their homes by compulsion or obligation. More than five million free Americans, a large
percentage of whom were conscripted and participated in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American Wax, and the Civil War. More than six hundred thousand never returned from the battlefield. Economic transformations forced millions more to leave their families. The rise of large-scale commercial farming and manufacturing growth before the Civil War dissolved family farms and compelled both fathers and sons and mothers and daughters to relocate to support themselves or their families. Sometimes families would shut down their farms and move together to a city, but more often, the children able to work were sent off on their own..."
"... Without a doubt, selling a slave that broke apart a family was one of the most difficult aspects of being enslaved. There is disagreement over exactly what percentage of families were disrupted this way. Still, during the lifetime of slavery in America, at least tens of thousands of people were forcibly removed from their loved ones. Whatever the exact number, however, it is undoubtedly smaller than the number of free people who were forced from their homes by compulsion or obligation. More than five million free Americans, a large
percentage of whom were conscripted and participated in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American Wax, and the Civil War. More than six hundred thousand never returned from the battlefield. Economic transformations forced millions more to leave their families. The rise of large-scale commercial farming and manufacturing growth before the Civil War dissolved family farms and compelled both fathers and sons and mothers and daughters to relocate to support themselves or their families. Sometimes families would shut down their farms and move together to a city, but more often, the children able to work were sent off on their own..."
The fight against slavery in the United States was a wild and tangled mess, revealing many complications regarding emancipation. Now, let's talk about two fellas with quite different ideas on tackling this mess: John Brown and Abraham Lincoln. Brown, bless his rebellious heart, thought a little violence could do the trick, but his small-scale shenanigans showed just how risky rebellion can be. On the other hand, good old Abe brought out the big guns and waged a whole dang Civil War, ultimately ending slavery. But here's the kicker: the government's control over the entire emancipation gig meant they could still look out for the big shots, so the reconstruction business turned out to be much less radical than it could've been. Get ready to ride through the deep political divisions and the total breakdown of law and order. And as if that isn't enough, we'll also mull over how selling human beings and tearing families apart was a downright ugly side of slavery. Millions of free Americans suffered forced separations thanks to economic changes and warfare demands. Now, you all need to understand that digging into this stuff today is essential to grasp the complexities of US history and reckon with the ups and downs of these crazy events.
The audacious escapade of John Brown and his grand raid on Harpers Ferry back in '59 was a moment that thrust the glaring divide over slavery right into the spotlight. With a touch of violence and a pinch of rebellion, Brown attempted to ignite enthusiasm against those pesky slaveholders, showing us all just how dangerous and radical the pursuit of freedom could be. His grand scheme fell flat, leading to his ultimate capture, trial, and subsequent execution—a bitter pill for the nation to swallow. As expected, this debacle only deepened the chasm between the Northern and Southern folks, each holding steadfast to their contrasting views on the slavery debacle.
Old John Brown's raid comes waltzing in, turning up the heat on an already simmering pot of discontent. Those Southern pro-slavery politicians were not about to let anyone mess with their beloved expansion of slavery. They were positively livid, practically frothing at the mouth. And wouldn't you know it, this whole shebang only deepened the chasm between the North and the South. The Southern states, feeling like a pack of outcasts, clung even tighter to their precious institution of slavery. Unity and progress at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.
In the chaotic tapestry of rebellion, Brown's misguided escapades were a haunting reminder of its perils and constraints. Yet, amidst the wild theater of history, Abraham Lincoln took the stage and unleashed a storm of monumental proportions. With a stroke of his pen, the Emancipation Proclamation thundered in 1863, liberating the shackles of enslaved souls within the Confederate states. The impact was seismic, rattling the foundations of the Confederacy's economic machinery and unraveling its reliance on forced labor. Suddenly, the war transformed from a mere squabble for the Union's preservation into a righteous battle against the abomination of slavery. Lincoln shifted the moral compass in one fell swoop, leaving the nation to grapple with the thunderous echoes of his audacity.
The Emancipation Proclamation strutted onto the stage, promising liberation to the enslaved souls, yet fell short of its grandiose claims. Confederate-held territories became the playground, where Union forces danced a fragile jig of control. And those loyal border states, standing tall with their shackles intact, untouched by the proclamation's feeble touch. Still, we must give it credit, for it sashayed us closer to the long-awaited demise of slavery, revealing the curious truth that monumental change often tiptoes through the garden of violence.
The grand dance of government control during the emancipation process, where the interests of the mighty took center stage, and Reconstruction tiptoed ever so cautiously. In the wake of the Civil War, the noble quest to reunite the Confederate states with the Union and forge a shiny new social and political order unfolded. Alas, the path was paved with compromises and concessions, the final act entangled in the clutches of white dominance and the haunting specter of African American oppression that refused to exit stage left.
As we delve into the tumultuous era of Reconstruction, where hopes of true emancipation clashed with harsh reality, we encounter the black codes, those cunningly devised restrictions that held African Americans back from their rightful rights and freedoms. It's as if the powers had a feverish desire to cling to their dominance, unabashedly perpetuating racial inequality and thwarting any hopes of genuine social transformation. Cautious reconstructionists fell disappointingly short in their endeavors, failing to grasp the magnitude of change required to confront the lingering shackles of slavery honestly. It's a tragic tale of missed opportunities and an all-too-familiar dance between progress and prejudice.
The cruel business of selling humans like chattel and callously ripping families apart is an enduring testament to the dark heart of slavery. The abhorrent practice could make even the most stoic observer cringe with discomfort. The auction blocks and slave markets, drenched in sorrow and suffering, transformed into haunting theaters where the horrors of dehumanization and the grotesque trade of lives played out with eerie regularity. Such grotesque reminders of our capacity for inhumanity serve as a chilling reminder that there are some scars time will never fully heal.
It's important to acknowledge that this whole forced separation business wasn't just confined to the godforsaken institution of slavery. Economic shifts and the relentless demands of warfare had a hand in tearing families apart among those who considered themselves free Americans. The relentless march of industrialization and urbanization in the 19th century forced folks to abandon their homes and loved ones, all in the pursuit of some elusive job opportunity. And let's not forget the chaos of war, like that infernal Civil War. It snatched people from their kin, forcing them into military service or driving them to run like hell from the horrors of the battlefield. It was a real mess; a twisted symphony of forced separations plagued this land.
Delving into the intricate dance of liberation, a twisted tango performed by John Brown and Abraham Lincoln becomes indispensable in unraveling the complex tapestry of America's slavery resistance. Brown's fiery antics served as a cautionary blaze, shedding light on the perils of rebellion. Lincoln's grand-scale violence, unleashed amidst the chaos of the Civil War, dealt the decisive blow against the chains that bound them. Yet, in the aftermath, a hesitant and meticulous approach to Reconstruction safeguarded the ruling elite's interests, allowing the festering roots of racial injustice to persist. Moreover, acknowledging the harrowing ordeal of separation, both in bondage and in supposed freedom, adds depth to our comprehension of the tribulations endured by individuals throughout the annals of US history. Through scrutinizing these historical chronicles, we unearth a window into the labyrinthine complexities of yore, unmasking the ongoing struggle for righteousness and parity.
THE RUNDOWN
QUESTIONS
Work Cited:
Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2014.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Oates, Stephen B. To Purge This Land with Blood: A Biography of John Brown. Harper Perennial, 2010.
Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Vintage Books, 1989.
The audacious escapade of John Brown and his grand raid on Harpers Ferry back in '59 was a moment that thrust the glaring divide over slavery right into the spotlight. With a touch of violence and a pinch of rebellion, Brown attempted to ignite enthusiasm against those pesky slaveholders, showing us all just how dangerous and radical the pursuit of freedom could be. His grand scheme fell flat, leading to his ultimate capture, trial, and subsequent execution—a bitter pill for the nation to swallow. As expected, this debacle only deepened the chasm between the Northern and Southern folks, each holding steadfast to their contrasting views on the slavery debacle.
Old John Brown's raid comes waltzing in, turning up the heat on an already simmering pot of discontent. Those Southern pro-slavery politicians were not about to let anyone mess with their beloved expansion of slavery. They were positively livid, practically frothing at the mouth. And wouldn't you know it, this whole shebang only deepened the chasm between the North and the South. The Southern states, feeling like a pack of outcasts, clung even tighter to their precious institution of slavery. Unity and progress at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.
In the chaotic tapestry of rebellion, Brown's misguided escapades were a haunting reminder of its perils and constraints. Yet, amidst the wild theater of history, Abraham Lincoln took the stage and unleashed a storm of monumental proportions. With a stroke of his pen, the Emancipation Proclamation thundered in 1863, liberating the shackles of enslaved souls within the Confederate states. The impact was seismic, rattling the foundations of the Confederacy's economic machinery and unraveling its reliance on forced labor. Suddenly, the war transformed from a mere squabble for the Union's preservation into a righteous battle against the abomination of slavery. Lincoln shifted the moral compass in one fell swoop, leaving the nation to grapple with the thunderous echoes of his audacity.
The Emancipation Proclamation strutted onto the stage, promising liberation to the enslaved souls, yet fell short of its grandiose claims. Confederate-held territories became the playground, where Union forces danced a fragile jig of control. And those loyal border states, standing tall with their shackles intact, untouched by the proclamation's feeble touch. Still, we must give it credit, for it sashayed us closer to the long-awaited demise of slavery, revealing the curious truth that monumental change often tiptoes through the garden of violence.
The grand dance of government control during the emancipation process, where the interests of the mighty took center stage, and Reconstruction tiptoed ever so cautiously. In the wake of the Civil War, the noble quest to reunite the Confederate states with the Union and forge a shiny new social and political order unfolded. Alas, the path was paved with compromises and concessions, the final act entangled in the clutches of white dominance and the haunting specter of African American oppression that refused to exit stage left.
As we delve into the tumultuous era of Reconstruction, where hopes of true emancipation clashed with harsh reality, we encounter the black codes, those cunningly devised restrictions that held African Americans back from their rightful rights and freedoms. It's as if the powers had a feverish desire to cling to their dominance, unabashedly perpetuating racial inequality and thwarting any hopes of genuine social transformation. Cautious reconstructionists fell disappointingly short in their endeavors, failing to grasp the magnitude of change required to confront the lingering shackles of slavery honestly. It's a tragic tale of missed opportunities and an all-too-familiar dance between progress and prejudice.
The cruel business of selling humans like chattel and callously ripping families apart is an enduring testament to the dark heart of slavery. The abhorrent practice could make even the most stoic observer cringe with discomfort. The auction blocks and slave markets, drenched in sorrow and suffering, transformed into haunting theaters where the horrors of dehumanization and the grotesque trade of lives played out with eerie regularity. Such grotesque reminders of our capacity for inhumanity serve as a chilling reminder that there are some scars time will never fully heal.
It's important to acknowledge that this whole forced separation business wasn't just confined to the godforsaken institution of slavery. Economic shifts and the relentless demands of warfare had a hand in tearing families apart among those who considered themselves free Americans. The relentless march of industrialization and urbanization in the 19th century forced folks to abandon their homes and loved ones, all in the pursuit of some elusive job opportunity. And let's not forget the chaos of war, like that infernal Civil War. It snatched people from their kin, forcing them into military service or driving them to run like hell from the horrors of the battlefield. It was a real mess; a twisted symphony of forced separations plagued this land.
Delving into the intricate dance of liberation, a twisted tango performed by John Brown and Abraham Lincoln becomes indispensable in unraveling the complex tapestry of America's slavery resistance. Brown's fiery antics served as a cautionary blaze, shedding light on the perils of rebellion. Lincoln's grand-scale violence, unleashed amidst the chaos of the Civil War, dealt the decisive blow against the chains that bound them. Yet, in the aftermath, a hesitant and meticulous approach to Reconstruction safeguarded the ruling elite's interests, allowing the festering roots of racial injustice to persist. Moreover, acknowledging the harrowing ordeal of separation, both in bondage and in supposed freedom, adds depth to our comprehension of the tribulations endured by individuals throughout the annals of US history. Through scrutinizing these historical chronicles, we unearth a window into the labyrinthine complexities of yore, unmasking the ongoing struggle for righteousness and parity.
THE RUNDOWN
- The fight against slavery in the United States was complicated and messy.
- John Brown believed in using violence to end slavery, but his rebellion failed, and he was captured and executed.
- Abraham Lincoln led the Civil War and ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation.
- The government's control over emancipation limited how revolutionary the reconstruction process was.
- Slavery involved the sale of human beings and the separation of families, causing great suffering.
- Economic changes and demands of warfare also forced separations among free Americans.
- Understanding this history is essential to grasp the complexities of US history and reckon with its ups and downs.
QUESTIONS
- In the fight against slavery, John Brown and Abraham Lincoln had contrasting approaches. How did their strategies differ, and what were the consequences of their actions?
- The raid on Harpers Ferry led by John Brown further deepened the divide between the Northern and Southern states. How did this event contribute to the escalation of tensions over slavery?
- The Emancipation Proclamation was a significant turning point in the fight against slavery. What were the immediate effects of the proclamation, and how did it change the course of the Civil War?
Work Cited:
Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2014.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, 2003.
Oates, Stephen B. To Purge This Land with Blood: A Biography of John Brown. Harper Perennial, 2010.
Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Vintage Books, 1989.
"Tragic Prelude," a 1938 mural painted by John Steuart Curry graces a wall in the Kansas State Capitol. It depicts John Brown as a prelude to the Civil War that would soon follow his raid at Harpers Ferry.
KEY TERMS
ASSIGNMENTS
Remember all assignments, tests and quizzes must be submitted official via BLACKBOARD
Forum Discussion #12
- People v. Hall
- Seneca Village
- Uncle Nearest
- Bleeding Kansas
- James Buchanan
- Dred Scott
- Lincoln-Douglas Debates
- Dan Sickles
- Whitman and Dickenson
- Darwinism in America
- John Brown
- King Cotton
- Cassius Clay
- The Caning of Charles Sumner
- Slavery and the Civil War
- The American Civil War
ASSIGNMENTS
- Forum Discussion #12
Remember all assignments, tests and quizzes must be submitted official via BLACKBOARD
Forum Discussion #12
The Oregon Trail is a 2,170-mile historic East–West, large-wheeled wagon route and emigrant trail in the United States that connected the Missouri River to valleys in Oregon. The eastern part of the Oregon Trail spanned part of the future state of Kansas, and nearly all of what are now the states of Nebraska and Wyoming. The western half of the trail spanned most of the future states of Idaho and Oregon. The Oregon Trail is also a text-based strategy video game. It was developed as a computer game to teach schoolchildren about the realities of 19th-century pioneer life on the Oregon Trail. In the game, the player assumes the role of a wagon leader guiding a party of settlers from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon City, Oregon via a covered wagon in 1847. Along the way, the player must purchase supplies, hunt for food, and make choices on how to proceed along the trail while encountering random events such as storms and wagon breakdowns.
Do some research and please answer the following question with a two-paragraph minimum:
Play a round of Oregon Trail (browser version can be found HERE) When finished, compare and contrast the game and the actual Oregon Trail for historical accuracies.
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
Do some research and please answer the following question with a two-paragraph minimum:
Play a round of Oregon Trail (browser version can be found HERE) When finished, compare and contrast the game and the actual Oregon Trail for historical accuracies.
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
- (Disclaimer: This is not professional or legal advice. If it were, the article would be followed with an invoice. Do not expect to win any social media arguments by hyperlinking my articles. Chances are, we are both wrong).
- (Trigger Warning: This article or section, or pages it links to, contains antiquated language or disturbing images which may be triggering to some.)
- (Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is granted, provided that the author (or authors) and www.ryanglancaster.com are appropriately cited.)
- This site is for educational purposes only.
- Fair Use: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
- Fair Use Definition: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.