sectionalism-outside+readings

failure to follow directions will negatively impact your grade﻿ MJM. NBC Archives. The Oregon Trail Remembered 150 Years Later. In commemoration of the 300,000 people that made it from Independence, Missouri to Oregon City, Oregon in the first half of the 19th century and for all of the men, women and children that perished along the way there was a celebration in Oregon. NBC reported that seventeen people died for every mile along the trail and that it was “the longest graveyard” but who knows how many undocumented people die on a regular basis trying to cross the Mexican border? Or how many Cubans drown or die on haphazard rafts in the waters between Florida and Cuba? It is important that history enthusiasts in Oregon are honoring the past by dressing up and travelling by horse drawn carriages but there has yet to be seen a celebration of the Latin-Americans that risked their lives for the promise of financial and personal liberties. When examining the treatment of Native Americans it is seen that this was the beginning of them living on reservations and being further pushed out of their homes. The Americans travelling across the country, which were immigrants only a few generations before, could not stand to share with a culture different than their own even if they were intruding on the Native lands. In today’s society there has been a huge surge of anti- Mexican immigration sentiment as can be seen by the new law in Arizona. The change over time in the last 150 years has only be that those immigrants who now consider themselves Americans went from hating natives to hating even newer immigrants. Perhaps it is an inherent character flaw that hits citizens once they earn the right to vote. In the future if Native Americans and Latin Americans looking to make a better life for their family have already been hated, who is next? What happens if Americans turn onto themselves? Another Civil War would rage in this country as it did in the 1860s. History is made of patterns and the Oregon Trail was a precursor to the bloodiest war in American History. People must actively work to ensure that history does not repeat itself. asking questions in response may be acceptable in Lang -- is not in Sioc sciences JGF - In response to MJM's "The Oregon Trail Remembered 150 Years Later" The NBC Learn video, "The Oregon Trail Remembered 150 Years Later" was a features piece commemorating not only the settlers who made the arduous journey from Missouri to Oregon City, Oregon in the mid-1800s but also their descendants who traveled it 150 years later to honor them. It's true that NBC called it the "longest graveyard in history," but it's also true that with the information they had, that was the most true judgement they had the ability to make, which is more than can be said for MJM's "who knows how many undocumented people die on a regular basis trying to cross the Mexican border? Or how many Cubans drown or die on haphazard rafts in the waters between Florida and Cuba?" When analyzing a "fluff piece" like this, it is crucial to remember the purpose, which in this case was definitely NOT to offend anyone. The purpose was rather to entertain and educate people looking to be entertained and educated on the subject of the Oregon Trail, and to encourage a more interactive approach to history - which was what these travelers were participating in. MJM then goes on to attack the new travelers by questioning why "there has yet to be seen a celebration of the Latin-Americans that risked their lives for the promise of financial and personal liberties," but it seems that a better question would be "what relevance does that have to The Oregon Trail Remembered project?" Perhaps it is a shortcoming of The United States that her people do not celebrate all other peoples equally, but it is certainly not a shortcoming related to this video. MJM's next few sentences address the future of American bigotry, saying "perhaps it is an inherent character flaw that hits citizens once they earn the right to vote," but again it must be noted that the Oregon Trail travelers were merely trying to take note of an impressive and historically significant event in American history. There was no mention of discriminating against the plights of others, as MJM implies by saying "if Native Americans and Latin Americans looking to make a better life for their family have already been hated, who is next?" Finally, it should be noted that history is made of patterns, but it is very unlikely that Americans are going to "turn on themselves" causing another Civil War to "rage in this country as it did in the 1860s." And if they did? It still wouldn't be related to the NBC video about a cute summer celebration in Oregon City.

week one
JT “Positive Good of Slavery” NBC Archives John C. Calhoun argued that slavery was far from evil, because while slaves were owned, they were part of the plantation owner’s family. In no sense is this true. Slaves were forced to work under brutal conditions that would not be expected of one’s family. The only times when one heard about family member’s being whipped for disobedience is when people were gossiping about physical abuse, not an everyday reality, unless of course you are a slave. Calhoun asserted that since house-servants generally become wet nurses when the plantation mistress gives birth, that they become a part of the family while raising the white children. Unfortunately, this statement is a blaring lie because as these servant-raised children grew into adults, they started to order punishments for their surrogate mothers and siblings if they misbehaved and ended up treating them like the majority of slaves on the farm. The majority of slaves did not know this “family” relation that Calhoun claimed existed. They were driven by overseers in the fields who held painful tools to remind the slaves not to stop working, else they suffer old punishments. Old slaves were not allowed to sit back and retire like old, white, members of the plantation family. They were given jobs to do what they could work at effectively with what little energy they still possessed until they dropped dead, not exactly how members of the plantation family spent their final years. While John C. Calhoun was determined to make the North look like the cruel ones because of their treatment of factory workers, but was clearly lying in his attempts to make the institution of slavery a “family affair.”

KBM While JT makes good point that many of the points that Calhoun made may appear hyperbolic, he/she seems to miss Calhoun’s point. Calhoun was not intending to sugar-coat slavery and make it appear to be a good, humane thing because it was a well-known fact that slaves did not maintain the constitutional right of freedom. Calhoun was actually trying pointing out the negatives of where the slaves would end up had they been free in order to enlighten the appearance of slavery as compared to working in a factory as a free citizen. Had Calhoun been blatantly lying about his entire speech and of slaves’ "family affair", it would have been easily disputed by the abolitionists, but there is a reason that it has been said that this speech has been left undisputed: because it’s true. Had factory workers been hurt or sick, they would lose their job instantaneously and it would quickly be replaced by another healthy hard-worker. This would result in extreme family hardships had it been the only person working of a family. In the South, slaves were taken care of for their entire lives. If they were hurt or sick, they were still given food to eat, their families were still given food to eat, and a job was found that they would be able to complete. Never were they at risk of losing a home, their family, or their food like they would have been as a factory worker. Slaves may have been ‘forced to work under brutal conditions’ but for obedient slaves, brutal conditions were limited to the pain of cotton picking and working in the hot sun. Factory conditions were much worse. With untrained workers running machinery and unsupervised management of it, they were constantly at risk of losing a limb or death. Unfair punishment for disobedience was not limited to slavery in the nation as it was. If a woman was believed to have been unfaithful in the 1800s she received thirty lashes and an A was branded on her forehead with a hot iron so every one that saw her would know what she had done. Public humiliation and physical torture were condoned as punishment for a free person in America. So, Calhoun was not intending to make one overlook any aspect of slavery, he was highlighting how much worse their lives would be had they lived a free industrial life. good info and well written but still deals with what and not why

Based on NBC Archives Video "The California Gold Rush Begins" EMB—The California Gold Rush began in 1848 after John Marshall discovered gold flakes at Sutter’s saw mill. Those who knew about it tried to keep it a secret so that they could reap the rewards and get rich, but word spread fast and soon men from all over the United States, particularly the East Coast as that’s where most of them were, flocked over to California in a frenzy to find gold of their own. Not only Americans travelled to California in pursuit of gold, but also foreigners from China, Mexico, Chile, Ireland, France, and several other nations came and eventually settled in America all due to a desire to find wealth in the gold mines.

Out of their haste to make it to California and then by their sheer ignorance, travelers took no heed to the negative effects of the Gold Rush on the Native American population, until they began to spiral into effecting the miners. Native Americans relied purely on hunting and gathering as a source of food, but gravel, silt, and toxic chemicals that rose from the mines into the environment destroyed habitats while also killing animals, leading to starvation and disease among Indians. The surviving animals were taken for food by the three hundred thousand or so miners, as was the farmland surrounding them; thus the Native Americans were stripped of their food sources by this influx of foreigners and Americans alike. This in effect resulted in Native Americans filching miner camps for food and livestock which in turn increased antagonism between Indians and miners. On April 20, 1952, the United States government passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, which in turn diminished the Native American population rather than protected it. The law allowed Californians to capture and practically enslave Native Americans as bonded workers. This soon became a booming West coast business, particularly with Indian women and children. Raids of Native American villages were conducted constantly during which women and children were taken and men were killed.

The most notable effect of the enslavement of Native Americans as well as their deaths through starvation and disease is the massive drop in their population that started at the beginning of the California Gold Rush in 1848. It was estimated that about one hundred fifty thousand Native Americans lived in California in 1845, and by 1870 there were less than thirty thousand. Of that substantial drop, only about four thousand five hundred were violent deaths, thus explicating that the California Gold Rush in itself resulted in the steep decline of the Indian population by about one hundred twenty thousand in twenty-five years. everything here reads as a reiteration of preexisting facts -- you should be addressing why -- nothing you have included here allows you to do that

MJM. “The Kansas-Nebraska Act”. NBC Archives. Originally the land west of the Mississippi acquired during the Louisiana Purchase was used as Indian Reservations but commerce heading westward (sparked by an explosive demand for cotton and exhausted soil back east) overturned Indian rights and the area became open to white settlers. Moving ahead a few years in history we come to the Missouri compromise where slavery only existed south of the 36’30’’ line of latitude. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act split said territory into two states. Popular sovereignty, where new states entering the union could decide for themselves whether to be free or salve states, was encouraged by one of the most prominent politicians of the time, Steven Douglas. The short term impact of this act was that it in essence overturned the Missouri Compromise because the new territories were divided above the specified latitude. Nebraska was to be a free state so it was not a problem but the people previously living in Kansas wanted it to be a free state as well while Missourians and other westerners rushed to the area with their slaves. They did this in order to vote in favor of legalizing slavery in Kansas but violence ensued. In just two years over 200 people died in the disputes over slavery in Kansas. In terms of long term effects the Kansas- Nebraska Act divided the supposedly United States of America even further. Congress was now in a “north versus south” mentality instead of what is best for the entire country. There was even a literal division of seats down the middle of the main assembly hall. The violence that came about in Kansas made tension worse. People from other states joined in the fighting and a Civil War was going on in the state. This small and contained Civil War eventually influenced other states to attempt to confront the issues of slavery and abolition. Before long the whole country was engulfed in a Civil War and 200,000 lives were lost not to mention the collapse of the Southern economy and succession from the Union. Without the Kansas-Nebraska Act there would never have been a War Between the States but then again if there were never a Kansas- Nebraska Act there might still be slavery in this country. wikis are not to be written as a teachable moment -- write with the understanding the reader knows the topic and is interested in learning why the KN act is hsitorically important  SW - In “The Fugitive Slave Law” Stephen Hahn believes that the Fugitive Slave Law tips the Compromise of 1850 toward the southern states. He believes that allowing slaves to be captured and taken back to the south makes the government seem as if it is favoring the southern states. The laws works because all property in one state has to be respected in another state. Slaves are considered property and therefore it is okay to go to another state and get them back. Many states in the north were starting abolitionist movements but when the Fugitive Slave Law was enacted much progress was lost because slave catchers could earn a lot of money by capturing a black people that were now free and sending them back to the south. Most of the time the blacks did not even get a trial in court. It was a very unfair for the slaves. By enacting this law Hahn said it showed that slavery is a part of America overall not just in the south. But as Eric Foner states in “The Compromise of 1850 Attempts to Settle the Slavery Question ” the Compromise of 1850 did not give advantage to the south. If anything it gave a lead for the North. The other parts of the compromise decided what new territory would be free and what territory would have slaves. California became a free state and New Mexico and Utah had popular sovereignty. North had more of a benefit because New Mexico and Utah would become free states anyway because the land in these states had no need for slaves. Although this seemed like a compromise it actually favored the north. In addition part of the compromise was to close the slave market in Washington D.C. which was a huge market. This also was also helping the north. Clearly although the Fugitive Slave Law might seem to sway the compromise towards the south the rest of the clauses in the Compromise of 1850 show that it was favoring the north. clearly an in this book but in that book moment summarizing two readings/presentations -- making the matter worse, the first centers on the Fugitive Slave Law while the second centers on Comp of 1859 Based on the NBC Archive Video: “The Wilmot Proviso” ADB – With the recent conclusion of the Mexican-American War in February of 1846, America’s next big decision was how it would decide the “status” of its new Western territories (that is, whether they would be free or slave states). This period saw the emergence of the idea known as popular sovereignty, which allowed new territories to decide their stance as a free or slave state upon receiving statehood. Similarly, in August 1846, Congressman David Wilmot proposed his eponymous Proviso, desiring that the Southwest territories gained in the Mexican War become free upon annexation. Though one notion was extreme, while the other was moderate, both were responsible for pushing America closer to civil war. Wilmot’s Proviso rocked the political “boat” because it brought back to the forefront an issue that had already been slowly forcing a divide between the North and South. Democrats and Whigs alike had tried to keep slavery out of national politics; for example, Democrats had painted anyone trying to push through purely sectional issues as extremists. However, because of Mexican territorial gains after the Mexican War, it was assumed (at least by Whigs) that slavery would reappear as an issue. The extreme position of the Proviso made it polarizing, and its success was similar to that of those who advocated for the immediate emancipation of slaves; in other words, it didn’t. It increased sectional tensions; the South felt this particularly, for they believed that the Wilmot Proviso had been the Northern attack on slavery that had been put off for so long. Another, more moderate idea came into the fray around the same time: popular sovereignty, most commonly credited to Stephen A. Douglas, was seen as the middle road regarding the issue of slavery spreading westward. With all the aspects of slavery that were unearthed when it came time to decide how to incorporate the Mexican acquisitions (whether slavery would be abolished, permitted, protected, etc.). Popular sovereignty allowed citizens of new states to decide //for themselves// what their state’s policy on slavery would be. This would seem to be a peaceful and adequate solution, but the South was still dissatisfied: they argued against Douglas’ idea because they knew the geographic layout of the Southwestern lands, which were woefully inadequate for farming (and therefore slaves). Unfortunately, sectionalism became too prevalent in America, due to issues such as the Kansas Nebraska Act (Douglas’ attempt to replace the Missouri Compromise with popular sovereignty) and the Dred Scott decision (slaves were so inferior that they had no rights that the white man needed to respect, which meant that slavery could spread anywhere, even if the state had anti-slavery legislation), and popular sovereignty ultimately failed. Despite its moderate ideals, it was not powerful enough to quell such a separating issue as slavery, and because of this, allowed the Civil War to be initiated. If popular sovereignty had been introduced 10 years prior, perhaps it could have prolonged the Civil War’s beginning (if it had not been prevented). Though the Wilmot Proviso and popular sovereignty were fairly different, they both sought to put aside the issue of slavery once and for all; however, neither extreme nor moderate ideas could fully subdue the range of feelings regarding slavery, which eventually became the American Civil War. well written but you fail to strongly relate WP to PS -- reads as this idea--that idea CJD - NBC Archives – “Rich and Poor Whites in the Pre-Civil War South” Southern white populations are commonly misconceived when examining the period before the Civil War. Most people would say that white men in the southern states that would secede were slave owners who sat back while cruelly mistreating their property. The case however, is that this common stereotype only accounted for a third of the southern white populace. Slave owners usually had over 100 black men, women and children laboring over their land. Planter aristocrats, as they were called, dominated society and politics in the south by using their wealth to control the region. Underrepresented was the rest of the white population, who were poor yeoman farmers that had to work off unfertile land, as the rest was taken by rich families. Some subsistence farmers had worse standards of living than slaves. They had virtually no presence in state or national government because legislatures were controlled by the slave-owning population. These poor whites are forgotten about in history because they did not have any major influence on the institution of slavery. During the Civil War, northern sentiments were often against the rich planters who led the secession movement. Due to this, poor white farmers in the south did not receive attention from the national government, and the south is not remembered for its hard-working white population. 

MDS – Extra Credit 10/10

Based on NBC archives video “The Compromise of 1850” and the article “Democratic Senate Leadership and the Compromise of 1850” by Holman Hamilton.

The side which was favored by the Compromise of 1850 has been consistently debated by historians. Its provisions, intending to provide placation for both Northern and Southern Americans, were and still are considered by both sides to be insufficient. It can be argued that the South was favored with the Fugitive Slave Act, as was expressed in “The Compromise of 1850” video, or that the North was favored with the allowance of new free states (it was accepted that the states offered popular sovereignty would become free), which, as Hamilton explains, is a popular stand. Regardless of the accuracy of either viewpoint, however, the most important effect of the so-called “compromise” was that neither side truly considered it a compromise at all.

The terms of the deal may have seemed to allow terms for both the North and the South, but both were outraged by its propositions. While the North felt as if their rights to support abolition were being challenged by the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring them to return escaped slaves, the South claimed to have been forced into accepting Clay’s terms, making huge concessions towards the North by essentially allowing new free states to be admitted without any struggle. The anger expressed by both factions was truly reflective of the complete sectional divisions of the time period. The irony was that while the compromise was intended to remove conflict and allow for agreement between the political leaders (and average citizens) of the North and the South, it only exacerbated the opinions that threatened to rip the country in half. The action was essentially too little too late, a desperate attempt by Clay and his colleagues to warn the nation that its arguments, having dissolved into petty disputes and deplorably ungentlemanly acts, such as caning and raised weapons on the floor of Congress itself, would lead only to greater violence. Unfortunately, their actions to prevent the outbreak of war, whether they were intended to give favor to Northerners or Southerners, were perceived by both sides as personal attacks and functioned only to feed the fire, as it were, of the civil violence that was to erupt over slavery.

 SW - Based on NBC News Archive: Southern Internal Divisons Craig Wilder Northern Internal Divisions Eric Foner There was internal dissent in the south as well as in the north. There were big problems in the north because the union included border states. These slave-owning states were in the same group as non-slave owning states which created a tension between them. The border states were also partisan to the south so they could hinder the war effort by not supporting the north or even by encouraging northern states to secede and join the confederacy. Having the border states in the union was a risk. Although there were problems and riots Lincoln was able to lessen the problems by enforcing martial law. He jailed people that caused problems without a trial and curtailed freedom of speech. This way he was able to keep a tight hold on the country. Another reason why the north had internal struggles was because when Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation; abolitionists did not think it did enough and slave supporters felt that it had gone too far. This was why the north had internal struggles, but the south had problems too. Slaves in the south were supporters of the north and therefore refused to help the confederacy and even impeded on their progress. The south had a much bigger group supporting the north than the north had supporting the south. The poor white farmers were also against the confederacy because the rich whites could pay to not have to fight but the poor had no choice. Many were opposed to being in the army and often ran away. Both the rich and the poor refused to pay taxes, which held back the war effort. The confederacy needed a lot of money that it did not have and when taxes were not paid there was a rise in inflation. Items became really expensive which is another reason why poor whites were against the south. The south had much bigger divisions than in the north. In addition, in the North, Lincoln was able to prevent some of these problems by using martial law while the south was not able to do anything effective. The divisions in the south had been around for a long time and showed through during the war. A major reason why the south lost the Civil War was because of the internal divisions that could not be solved.