Lyndon Johnson Confronts George Wallace
Summary
This chapter centers around two "colorful characters," the intimidating president of the the United States and the stubborn, racist governor of Alabama, meeting to discuss recent violence from the government against peaceful demonstrators attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery for voting rights. Not only did police arrest and brutally beat "blacks seeking to register to vote for 'unlawful assembly'" and other flimsy charges, but days later on Bloody Sunday, state troopers used extreme violence to stop the marchers from going over the bridge to Montgomery.
Johnson realized that he had to meet with Wallace to stop the police brutality and take a stand. He sat the governor down and intimidated him into allowing the people to march on Montgomery. He implored him to be remembered as a man who "built" instead of "hated" after he died. After the meeting, Wallace pledged that there would be "no more violent incidents" and that he would make it happen, but he broke that promise by "[shifting] responsibility for policing the march to the federal government" (330, 331). Johnson was furious, but the march happened peacefully anyway, Wallace expressed repentance (sincere or not), and it all led to President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in August.
Reflection
This was probably my favorite chapter; I loved reading about the tense meeting between Johnson and Wallace, and how the stony president towered over the nervous, squirming governor and how he got him to allow the demonstrators to march, and to let them register to vote (166,000 more voters!). It was interesting that Wallace tried to say that he didn't have the power to tell the country registrars to register African-Americans, and how Johnson countered that by "alluding to the extraordinary circumstance that in the 1964 election no Alabama voter was given the opportunity to vote for [him]" (325).
It confused me a little bit about how Wallace was "treacherous" and how it was bad that he relinquished control of the march to the federal government. I guess Johnson just wanted him to take responsibility and deal with it himself.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Chapter 19
Memory, History, and the March on Washington
Summary
The author of this chapter actually witnessed the March on Washington; it helped define him, and he wished he could go back. He lived in Los Alamos and watched most of the main civil rights events from a distance, but he found himself wishing that he could join the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Although he went out of his shell and attended the University of New Mexico, he was still far away from the action. He was willing to join the march, but nervous about the "militancy" of others, such as Stokely Carmichael, an intense leader of the SNCC.
The SNCC "had defiantly established voter registration projects in those areas of the South where white supremacy was firmly entrenched," an important achievement for their civil rights campaign (305). They also held many public demonstrations, but attracted criticism for "[exerting] firm control over the event[s]" (306). This criticism of the march reshaped the author's views, as did the realization that the SNCC chair John Lewis' speech had been censored, although it was still powerful, urging "listeners to join the 'great social revolution sweeping our nation'" (308). Another memorable speaker was the legendary Martin Luther King Jr., although it was hard for the author to remember his initial impressions of the famous speech. He thought that King was a "cautious old leader," and he was more drawn to the more exciting actions of the SNCC. The author resented that, although King was obviously an important presence in the civil rights campaign, reporters focused more on him than on the hard work of the SNCC in the Deep South. He touched on his tendency to downplay King's historical significance, saying that without him, things probably would have followed a similar path. But gradually he began to realize that his perspective was limited; his appreciation for King has grown over time. Through editing his autobiography, he came to see the icon as a "vulnerable, fallible human being," and a "contemplative leader" (311). His speech was such a famous moment in history not only because of the importance of the words, but also because of King's "ability to excite the emotions of audiences through compelling words that expressed their best ideals" (313). The author concludes by reflecting on how the speech and the march were so significant, and how he felt part of a movement "that would make the world better" (316).
Reflection
I agree with the author that King would be pleased with what has happened in the past few decades, although he would have appreciated people keeping on his legacy more than a simple, tangible memorial. I also wish that I could have been there to witness King's speech and to be a part of such an "inexorable movement" that bettered the world and changed people's lives (316).
Another quote that stood out to me was Lewis' question, "Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to have Marches on Washington?" (308). It's sad and unfair that his speech about rights had to be censored. Don't people have the right to free speech?
Monday, September 2, 2013
Chapter 18
JFK and RFK Meet about Vietnam
Summary
In this chapter, the author invents some conversations that he imagined would have taken place between the two Kennedy's at a very important time in American history. John and Robert Kennedy had been brothers and "political collaborators" since 1952, and they definitely "conferred privately" about the dangerous issue of Vietnam as "questions about instability in South Vietnam mounted and advisers urged JFK to use American power to ensure the survival of an anti-Communist government," but the situation was not that simple at all (292). Some background information for these imagined conversations is necessary, including JFK's "reluctance to involve American troops in overseas conflicts," especially after the Bay of Pigs incident, and the fact that his military advisers were all for "the use of land and air forces to prevent a Communist takeover in Laos" (293). He and his brother definitely discussed their "dual concern" - wanting to save Vietnam from Communism without using U.S. forces (295).
They came up with a solution where they trained the South Vietnamese instead of directly fighting, but Kennedy was nervous because it might lead to pressure to become more involved. His fears were understandable; it quickly did lead to that. Another fear he probably talked to Bobby about was his determination to keep the government's actions out of the press (they were a "dangerous adversary") (295). Their strategy seemed to be working until they found out that it really wasn't. JFK knew that he needed a "stronger commitment to Saigon," and that came in the form of an order to get rid of the government in Vietnam and "stabilize the damn place," went the imagined conversation (297). But then, Diem was assassinated instead; JFK felt responsible for the bad results of the coup. He most likely shared with his brother some wise words about how bad it was to get involved with such an unstable place, and how they should have known that they wouldn't have been able to "compel an outcome [they] would prefer" (299). How would it have been different if Kennedy had had a second term to handle things in Vietnam?
Reflection
The brothers' personalities seemed to work very well together. They balanced each other out - JFK with his wit, charm, and passive tendencies, and Bobby, with his seriousness and aggressive outlook. Jack had the "wisdom to act wisely in the most difficult moments" (the sign of a great leader, as we saw with Lincoln), and Robert was full of "loyalty to his brother and capacity to grow in understanding," making them a great duo (300). Together they were able to handle the Vietnam situation well, and if they had been allowed to keep it up, things probably would have ended very differently.
Finally, a good quote from this chapter was JFK's statement during the missile crisis about how if they listened to the "brass hats," "none of [them would] be alive later to tell them that they were wrong" (292). He was right that the Defense Department had only "cojones," but not brains!
Summary
In this chapter, the author invents some conversations that he imagined would have taken place between the two Kennedy's at a very important time in American history. John and Robert Kennedy had been brothers and "political collaborators" since 1952, and they definitely "conferred privately" about the dangerous issue of Vietnam as "questions about instability in South Vietnam mounted and advisers urged JFK to use American power to ensure the survival of an anti-Communist government," but the situation was not that simple at all (292). Some background information for these imagined conversations is necessary, including JFK's "reluctance to involve American troops in overseas conflicts," especially after the Bay of Pigs incident, and the fact that his military advisers were all for "the use of land and air forces to prevent a Communist takeover in Laos" (293). He and his brother definitely discussed their "dual concern" - wanting to save Vietnam from Communism without using U.S. forces (295).
They came up with a solution where they trained the South Vietnamese instead of directly fighting, but Kennedy was nervous because it might lead to pressure to become more involved. His fears were understandable; it quickly did lead to that. Another fear he probably talked to Bobby about was his determination to keep the government's actions out of the press (they were a "dangerous adversary") (295). Their strategy seemed to be working until they found out that it really wasn't. JFK knew that he needed a "stronger commitment to Saigon," and that came in the form of an order to get rid of the government in Vietnam and "stabilize the damn place," went the imagined conversation (297). But then, Diem was assassinated instead; JFK felt responsible for the bad results of the coup. He most likely shared with his brother some wise words about how bad it was to get involved with such an unstable place, and how they should have known that they wouldn't have been able to "compel an outcome [they] would prefer" (299). How would it have been different if Kennedy had had a second term to handle things in Vietnam?
Reflection
The brothers' personalities seemed to work very well together. They balanced each other out - JFK with his wit, charm, and passive tendencies, and Bobby, with his seriousness and aggressive outlook. Jack had the "wisdom to act wisely in the most difficult moments" (the sign of a great leader, as we saw with Lincoln), and Robert was full of "loyalty to his brother and capacity to grow in understanding," making them a great duo (300). Together they were able to handle the Vietnam situation well, and if they had been allowed to keep it up, things probably would have ended very differently.
Finally, a good quote from this chapter was JFK's statement during the missile crisis about how if they listened to the "brass hats," "none of [them would] be alive later to tell them that they were wrong" (292). He was right that the Defense Department had only "cojones," but not brains!
Chapter 17
The Sick Man in the White House
Summary
This chapter deals with the condition of President Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1944, as WWII was still underway and the Allies were making little headway. Admiral McIntire, the president's personal physician, and many other physicians had been checking up on him, and were very worried about his "congestive heart failure and hypertension," and prescribed a strict regimen for him to follow (279). The problem was that no one wanted to tell the president about his "god-awful" condition, including McIntire, and for good reason (279). As the Admiral, who stayed firm to his belief that the president "never had a heart problem," said, "You can't simply say to him, 'Do this or that'" (280, 279). FDR was a stubborn man who never "[exhibited] undue concern" for himself, and he especially did not want to give up and not run for a fourth term, no matter how bad his heart was (282). He could not quit at the climax of the war, and everyone knew it, and perhaps that is why no one disclosed any real details to him about his failing health.
Reflection
Admiral McIntire's approach to FDR's health was not a very good one in my opinion. Keeping the truth from your patient (and yourself) can not possibly lead to a positive outcome, even though it didn't matter to Roosevelt, and he ran for a fourth term anyway. The Admiral's "look-see's" seemed careless to me - didn't he care about FDR's condition at all? If I had been given the honor of being the president's physician, I would have definitely been more thorough and honest with my very important patient.
I wonder if the advice from that column "How to Keep Well" holds true. If you forget about your condition, will that make it better? That doesn't seem very sound, and it didn't work for the president. He had a very stressful job with many responsibilities, so no matter if he thought about it or not, I think he was doomed from the very beginning.
Summary
This chapter deals with the condition of President Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1944, as WWII was still underway and the Allies were making little headway. Admiral McIntire, the president's personal physician, and many other physicians had been checking up on him, and were very worried about his "congestive heart failure and hypertension," and prescribed a strict regimen for him to follow (279). The problem was that no one wanted to tell the president about his "god-awful" condition, including McIntire, and for good reason (279). As the Admiral, who stayed firm to his belief that the president "never had a heart problem," said, "You can't simply say to him, 'Do this or that'" (280, 279). FDR was a stubborn man who never "[exhibited] undue concern" for himself, and he especially did not want to give up and not run for a fourth term, no matter how bad his heart was (282). He could not quit at the climax of the war, and everyone knew it, and perhaps that is why no one disclosed any real details to him about his failing health.
Reflection
Admiral McIntire's approach to FDR's health was not a very good one in my opinion. Keeping the truth from your patient (and yourself) can not possibly lead to a positive outcome, even though it didn't matter to Roosevelt, and he ran for a fourth term anyway. The Admiral's "look-see's" seemed careless to me - didn't he care about FDR's condition at all? If I had been given the honor of being the president's physician, I would have definitely been more thorough and honest with my very important patient.
I wonder if the advice from that column "How to Keep Well" holds true. If you forget about your condition, will that make it better? That doesn't seem very sound, and it didn't work for the president. He had a very stressful job with many responsibilities, so no matter if he thought about it or not, I think he was doomed from the very beginning.
Chapter 16
Lost-Found Nation
Summary
This chapter discusses the events surrounding the last known meeting between W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad in 1934, and the history of "the Nation of Islam - a faith that has usually done its level best to reject everything about America" (261). It all began with a man named Wallace Fard, who went around the slums, selling clothing, preaching, and doing magic tricks. Now how did this man ever gain a following? Well, he came to the black community at the right time, a time full of "radical religious departure" because they had never really been allowed to choose their own religion before (262). Something a lot of these new religions had in common was "a rejection of received white history and culture" (264).
Fard's invented theology, called "The Knowledge of Self and Others," took an interesting spin on that rejection. According to him, Allah was not a "spook god," but "the Original Man, and all his descendants - all of the black people of the earth - were the Original People" who had ruled the world before white people, an inferior race, had been invented through many "diabolical experiments" and somehow managed to take over (265, 266). Fard believed that he had come to bring the Original People back to power. He "stood the traditional white, American worldview on its head" by showing that the white people were the ones at fault, especially for creating slavery, leading to much of the American black nationalism then and today (267). A man named Elijah Poole from the slums found his salvation in the religion, and thought that Fard was the Messiah. He preached with him, learned from him, and became his #2 man, something that made other close followers jealous and caused them to turn away. To get them back, Fard came up with "The History of the End of the World," detailing the "imminent destruction of the white race" (272). Everything began to deteriorate, though, when a "sacrifice" by a believer got Fard arrested and attention drawn to his cult, but Elijah never backed down and kept running the Nation of Islam, even when Fard was sent away. When Elijah was arrested, however, the faith stalled until Malcolm X came along and helped it grow. The author would have loved to be there to see inside the minds of the two famous (or infamous) men, see their intentions, and more.
Reflection
Although Fard's ideas seemed completely crazy to me, the author did have a point when he mentioned that "they were no more crude, or bigoted, than the self-serving doctrines of social Darwinism," so it makes sense that African-Americans would feel drawn to the Nation of Islam (268). It probably made them feel like they had more power. At the same time, though, Fard's religion felt like fiction, like he had completely made it up, like he was in English class and his teacher told him to write a story including a protagonist, a villain, and a conflict.
I was shocked when I read that children were being taught this religion and how to hate white people, and they would be rewarded if they cut off the heads of four 'devils'" (273). That is the issue with many religions - they focus around hate. This kind of hate has been the root of so many problems in the world.
Summary
This chapter discusses the events surrounding the last known meeting between W.D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad in 1934, and the history of "the Nation of Islam - a faith that has usually done its level best to reject everything about America" (261). It all began with a man named Wallace Fard, who went around the slums, selling clothing, preaching, and doing magic tricks. Now how did this man ever gain a following? Well, he came to the black community at the right time, a time full of "radical religious departure" because they had never really been allowed to choose their own religion before (262). Something a lot of these new religions had in common was "a rejection of received white history and culture" (264).
Fard's invented theology, called "The Knowledge of Self and Others," took an interesting spin on that rejection. According to him, Allah was not a "spook god," but "the Original Man, and all his descendants - all of the black people of the earth - were the Original People" who had ruled the world before white people, an inferior race, had been invented through many "diabolical experiments" and somehow managed to take over (265, 266). Fard believed that he had come to bring the Original People back to power. He "stood the traditional white, American worldview on its head" by showing that the white people were the ones at fault, especially for creating slavery, leading to much of the American black nationalism then and today (267). A man named Elijah Poole from the slums found his salvation in the religion, and thought that Fard was the Messiah. He preached with him, learned from him, and became his #2 man, something that made other close followers jealous and caused them to turn away. To get them back, Fard came up with "The History of the End of the World," detailing the "imminent destruction of the white race" (272). Everything began to deteriorate, though, when a "sacrifice" by a believer got Fard arrested and attention drawn to his cult, but Elijah never backed down and kept running the Nation of Islam, even when Fard was sent away. When Elijah was arrested, however, the faith stalled until Malcolm X came along and helped it grow. The author would have loved to be there to see inside the minds of the two famous (or infamous) men, see their intentions, and more.
Reflection
Although Fard's ideas seemed completely crazy to me, the author did have a point when he mentioned that "they were no more crude, or bigoted, than the self-serving doctrines of social Darwinism," so it makes sense that African-Americans would feel drawn to the Nation of Islam (268). It probably made them feel like they had more power. At the same time, though, Fard's religion felt like fiction, like he had completely made it up, like he was in English class and his teacher told him to write a story including a protagonist, a villain, and a conflict.
I was shocked when I read that children were being taught this religion and how to hate white people, and they would be rewarded if they cut off the heads of four 'devils'" (273). That is the issue with many religions - they focus around hate. This kind of hate has been the root of so many problems in the world.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Chapter 15
Trying John Scopes
Summary
In July of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two prominent men of that time period, faced off during the court case State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes to debate the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Although it was supposed to be "the showdown between science and religion, truth and faith, North and South," it didn't turn out to be anything like that (243). First of all, Bryan and Darrow weren't even in it from the start; the ACLU were the ones to actually tackle the Butler Act, an antievolution law. They, however, needed a teacher to test the law in court, and men from Dayton who wanted to put their town on the map chose John Scopes, a young substitute biology teacher, to be the defendant, and Bryan and Darrow eventually joined on as prosecution and defense, respectively, if not simply as a chance to go up against each other (244).
The trial was really a let-down becase prosecution didn't want the main idea of evolution to be debated; they wanted it simply to be "a case 'involving the fact as to whether or not a schoolteacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute'" (251). Therefore, when a testimony that Scopes straight-out admitted to teaching evolution came before the court, they believed that his guilt was sealed. But, the defense still had the "expert testimony" card and could attempt to prove "that there was no conflict between evolution and the Old Testament" and "show that its teaching was not a violation of the law" (252, 254). After Bryan bad-mouthed that approach, Malone, a member of the defense team, questioned in an impressive speech why the prosecution was so afraid of the broad issue, but the judge still ruled against the expert testimony, and Scopes was found guilty. The trial, however, still somehow became a legend, an important landmark in the battle between truth and faith.
Reflection
I didn't really understand how this trial came to be such an important moment in history if nothing of substance was really discussed, and since Scopes and evolution lost anyway. Also, if Bryan's case for faith was so "rudimentary and unschooled," why would the prosecution win (257)? Maybe there was a little bit of bias from the judge and the jury, but most likely because it was such a simple case, like a "traffic violation" (254).
The only thing that really seemed interesting to me was Malone's speech about open-mindedness that asked why Bryan and the prosecution were so afraid to meet the big issue. I really would have liked to be there to hear him "[look] to the heavens and [implore], 'For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open-close no doors to their knowledge'" (255). No one should poison the minds of impressionable children too early on; they need to let them figure out what they believe.
Summary
In July of 1925, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, two prominent men of that time period, faced off during the court case State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes to debate the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in schools. Although it was supposed to be "the showdown between science and religion, truth and faith, North and South," it didn't turn out to be anything like that (243). First of all, Bryan and Darrow weren't even in it from the start; the ACLU were the ones to actually tackle the Butler Act, an antievolution law. They, however, needed a teacher to test the law in court, and men from Dayton who wanted to put their town on the map chose John Scopes, a young substitute biology teacher, to be the defendant, and Bryan and Darrow eventually joined on as prosecution and defense, respectively, if not simply as a chance to go up against each other (244).
The trial was really a let-down becase prosecution didn't want the main idea of evolution to be debated; they wanted it simply to be "a case 'involving the fact as to whether or not a schoolteacher has taught a doctrine prohibited by statute'" (251). Therefore, when a testimony that Scopes straight-out admitted to teaching evolution came before the court, they believed that his guilt was sealed. But, the defense still had the "expert testimony" card and could attempt to prove "that there was no conflict between evolution and the Old Testament" and "show that its teaching was not a violation of the law" (252, 254). After Bryan bad-mouthed that approach, Malone, a member of the defense team, questioned in an impressive speech why the prosecution was so afraid of the broad issue, but the judge still ruled against the expert testimony, and Scopes was found guilty. The trial, however, still somehow became a legend, an important landmark in the battle between truth and faith.
Reflection
I didn't really understand how this trial came to be such an important moment in history if nothing of substance was really discussed, and since Scopes and evolution lost anyway. Also, if Bryan's case for faith was so "rudimentary and unschooled," why would the prosecution win (257)? Maybe there was a little bit of bias from the judge and the jury, but most likely because it was such a simple case, like a "traffic violation" (254).
The only thing that really seemed interesting to me was Malone's speech about open-mindedness that asked why Bryan and the prosecution were so afraid to meet the big issue. I really would have liked to be there to hear him "[look] to the heavens and [implore], 'For God's sake let the children have their minds kept open-close no doors to their knowledge'" (255). No one should poison the minds of impressionable children too early on; they need to let them figure out what they believe.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Chapter 14
The Road to Butgnéville - November 11, 1918
Summary
This chapter deals with the armistice and the end of fighting on the road to Butgnéville in France, on the front lines of the Western Front. The author's friend's grandfather had served in a division that had been fighting there on the morning of November 11th, when World War One finally ended. Although negotiations with the Germans were under way, that division's orders were to keep fighting against the German defensive line between Saint-Hilaire and Butngéville in order to prepare the way to Metz, a city under German control, and iron mines also controlled by them. It was with these orders that Strauss, the grandfather's, regiment was making its way to the front line in the early hours of the morning, a very difficult and long journey.
No one in that division knew that the armistice had already been signed hours earlier, so they continued to fight, and suffered heavy losses in the process - communication was an issue, and it was very hard trying to call back an attack in progress (233). When they finally returned, they learned about the armistice and were ordered to cease fire, and that fighting would officially stop at 11:00. Some Germans continued to give it everything they had until the final seconds, which seemed a bit pointless. After the war ended, fed-up Germans began to cheer, celebrate, and fraternize with the Americans. Fireworks went off, celebrating the new era of peace (240). Some questions that were posed at the end of the chapter included: were the casualties on that day necessary, and could they have been called off if the front lines had known about the armistice earlier? Also, on the other hand, people questioned if the killing actually ended too soon, saying that it might have been an "incomplete victory" that left the Germans blood-thirsty for revenge.
Reflection
An interesting quote from this chapter mentioned that, "these days nothing indicates that something special once happened here" (241). It seems a little disheartening that all the effort and hard work those men put forth on that battlefield could be so quickly forgotten, and there would be nothing to remind passers-by of the important lives lost at that spot.
Also, although I don't exactly agree with the fact that the fighting might have ended too soon, it is good point that "conclusive triumphs make conclusive peaces" (238). If I were a German, however, I would probably be even more angry and vengeful if I had been badly beaten and completely defeated!
Summary
This chapter deals with the armistice and the end of fighting on the road to Butgnéville in France, on the front lines of the Western Front. The author's friend's grandfather had served in a division that had been fighting there on the morning of November 11th, when World War One finally ended. Although negotiations with the Germans were under way, that division's orders were to keep fighting against the German defensive line between Saint-Hilaire and Butngéville in order to prepare the way to Metz, a city under German control, and iron mines also controlled by them. It was with these orders that Strauss, the grandfather's, regiment was making its way to the front line in the early hours of the morning, a very difficult and long journey.
No one in that division knew that the armistice had already been signed hours earlier, so they continued to fight, and suffered heavy losses in the process - communication was an issue, and it was very hard trying to call back an attack in progress (233). When they finally returned, they learned about the armistice and were ordered to cease fire, and that fighting would officially stop at 11:00. Some Germans continued to give it everything they had until the final seconds, which seemed a bit pointless. After the war ended, fed-up Germans began to cheer, celebrate, and fraternize with the Americans. Fireworks went off, celebrating the new era of peace (240). Some questions that were posed at the end of the chapter included: were the casualties on that day necessary, and could they have been called off if the front lines had known about the armistice earlier? Also, on the other hand, people questioned if the killing actually ended too soon, saying that it might have been an "incomplete victory" that left the Germans blood-thirsty for revenge.
Reflection
An interesting quote from this chapter mentioned that, "these days nothing indicates that something special once happened here" (241). It seems a little disheartening that all the effort and hard work those men put forth on that battlefield could be so quickly forgotten, and there would be nothing to remind passers-by of the important lives lost at that spot.
Also, although I don't exactly agree with the fact that the fighting might have ended too soon, it is good point that "conclusive triumphs make conclusive peaces" (238). If I were a German, however, I would probably be even more angry and vengeful if I had been badly beaten and completely defeated!
Chapter 13
La Follette Speaks against the War - 1917
Summary
In this chapter, set in the tumultuous days before the U.S. joined WWI, La Follette, a senator in Congress, goes against the rest of the nation and opposes American involvement in the war. It was a difficult position to take because so much of the country, including President Wilson, had suddenly become pro-war thanks to the German warfare on the seas that affected U.S. ships like the Lusitania, as well as the Zimmermann note. He quickly became "a national pariah" (212).
On April 4th, Congress met to debate America's involvement in WWI. Many pro-war speakers delivered their speeches to thunderous applause, stating reasons such as nationalism and the protection of democracy everywhere, while few anti-war men spoke, explaining that it would simply "turn into a rich man's war and a poor man's fight," and that going into war without a referendum would not be democratic at all while Congress attacked them and called them traitors (213). Finally, in the late afternoon, La Follette took center stage and "dissected Wilson's case for war and defended his own actions" (217). He talked about all the other options they had, and how pointless it would be to go to war because the U.S. had nothing to do with the causes. At the end of his long speech, he acknowledged that he knew he would lose, but that "the sovereign power of the people never dies," and it would "have expression" again one day (218). He was again met with insults and abuse, and after the resolution passed and America joined WWI, he was criticized even more, but he survived. If only Congress had known the tragedy they were voting for at that moment. Maybe they should have listened a little more closely to La Follette.
Reflection
I enjoyed reading about all the speeches the Congressmen made, because they each made sense in their own way, even the pro-war ones. I agreed with the opening speaker who urged that a nation would be forgotten if they let another force it off the seas, and securing the world's peace is an important matter, but something that really struck me was the "rich man's war" and "poor man's fight," because it does accurately represents all wars (213). It really is "idle to talk of war upon government only" (217). I liked when La Follette questioned if the U.S. democracy truly was impressive enough that they felt they should go help other countries with theirs.
I didn't think they treated him very fairly; they weren't thinking reasonably, they were too caught up in the emotional pull. It's not right to hang a doll of him with "Traitor" written on it in public - I don't think he was a traitor at all.
Summary
In this chapter, set in the tumultuous days before the U.S. joined WWI, La Follette, a senator in Congress, goes against the rest of the nation and opposes American involvement in the war. It was a difficult position to take because so much of the country, including President Wilson, had suddenly become pro-war thanks to the German warfare on the seas that affected U.S. ships like the Lusitania, as well as the Zimmermann note. He quickly became "a national pariah" (212).
On April 4th, Congress met to debate America's involvement in WWI. Many pro-war speakers delivered their speeches to thunderous applause, stating reasons such as nationalism and the protection of democracy everywhere, while few anti-war men spoke, explaining that it would simply "turn into a rich man's war and a poor man's fight," and that going into war without a referendum would not be democratic at all while Congress attacked them and called them traitors (213). Finally, in the late afternoon, La Follette took center stage and "dissected Wilson's case for war and defended his own actions" (217). He talked about all the other options they had, and how pointless it would be to go to war because the U.S. had nothing to do with the causes. At the end of his long speech, he acknowledged that he knew he would lose, but that "the sovereign power of the people never dies," and it would "have expression" again one day (218). He was again met with insults and abuse, and after the resolution passed and America joined WWI, he was criticized even more, but he survived. If only Congress had known the tragedy they were voting for at that moment. Maybe they should have listened a little more closely to La Follette.
Reflection
I enjoyed reading about all the speeches the Congressmen made, because they each made sense in their own way, even the pro-war ones. I agreed with the opening speaker who urged that a nation would be forgotten if they let another force it off the seas, and securing the world's peace is an important matter, but something that really struck me was the "rich man's war" and "poor man's fight," because it does accurately represents all wars (213). It really is "idle to talk of war upon government only" (217). I liked when La Follette questioned if the U.S. democracy truly was impressive enough that they felt they should go help other countries with theirs.
I didn't think they treated him very fairly; they weren't thinking reasonably, they were too caught up in the emotional pull. It's not right to hang a doll of him with "Traitor" written on it in public - I don't think he was a traitor at all.
Chapter 12
Chief Joseph Surrenders
Summary
The author of this chapter was fascinated with the "melancholy story" of Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce Indians, who were mostly friendly up until the 1870s, when they were forced out of the homeland and onto a reservation (187). They tried to escape to Canada, leading General Howard on a wild goose chase, but General Miles surprised them from the East, causing chaos in the Nez Perce camp. The Indians put up a good fight by digging shelters, which protected them from Miles' men and allowed them to "cut down any of his attacking soldiers" (196). After a cold day of fighting, Chief Joseph, under a flag of truce, went to talk with Miles. Miles told him that if the Indians gave up their weapons, then they could return peacefully to their reservation.
Slowly, they began to comply, until Chief Joseph was made a prisoner despite the truce. They exchanged him for a general the Indians had captured, but the fighting began full force again. Suddenly, they began firing a cannon into the shelters, and Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce realized that there was no hope left, so they went to negotiate again. Miles repeated his earlier promise, which turned out to be a lie later on. Scouts returned to the general and told him that Chief Joseph had surrendered, saying "I will fight no more forever" (201). He then came and gave over his rifle, and the men shook hands.
Reflection
The author said that what happened to Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce embodied the whole Indian experience, which I thought was very true. There was unfairness, fighting, forcing them into reservations, lies, and more. Why were the generals so eager to catch these Indians? Why couldn't they just go to Canada and live in peace with Sitting Bull and the Sioux? They had been through so much, what was the harm in simply keeping their promise and letting them go back to their reservation at Lapwai, instead of sending them to Oklahoma and leaving them there to die?
Summary
The author of this chapter was fascinated with the "melancholy story" of Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce Indians, who were mostly friendly up until the 1870s, when they were forced out of the homeland and onto a reservation (187). They tried to escape to Canada, leading General Howard on a wild goose chase, but General Miles surprised them from the East, causing chaos in the Nez Perce camp. The Indians put up a good fight by digging shelters, which protected them from Miles' men and allowed them to "cut down any of his attacking soldiers" (196). After a cold day of fighting, Chief Joseph, under a flag of truce, went to talk with Miles. Miles told him that if the Indians gave up their weapons, then they could return peacefully to their reservation.
Slowly, they began to comply, until Chief Joseph was made a prisoner despite the truce. They exchanged him for a general the Indians had captured, but the fighting began full force again. Suddenly, they began firing a cannon into the shelters, and Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce realized that there was no hope left, so they went to negotiate again. Miles repeated his earlier promise, which turned out to be a lie later on. Scouts returned to the general and told him that Chief Joseph had surrendered, saying "I will fight no more forever" (201). He then came and gave over his rifle, and the men shook hands.
Reflection
The author said that what happened to Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce embodied the whole Indian experience, which I thought was very true. There was unfairness, fighting, forcing them into reservations, lies, and more. Why were the generals so eager to catch these Indians? Why couldn't they just go to Canada and live in peace with Sitting Bull and the Sioux? They had been through so much, what was the harm in simply keeping their promise and letting them go back to their reservation at Lapwai, instead of sending them to Oklahoma and leaving them there to die?
Chapter 11
The Day Lincoln Was Shot
Summary
On April 14th, 1865, President Lincoln was optimistic: the Civil War was finally coming to an end, and he was winning. There would be peace to come. There had been many obstacles and criticisms during his presidency, but he had persevered through it all. He was very worried about America after the end of the war, though. Reconstruction would be difficult. Lincoln needed something to take his mind off of it, so he decided to attend a play with his wife Mary. For some reason, he declined his normal bodyguard and allowed a much less competent man to accompany him, and said goodbye instead of his usual goodnight.
During the show, he was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, part of a group of three assassins aiming to destroy the Union government in hopes that the Confederates would rise up and take control. A man named Powell stabbed Seward, the secretary of state, but he managed to survive, and the third man, named Atzerodt, got cold feet and the vice-president Johnson was fine as well. The doctors tried everything, but his wound was fatal, and he died nine hours later, at 7:22 a.m. During this trying time, while a war was still going on, and chaos could have erupted, Secretary of War Stanton "became the government," and kept everything under control (182). Andrew Johnson became the next President, guerilla warfare was avoided, the assassins were caught, and "a divided nation became one," despite suffering a huge loss of a great leader who acted great even during the difficult times (185).
Reflection
I was completely shocked by the fact that Lincoln seemed to know and accept that he was going to be assassinated, as shown by his actions and words that night. If he was so hopeful and optimistic for the future, why would he be so content to let someone take his life? I wonder why he thought it was so "impossible to prevent" (178).
Why wouldn't he have at least told someone or asked for more protection? Did he want to die? It doesn't seem like such a great man who "never [lost] sight of the good that could somehow be made out of this awful conflict" would want to leave his country in their time of need, even though his duties as President had really taken a toll on him. It's interesting also to think about how this country would be different if he had chosen to take more protective measures, if Booth had gotten cold feet as well, if he hadn't died that day.
Summary
On April 14th, 1865, President Lincoln was optimistic: the Civil War was finally coming to an end, and he was winning. There would be peace to come. There had been many obstacles and criticisms during his presidency, but he had persevered through it all. He was very worried about America after the end of the war, though. Reconstruction would be difficult. Lincoln needed something to take his mind off of it, so he decided to attend a play with his wife Mary. For some reason, he declined his normal bodyguard and allowed a much less competent man to accompany him, and said goodbye instead of his usual goodnight.
During the show, he was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, part of a group of three assassins aiming to destroy the Union government in hopes that the Confederates would rise up and take control. A man named Powell stabbed Seward, the secretary of state, but he managed to survive, and the third man, named Atzerodt, got cold feet and the vice-president Johnson was fine as well. The doctors tried everything, but his wound was fatal, and he died nine hours later, at 7:22 a.m. During this trying time, while a war was still going on, and chaos could have erupted, Secretary of War Stanton "became the government," and kept everything under control (182). Andrew Johnson became the next President, guerilla warfare was avoided, the assassins were caught, and "a divided nation became one," despite suffering a huge loss of a great leader who acted great even during the difficult times (185).
Reflection
I was completely shocked by the fact that Lincoln seemed to know and accept that he was going to be assassinated, as shown by his actions and words that night. If he was so hopeful and optimistic for the future, why would he be so content to let someone take his life? I wonder why he thought it was so "impossible to prevent" (178).
Why wouldn't he have at least told someone or asked for more protection? Did he want to die? It doesn't seem like such a great man who "never [lost] sight of the good that could somehow be made out of this awful conflict" would want to leave his country in their time of need, even though his duties as President had really taken a toll on him. It's interesting also to think about how this country would be different if he had chosen to take more protective measures, if Booth had gotten cold feet as well, if he hadn't died that day.
Chapter 10
With John Brown at Harpers Ferry
Summary
This chapter begins with John Brown, an extremely religious abolitionist, meeting with his followers and planning their raid on Harpers Ferry, the first step toward a journey across the South, liberating slaves and making slave owners pay for their sins. In Brown's "daring venture," he and his men would "seize the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry with its twenty thousand rifles and distribute them to a slave army that Brown [would] lead in a war of emancipation" (151). His followers had faith in him - he had fought for antislavery before, although, in reality, he had slaughtered and mutilated five men. He did, however, manage to turn it around so he looked like a hero, gaining support for his raid from six wealthy Northerners.
The night of October 16th, Brown and eighteen of his men marched to Harpers Ferry, cut telegraph lines, took control of the armory, and took hostages. Soon after the raid began, militiamen began pouring in, blocking off Brown's exits from Harpers Ferry and firing into the armory. Then, Brown and ten hostages ran into a brick firehouse, and the two sides were locked into a stalemate, firing back and forth for hours. General Robert E. Lee arrived next; his men stormed the firehouse, and in 60 seconds the hostages were freed and Brown was taken down. The author talks about how Brown had been a failure his whole life, but he'd always believed that "God was guiding his every step," and how, over the years, there was evidence that he had begun to lose his mind (165). Brown's legacy ends up as being a cross between a hero, fighting to free slaves, and a madman, and his raid on Harpers Ferry had a major impact on the gulf between North and South, which came to a head during the bloody Civil War two years later.
Reflection
One of the lines that stood out to me most was a quote from a Southern senator saying, "John Brown's invasion was condemned [in the North] only because it failed" (168). It clearly showed the division and the distrust between the North and the South. Another good quote from the book was, "John Brown's soul is an amalgam of religious faith and volcanic hate," because it showed how one's religious beliefs can sometimes go too far when paired with an extreme emotion like hate (155). I agree with the author, who thought that there should have been a better way to free the slaves other than "the shedding of blood" (170).
Chapter 9
Jenny Lind's American Debut, 1850
Summary
The main players in this chapter are P.T Barnum, a showman and the mastermind behind Jenny Lind's U.S. tour, and Jenny Lind herself, an extremely talented, independent Swedish singer with the nickname "the Swedish Nightingale," who was very popular in Europe and whom Barnum wanted to bring to America in order to make some money and a name for himself. It cost him almost all his savings to bring her over, but he trusted that she would be a great hit, and he was right. From the moment Lind's ship touched New York's shores to the last incredible notes of her first show in the United States, tens of thousands of people were clamoring to see and hear her, more than the crowds for any other celebrity that had come to visit New York up to that point. The author discusses why this was, saying that, although she wasn't beautiful, Lind's face "shone like that of an angel" when she sang, and her purity and emotion was very appealing (140). He also thinks that she could have had such a tremendous impact because she came at a time when America was very tumultuous and divided; she provided a much-needed distraction.
There was much commotion in the days leading up to her first show, including an expensive auction for tickets and a change of venue to an opera house called Castle Garden. When she finally stepped out on the stage to an audience of thousands, it was a life-changing experience for all who attended, and what made it especially great was that Lind chose to donate all the money she made from the concert to charity. P.T Barnum's decision to bring her to the U.S. was a great one for everyone.
Reflection
When I read about how moved Jenny Lind's audiences were when they heard her sing, and how hundreds of men tried to break into Castle Garden just to hear her, I immediately tried to think of who could be her modern-day comparison. Strangely, I couldn't think of anyone who fit the bill. Yes, thousands of screaming fans would do anything to get close to Justin Bieber, but somehow I don't think it's the same. They're not trying to hear him sing because his voice is like a miracle, or because he simply lights up when he sings, or because he embodies romances like wild songbirds or the far North (141). They want to see him because he's hot! I don't think there has ever really been a singer that has had such an effect on America since Jenny Lind, and I actually wish I could have been there as well.
Chapter 8
James K. Polk and the 1844 Election
Summary
The setting of this chapter is Baltimore in May 1844, where the Democratic national convention is taking place to nominate a presidential candidate. To understand why the Democratic Party is so "distracted, divided, and leaderless," we must first go back to what took place months before on a ship called the Princeton (113). The President was on the ship, as were many other dignitaries, and they were observing the "Peacemaker," an impressive gun. The "Peacemaker"exploded and killed the Secretary of State and of the Navy, a tragic accident that had a tremendous effect on the party because it brought forth the issue of the annexation of Texas and caused a division between the Southwest and the North. Van Buren, a strong Democratic candidate, stated that he opposed immediate annexation, which basically ruined his career from that point on, and James K. Polk, a man who was pro annexation, became "the only man Northern Democrats could support if Van Buren [was] cast aside" (116).
He knew that the only way the Democratic Party could get anywhere was if they united on a single, pro-annexation candidate, but there were many other presidential hopefuls in the running, so the introduction of a two-thirds rule into the convention completely dead-locked them, leading to seven inconclusive ballots, with the votes split among Van Buren and Cass. A violent commotion ensued, and Polk's allies worked behind the scenes, getting the stubborn Van Buren states to rally on him instead. It was completely out of the blue, but soon the delegates realize that he was the candidate who was going to unite the party. Van Buren withdrew, and the votes became unanimous for Polk, who, it was said, was going to lead the nation in a "new and fresh direction" (129). Although he was unknown, and people were wary, he turned out to be a strong, dedicated leader, and a great President.
Reflection
I was very confused by this chapter from the beginning. What is "Old Hickory's party" referring to, and what is the "'log cabin, hard cider' election" (113)? Apparently Old Hickory was a nickname for former president Andrew Jackson, which cleared things up a little.
I understood the general concepts, but it was very difficult to understand and keep straight who was in each party, and what all of their beliefs were. The author's writing style was confusing to me. First of all, why was the annexation of Texas such a big deal, and why did the Northern Democrats oppose it and the Southern Democrats agree with it? And, why could the Northern Democrats support an immediate-annexation man from the Southwest? It didn't make any sense. For those who don't have much background knowledge on the subject, it was a very hard read, and things should have been explained a bit more.
Summary
The setting of this chapter is Baltimore in May 1844, where the Democratic national convention is taking place to nominate a presidential candidate. To understand why the Democratic Party is so "distracted, divided, and leaderless," we must first go back to what took place months before on a ship called the Princeton (113). The President was on the ship, as were many other dignitaries, and they were observing the "Peacemaker," an impressive gun. The "Peacemaker"exploded and killed the Secretary of State and of the Navy, a tragic accident that had a tremendous effect on the party because it brought forth the issue of the annexation of Texas and caused a division between the Southwest and the North. Van Buren, a strong Democratic candidate, stated that he opposed immediate annexation, which basically ruined his career from that point on, and James K. Polk, a man who was pro annexation, became "the only man Northern Democrats could support if Van Buren [was] cast aside" (116).
He knew that the only way the Democratic Party could get anywhere was if they united on a single, pro-annexation candidate, but there were many other presidential hopefuls in the running, so the introduction of a two-thirds rule into the convention completely dead-locked them, leading to seven inconclusive ballots, with the votes split among Van Buren and Cass. A violent commotion ensued, and Polk's allies worked behind the scenes, getting the stubborn Van Buren states to rally on him instead. It was completely out of the blue, but soon the delegates realize that he was the candidate who was going to unite the party. Van Buren withdrew, and the votes became unanimous for Polk, who, it was said, was going to lead the nation in a "new and fresh direction" (129). Although he was unknown, and people were wary, he turned out to be a strong, dedicated leader, and a great President.
Reflection
I was very confused by this chapter from the beginning. What is "Old Hickory's party" referring to, and what is the "'log cabin, hard cider' election" (113)? Apparently Old Hickory was a nickname for former president Andrew Jackson, which cleared things up a little.
I understood the general concepts, but it was very difficult to understand and keep straight who was in each party, and what all of their beliefs were. The author's writing style was confusing to me. First of all, why was the annexation of Texas such a big deal, and why did the Northern Democrats oppose it and the Southern Democrats agree with it? And, why could the Northern Democrats support an immediate-annexation man from the Southwest? It didn't make any sense. For those who don't have much background knowledge on the subject, it was a very hard read, and things should have been explained a bit more.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Chapter 7
The Amistad Trial
Summary
This chapter focused on the Amistad trial in 1841, which dealt with 53 African captives from the Spanish slave ship Amistad, on its way to Cuba. Those African slaves slaughtered the crew and seized the ship, but the white survivors tricked them and went to the US instead of back to Africa like they wanted. The major controversy surrounding these captives is if they should be set free or treated like property and returned to their Spanish owners. Factors such as "antislavery opinion, Spanish demands, an Southern alarm" played a part in the decision of Martin Van Buren, president at that time, but since he needed support from the South, he wanted the Africans back in Spanish custody (98). Abolitionists from the North; however, intervened, and the case went to the Supreme Court.
John Quincy Adams was chosen to defend the captives, a mixed blessing because, although he hated the South and the Van Buren administration, he was an extremely busy man. He barely had any time at all to research about the case and prepare, causing him to become very stressed and worried about whether or not he could keep his cool in court. In mid-January, Adams and his partner Baldwin went to the Supreme Court asking for the case to be dismissed and the captives freed; it was postponed instead, but even that didn't help Adams relax. Finally, one day in Congress, he broke under the stress and went on a crazy rant against Democrats who supported slavery. When the trial began, though, Adams did not crack under the pressure and presented a great case, even if he did "[assail] the federal government for a threatened injustice rather than calmly [advocate] what would have been justice for the captives" (108). Still, the Court "declared the captives free persons, given the facts of the case," an important moment for abolitionists everywhere, and for Adams (109).
Reflection
I find it very easy to relate to the stress that Adams felt. When we can't say no to things that people ask us to do, such as the demands for Adams' public lectures, it's difficult to manage our duties and responsibilites, and it's easy to fly off the handle and lose our temper like Adams did in Congress. It's very impressive that he managed to pull himself together and "address the justices for two whole days" (108). I was, however, a little annoyed with Adams because, like the author said, he seemed to be more focused on his own political agenda during the trial than true justice for the Africans. It all turned out okay in the end though, even if slavery was not declared wrong and natural law was not put above property law (110).
What does that mean, anyway? I suppose natural law relates to everyone having the same rights and property law has to do with Africans being able to be bought and sold as posessions. Something else I didn't know was that Democrats in those days were the ones from the South who had more conservative, traditional views, especially on the topic of slavery. Nowadays isn't the Republican Party more conservative? I wonder when that changed.
Summary
This chapter focused on the Amistad trial in 1841, which dealt with 53 African captives from the Spanish slave ship Amistad, on its way to Cuba. Those African slaves slaughtered the crew and seized the ship, but the white survivors tricked them and went to the US instead of back to Africa like they wanted. The major controversy surrounding these captives is if they should be set free or treated like property and returned to their Spanish owners. Factors such as "antislavery opinion, Spanish demands, an Southern alarm" played a part in the decision of Martin Van Buren, president at that time, but since he needed support from the South, he wanted the Africans back in Spanish custody (98). Abolitionists from the North; however, intervened, and the case went to the Supreme Court.
John Quincy Adams was chosen to defend the captives, a mixed blessing because, although he hated the South and the Van Buren administration, he was an extremely busy man. He barely had any time at all to research about the case and prepare, causing him to become very stressed and worried about whether or not he could keep his cool in court. In mid-January, Adams and his partner Baldwin went to the Supreme Court asking for the case to be dismissed and the captives freed; it was postponed instead, but even that didn't help Adams relax. Finally, one day in Congress, he broke under the stress and went on a crazy rant against Democrats who supported slavery. When the trial began, though, Adams did not crack under the pressure and presented a great case, even if he did "[assail] the federal government for a threatened injustice rather than calmly [advocate] what would have been justice for the captives" (108). Still, the Court "declared the captives free persons, given the facts of the case," an important moment for abolitionists everywhere, and for Adams (109).
Reflection
I find it very easy to relate to the stress that Adams felt. When we can't say no to things that people ask us to do, such as the demands for Adams' public lectures, it's difficult to manage our duties and responsibilites, and it's easy to fly off the handle and lose our temper like Adams did in Congress. It's very impressive that he managed to pull himself together and "address the justices for two whole days" (108). I was, however, a little annoyed with Adams because, like the author said, he seemed to be more focused on his own political agenda during the trial than true justice for the Africans. It all turned out okay in the end though, even if slavery was not declared wrong and natural law was not put above property law (110).
What does that mean, anyway? I suppose natural law relates to everyone having the same rights and property law has to do with Africans being able to be bought and sold as posessions. Something else I didn't know was that Democrats in those days were the ones from the South who had more conservative, traditional views, especially on the topic of slavery. Nowadays isn't the Republican Party more conservative? I wonder when that changed.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Chapter 6
The Corrupt Bargain
Summary
In this chapter, the author talks about the presidential election of 1824, in which Andrew Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, but still lost to Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when the House of Representatives decided. The corrupt bargain is the theory that Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, made a deal with Adams, promising to convince the House to choose him over Jackson if Adams in return made Clay his Secretary of State.
Once Clay had been eliminated from the presidential running, it became his duty as speaker to choose the next president; therefore, he needed to choose between Jackson and Adams, and although he disliked them both, he chose Adams because the two shared many of the same beliefs. Next, he sent a friend to see what Adams thought, basically telling him that if Adams gave him "a prominent share in the Administration," then he would make sure that he would become the next President (89). The men arranged a meeting, arousing much suspicion. During that meeting, they discussed "their expectations of the future," but the author questions what really happened (92). When the decision went to the House of Representatives a few weeks later, Clay convinced Kentucky and Ohio to vote for Adams, he won on the very first ballot, and everyone realized that a corrupt bargain had been made. Clay greedily accepting the Secretary of State position only cemented what had been suspected, destroying his political career in the process.
Reflection
It's hard to understand why the people in the House of Representatives could not see the corruption that was taking place before their very eyes. Why would the representatives of Kentucky and Ohio, where "nine tenths of the people [were] decidedly in [Jackson's] favor," change their minds and choose Adams, especially when Jackson had the most popular and electoral votes (93)? Clay must have been extremely persuasive. It's sad to think that, because of the greediness of these men, a person who was not quite fit for the position at that time won the honor of being president over a man everyone else preferred.
I liked Jackson's quote about "the Judas of the West" (95). It really drives home the point that some men will do anything and betray anyone for power and money. Clay and Adams' deal absolutely was the "sale of public office" (90).
Summary
In this chapter, the author talks about the presidential election of 1824, in which Andrew Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, but still lost to Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when the House of Representatives decided. The corrupt bargain is the theory that Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, made a deal with Adams, promising to convince the House to choose him over Jackson if Adams in return made Clay his Secretary of State.
Once Clay had been eliminated from the presidential running, it became his duty as speaker to choose the next president; therefore, he needed to choose between Jackson and Adams, and although he disliked them both, he chose Adams because the two shared many of the same beliefs. Next, he sent a friend to see what Adams thought, basically telling him that if Adams gave him "a prominent share in the Administration," then he would make sure that he would become the next President (89). The men arranged a meeting, arousing much suspicion. During that meeting, they discussed "their expectations of the future," but the author questions what really happened (92). When the decision went to the House of Representatives a few weeks later, Clay convinced Kentucky and Ohio to vote for Adams, he won on the very first ballot, and everyone realized that a corrupt bargain had been made. Clay greedily accepting the Secretary of State position only cemented what had been suspected, destroying his political career in the process.
Reflection
It's hard to understand why the people in the House of Representatives could not see the corruption that was taking place before their very eyes. Why would the representatives of Kentucky and Ohio, where "nine tenths of the people [were] decidedly in [Jackson's] favor," change their minds and choose Adams, especially when Jackson had the most popular and electoral votes (93)? Clay must have been extremely persuasive. It's sad to think that, because of the greediness of these men, a person who was not quite fit for the position at that time won the honor of being president over a man everyone else preferred.
I liked Jackson's quote about "the Judas of the West" (95). It really drives home the point that some men will do anything and betray anyone for power and money. Clay and Adams' deal absolutely was the "sale of public office" (90).
Chapter 5
Meriwether Lewis on the Divide
Summary
This chapter begins with Meriwether Lewis and three other desperate explorers at the Rockies, looking to cross the Continental Divide on a mission to find the elusive Northwest Passage. These men were completely lost, and they needed directions and horses from the Shoshone Indians. Without their translator Sacagawea; however, there was a great cultural barrier between the groups, but Lewis used gifts as a form of communication instead. Although the Shoshone were a little on edge, they still treated the visitors with respect, and Lewis was impressed with the way they lived peacefully - there was only a bit of trouble between them.
For one, the Indians were a little suspicious of these strange people, wondering about their intentions. Lewis solved this problem by challenging them, asking the men who were not afraid to come with him and retrieve the group's equipment. Suddenly, he witnessed their savage way of eating and recoiled from their world, shocked (73). But then, both suspicious parties underwent a double transformation by exchanging clothes (and identities), and everything went smoothly after that. Lewis' experience with Cameahwait, the chief, and the rest of the Shoshone was pivotal, a moment where the Enlightenment met the wilderness. His journey across the cultural divide changed him forever...or did it? The writings in Lewis' journal are extremely unreliable, scattered with plagiarism, exaggeration, and outright lying, leaving us with only a vague idea of who he really was and how he truly felt during the expedition.
Reflection
It's ironic that he wrote in his journal his disappointment that he hadn't done anything with his life to "advance the information of the succeeding generation," when he is a famous explorer whom everyone knows (76)! I'm confused as to why he felt "offended, threatened, confused, and disgusted with himself," with "an uneasiness about his own identity" simply because he had to "enter the Shoshones' world" (72). What's the big deal? And if he felt so disgusted, why did he choose to have himself painted as an Indian warrior and give his clothes to the wax museum, "memorializing forever that moment when his identity as a white man wavered" (74). Finally, it bothers me that we have no way of knowing whether or not he "grew from his experience" with the Shoshone, or if he "stayed forever walled within his own world" (78).
Summary
This chapter begins with Meriwether Lewis and three other desperate explorers at the Rockies, looking to cross the Continental Divide on a mission to find the elusive Northwest Passage. These men were completely lost, and they needed directions and horses from the Shoshone Indians. Without their translator Sacagawea; however, there was a great cultural barrier between the groups, but Lewis used gifts as a form of communication instead. Although the Shoshone were a little on edge, they still treated the visitors with respect, and Lewis was impressed with the way they lived peacefully - there was only a bit of trouble between them.
For one, the Indians were a little suspicious of these strange people, wondering about their intentions. Lewis solved this problem by challenging them, asking the men who were not afraid to come with him and retrieve the group's equipment. Suddenly, he witnessed their savage way of eating and recoiled from their world, shocked (73). But then, both suspicious parties underwent a double transformation by exchanging clothes (and identities), and everything went smoothly after that. Lewis' experience with Cameahwait, the chief, and the rest of the Shoshone was pivotal, a moment where the Enlightenment met the wilderness. His journey across the cultural divide changed him forever...or did it? The writings in Lewis' journal are extremely unreliable, scattered with plagiarism, exaggeration, and outright lying, leaving us with only a vague idea of who he really was and how he truly felt during the expedition.
Reflection
It's ironic that he wrote in his journal his disappointment that he hadn't done anything with his life to "advance the information of the succeeding generation," when he is a famous explorer whom everyone knows (76)! I'm confused as to why he felt "offended, threatened, confused, and disgusted with himself," with "an uneasiness about his own identity" simply because he had to "enter the Shoshones' world" (72). What's the big deal? And if he felt so disgusted, why did he choose to have himself painted as an Indian warrior and give his clothes to the wax museum, "memorializing forever that moment when his identity as a white man wavered" (74). Finally, it bothers me that we have no way of knowing whether or not he "grew from his experience" with the Shoshone, or if he "stayed forever walled within his own world" (78).
Chapter 4
The McGillivray Moment
Summary
This chapter discusses a three week period in July of 1790 when 27 Indian chiefs met with President George Washington to come up with a treaty and a peaceful solution to end fighting in the southwest. The obvious leader was Alexander McGillivray, the most powerful chief of the Creek Nation. The main problem that needed to be solved was the fact that Native Americans inhabited the Ohio Valley, but white settlers needed to go there. Washington did not want to fight with them or kick them out of their tribal lands, because that would go against the very principles of their new nation, but he needed to do something. One idea was "homelands under tribal control and federal protection," with an end result of the Native Americans assimilating into American culture and becoming citizens.
Finally, they came to a conclusion with the Treaty of New York, which stated that all tribes and states must be peaceful, granted land to Native Americans under federal protection (a promise that was virtually impossible to keep - did Washington know that, or care?), constricted them by attempting to turn them into farmers rather than hunters, and secretly paid McGillivray for his loyalty. As hopeful as Washington was, problems soon arose. First off, American westward migration was unstoppable. Then, as an outward act of defiance, Georgia sold 15 million acres of Creek Nation. Washington wanted badly for there to be a peaceful compromise, but it seemed the only solution would be a tragedy.
Reflection
I liked picturing all the chiefs at Washington's social events, shouting and chanting in the midst of a civilized society, and I wonder what everyone's reactions were. This difference in cultures was not the only one that stood out to me, though. It is very hard to believe that McGillivray "was drinking heavily throughout the conference" (60). If I were taking part in such an important meeting, I would definitely want to have all my wits about me so I didn't get cheated.
Something I had questions about was the Trail of Tears in 1835. I have never really heard about this before, so I looked it up to get a better understanding of this chapter and learned that it is "the forced relocation and movement of Native American nations...from their homelands to Indian Territory" (Wikipedia). It's sad that Washington's promises were so hollow, and that Americans will do anything to gain more land and power.
Summary
This chapter discusses a three week period in July of 1790 when 27 Indian chiefs met with President George Washington to come up with a treaty and a peaceful solution to end fighting in the southwest. The obvious leader was Alexander McGillivray, the most powerful chief of the Creek Nation. The main problem that needed to be solved was the fact that Native Americans inhabited the Ohio Valley, but white settlers needed to go there. Washington did not want to fight with them or kick them out of their tribal lands, because that would go against the very principles of their new nation, but he needed to do something. One idea was "homelands under tribal control and federal protection," with an end result of the Native Americans assimilating into American culture and becoming citizens.
Finally, they came to a conclusion with the Treaty of New York, which stated that all tribes and states must be peaceful, granted land to Native Americans under federal protection (a promise that was virtually impossible to keep - did Washington know that, or care?), constricted them by attempting to turn them into farmers rather than hunters, and secretly paid McGillivray for his loyalty. As hopeful as Washington was, problems soon arose. First off, American westward migration was unstoppable. Then, as an outward act of defiance, Georgia sold 15 million acres of Creek Nation. Washington wanted badly for there to be a peaceful compromise, but it seemed the only solution would be a tragedy.
Reflection
I liked picturing all the chiefs at Washington's social events, shouting and chanting in the midst of a civilized society, and I wonder what everyone's reactions were. This difference in cultures was not the only one that stood out to me, though. It is very hard to believe that McGillivray "was drinking heavily throughout the conference" (60). If I were taking part in such an important meeting, I would definitely want to have all my wits about me so I didn't get cheated.
Something I had questions about was the Trail of Tears in 1835. I have never really heard about this before, so I looked it up to get a better understanding of this chapter and learned that it is "the forced relocation and movement of Native American nations...from their homelands to Indian Territory" (Wikipedia). It's sad that Washington's promises were so hollow, and that Americans will do anything to gain more land and power.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Chapter 3
George Washington and the Newburgh Conspiracy
Summary
This chapter is set in an army encampment near Newburgh, New York in 1783, during the American Revolution. The war was over, but the British were still occupying New York City, and 7,000 officers and enlisted men were growing restless, angry, and frightened for their futures because Congress and the Articles of Confederation didn't have nearly enough power or money to pay them all what they were owed. This created a difficult situation for the veterans because in peace time, they would have no leverage against the government, and if the war continued on, civilians would turn against them. Thus, some men tried to find radical solutions to this problem, including the idea of a military nation led by Washington, which, he warned the government, reflected a growing crisis.
Then, nationalists in Congress came up with a plan to get an impost, or an import tax, passed. They would "fan the fires" of the army, forcing Congress to approve the impost in order to pay the soldiers. General Horatio Gates, a longtime rival of Washington, and his men sent out an anonymous "address to the officers," setting up a meeting for them and stating that, if they didn't want to be poor, hated, and powerless, they had to take action, which Washington had not done, by either not fighting for their country during war time, or fighting against the government during peace time (42). Washington made an unexpected appearance during this conspirator's meeting and told the men not to listen to the traitorous lunatic. He assured them that Congress would keep their promise; they didn't need to worry or take extreme measures. Thanks to his confident words, a major crisis was averted.
Reflection
It was interesting how vulnerable these officers were, and how easily they were swayed. All it took for them to plot against the government was a simple announcement that played on their "concerns about peacetime policies," their "resentment of the preference given to civilians," and their "fears for the future" (42). They were blinded by their fear until Washington "planted his seeds of doubt" in their minds, opening their eyes to how crazy this address truly was (47). It seemed like he knew exactly the right thing to say in order to gain the trust of his men back, a quality that made him such a great leader. This included his observation that "he had grown gray in their service, and now found himself growing blind," which, according to Samuel Shaw, showed how natural and relatable he was, something more important than anything else he had said.
Summary
This chapter is set in an army encampment near Newburgh, New York in 1783, during the American Revolution. The war was over, but the British were still occupying New York City, and 7,000 officers and enlisted men were growing restless, angry, and frightened for their futures because Congress and the Articles of Confederation didn't have nearly enough power or money to pay them all what they were owed. This created a difficult situation for the veterans because in peace time, they would have no leverage against the government, and if the war continued on, civilians would turn against them. Thus, some men tried to find radical solutions to this problem, including the idea of a military nation led by Washington, which, he warned the government, reflected a growing crisis.
Then, nationalists in Congress came up with a plan to get an impost, or an import tax, passed. They would "fan the fires" of the army, forcing Congress to approve the impost in order to pay the soldiers. General Horatio Gates, a longtime rival of Washington, and his men sent out an anonymous "address to the officers," setting up a meeting for them and stating that, if they didn't want to be poor, hated, and powerless, they had to take action, which Washington had not done, by either not fighting for their country during war time, or fighting against the government during peace time (42). Washington made an unexpected appearance during this conspirator's meeting and told the men not to listen to the traitorous lunatic. He assured them that Congress would keep their promise; they didn't need to worry or take extreme measures. Thanks to his confident words, a major crisis was averted.
Reflection
It was interesting how vulnerable these officers were, and how easily they were swayed. All it took for them to plot against the government was a simple announcement that played on their "concerns about peacetime policies," their "resentment of the preference given to civilians," and their "fears for the future" (42). They were blinded by their fear until Washington "planted his seeds of doubt" in their minds, opening their eyes to how crazy this address truly was (47). It seemed like he knew exactly the right thing to say in order to gain the trust of his men back, a quality that made him such a great leader. This included his observation that "he had grown gray in their service, and now found himself growing blind," which, according to Samuel Shaw, showed how natural and relatable he was, something more important than anything else he had said.
Chapter 2
The Salem Witchcraft Trials
Summary
This next historian begins by discussing some myths surrounding the Salem Witch trials of 1692, and explaining their backstories. For example, she stated that there was simply no evidence to back up the accusation that witchcraft trials were simply an "attempt by some people to steal other people's land" (19). She gives a kind of timeline, beginning with early 1692, when the daughter and niece of the Salem Village Revered first began acting strangely. These girls soon accused three women of being witches, including the Reverend's slave Tituba. Suddenly, a 14 year-old also confessed to being a witch, a strange occurrence. The number of accused exploded, says the author, and many were executed. She concludes these facts by explaining how Salem Village finally realized their terrible mistake and apologized, many years too late.
She goes on to further question some of the murky details and gray areas of that time, then imagines what the scenes would have been like in order to provide some answers. The first scene depicts a Reverend delivering a sermon about the recent outbreaks of witchcraft. The second is the trial of Rebecca Nurse, strange because of her age, popularity, and reputation in the church, and the final scene talks about a village pastor's execution.
Reflection
Something I thought was interesting about this chapter was the reference to how the term "witch hunt" has become such a negative term today, and that it is simply "an example of hysterical fear blown out of all proportion to reality" (19). Americans, including me, have mistaken impressions of the trials, and this chapter really helped me make sense of this time in history. One of the things that most caught my eye was the fact that, when the girls were questioned by lots of people, they "eventually" named three women, including Tituba. If I was being interrogated day after day, I might just name some women I know, just to get everyone off my case. Couldn't that be what happened in 1692? The author questioned this as well, saying that the adults could have put names into the mouths of the children (24).
I am shocked as to how it took Salem Village so long to realize that they had made a mistake. It took nineteen years for them to right their wrong? It could have taken them such a long time to figure out that the devil might "create specters in the shapes of innocent people" because no one wanted to listen to those critics in the very beginning due to the fact that everyone was accusing their neighbors of being witches.
Summary
This next historian begins by discussing some myths surrounding the Salem Witch trials of 1692, and explaining their backstories. For example, she stated that there was simply no evidence to back up the accusation that witchcraft trials were simply an "attempt by some people to steal other people's land" (19). She gives a kind of timeline, beginning with early 1692, when the daughter and niece of the Salem Village Revered first began acting strangely. These girls soon accused three women of being witches, including the Reverend's slave Tituba. Suddenly, a 14 year-old also confessed to being a witch, a strange occurrence. The number of accused exploded, says the author, and many were executed. She concludes these facts by explaining how Salem Village finally realized their terrible mistake and apologized, many years too late.
She goes on to further question some of the murky details and gray areas of that time, then imagines what the scenes would have been like in order to provide some answers. The first scene depicts a Reverend delivering a sermon about the recent outbreaks of witchcraft. The second is the trial of Rebecca Nurse, strange because of her age, popularity, and reputation in the church, and the final scene talks about a village pastor's execution.
Reflection
Something I thought was interesting about this chapter was the reference to how the term "witch hunt" has become such a negative term today, and that it is simply "an example of hysterical fear blown out of all proportion to reality" (19). Americans, including me, have mistaken impressions of the trials, and this chapter really helped me make sense of this time in history. One of the things that most caught my eye was the fact that, when the girls were questioned by lots of people, they "eventually" named three women, including Tituba. If I was being interrogated day after day, I might just name some women I know, just to get everyone off my case. Couldn't that be what happened in 1692? The author questioned this as well, saying that the adults could have put names into the mouths of the children (24).
I am shocked as to how it took Salem Village so long to realize that they had made a mistake. It took nineteen years for them to right their wrong? It could have taken them such a long time to figure out that the devil might "create specters in the shapes of innocent people" because no one wanted to listen to those critics in the very beginning due to the fact that everyone was accusing their neighbors of being witches.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Chapter 1
A Day in Cahokia - AD 1030
Summary
In this chapter, a historian travels through the ancient, advanced river-side metropolis in North America, called Cahokia. The year is 1030 A.D., and she is accompanied by a young man from the elite of the civilization. That day, a great chief is being buried and there is an air of great excitement and anticipation. Her guide leads her through the enormous city and explains how it is built around the sacred circles at the four cardinal points of the compass. She takes in the sights of the many mounds (including the Great One) and the lives of the residents.
Finally, it comes time for the ritual. Many attend, showing the expansive reach of Cahokia, and the respect that is shown toward it and its chief is illustrated by elaborate gifts and human sacrifices buried with him, including "precious mica" and the bodies of 50 young women. The historian concludes by stating the causes of Cahokia's power and influence: its size, trading network, unprecedented sophistication, skilled engineers, and more.
Reflection
What interested me most about Cahokia were all the mounds. What was their point? What was so special about them, and who decided to build them? Plus, why bury ancestors in the summits? The impressive residence of the Lord of Cahokia shocked me as well. How did he come to be so high above everyone else, and why did the aristocrats get such better lives as well? That kind of unfairness is relevant even today. The quality of the clothes and culture surprised me too.
The part that confused me, however, was all the objects and bodies that were buried with the chief. For one, why is he facedown? Why are the young men and women so willing to be murdered, and why were some of the bodies missing their heads and hands? I suppose all civilizations have different beliefs and customs that us outsiders can't begin to understand.
Summary
In this chapter, a historian travels through the ancient, advanced river-side metropolis in North America, called Cahokia. The year is 1030 A.D., and she is accompanied by a young man from the elite of the civilization. That day, a great chief is being buried and there is an air of great excitement and anticipation. Her guide leads her through the enormous city and explains how it is built around the sacred circles at the four cardinal points of the compass. She takes in the sights of the many mounds (including the Great One) and the lives of the residents.
Finally, it comes time for the ritual. Many attend, showing the expansive reach of Cahokia, and the respect that is shown toward it and its chief is illustrated by elaborate gifts and human sacrifices buried with him, including "precious mica" and the bodies of 50 young women. The historian concludes by stating the causes of Cahokia's power and influence: its size, trading network, unprecedented sophistication, skilled engineers, and more.
Reflection
What interested me most about Cahokia were all the mounds. What was their point? What was so special about them, and who decided to build them? Plus, why bury ancestors in the summits? The impressive residence of the Lord of Cahokia shocked me as well. How did he come to be so high above everyone else, and why did the aristocrats get such better lives as well? That kind of unfairness is relevant even today. The quality of the clothes and culture surprised me too.
The part that confused me, however, was all the objects and bodies that were buried with the chief. For one, why is he facedown? Why are the young men and women so willing to be murdered, and why were some of the bodies missing their heads and hands? I suppose all civilizations have different beliefs and customs that us outsiders can't begin to understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)