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.
Friday, August 30, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)