Hi guys,


Today in class, Ayn Rand's philosophy came up, and it seemed like not too many people knew of it, so I thought I might give a description.  Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905.  Her family suffered at the hands of the communists, shaping her views on the free market.  When she learned of the American economic system, she embraced it full heartedly.  She was able to leave Soviet Russia for what was to be in the eyes of the government a short visit to relatives in America, but she never went back.  In America, after spending some time in the film industry, Rand became an author.  Her book, The Fountainhead, was published in 1943 to great success.  In it, she backed individualism, a philosophy that basically rests upon the idea that a society only functions when every person has individual rights, especially to a free life.  1957 she published the book Atlas Shrugged.  This book emanates the idea that the only thing driving people to do anything is compensation in some form, and without it, society would collapse.  Rand personified the perspective of lasses-faire government economic policy, which is the perspective that the government should pretty much not affect the free market at all.  Rand's philosophy has shaped the views of many, including Paul Ryan, the last vice presidential candidate from the Republican party.


If you want to read more about Rand, you should check out my source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_aynrand_biography


Please post your opinions on Rand's philosophy in the comments.

Kenneth Moussavian

Rich people!

Some updated figures... (the documentary was from 10 years ago)

All converted wealth figures based on 2010 dollar values (all estimates)

Vanderbilt ----> just over 170 billion
Carnegie -----> just shy of 300 billion
Rockefeller ---> slightly north of 650 billion

Again, everything is an estimate of what they possessed in today's values which is not necessarily adjusted for the rate of inflation.  As it is, in any era of American history these persons would be wealthy.

Most of Morgan's figures are unreliable due to the variable methods of valuing the investments that he was part of and taking into accounts the volatile nature of the markets during the era.  Still, he had bank (literally).

No, neither Justin Bieber or Brigit Mendler is close to this list.

Oh my hat or publicity seeking journalism blown out of proportion?

You decide!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-nevada-lawmaker-slavery-vote-20131029,0,2751119.story#axzz2j9rqbw87

The Industrialists

Hi fellow students,

On this post, I would like to create a conversation about the industrialists we learned about in class on Monday and how you view them (as "captains of industry" or "robber barons").  To start, I will post the notes that I took on each of them in class.


The Vanderbilts

"Captain of Industry" (positive):

• created the Staten Island Ferry
• worked longer hours than anyone else
• legacy was a country linked by rail
• one of the first railroad owners to envision a railroad network
• donated $1,000,000 to now Vanderbilt University

"Robber Baron" (negative):

• often used his fists to break into business
• put competitors out of business by undercutting his rivals

Andrew Carnegie

"Captain of Industry" (positive):

• could decipher Morse code by ear, a very rare skill
• created libraries
• after selling Carnegie Steel, he devoted all of his time to giving away his fortune

"Robber Baron" (negative):

• used insider information to amass his wealth
• built a steel plant because of his insider information
• chose money over the rights of his workers

J. Pierpont Morgan

"Captain of Industry" (positive):

• his word was good
• he would always make a profit for his investors
• Morgan averted economic collapse by rounding up investors to buy government bonds

"Robber Baron" (negative):

• he had a stranglehold on the American economy
• he took a hefty commission on the bond sale

Please feel free to post what you thought about these industrial titans.



-Kenneth Moussavian

Preview of the Upcoming Presidents Part 2 (1881-1897)

Here is the part 2 of my post from yesterday!

President Chester A. Arthur

President Chester A. Arthur is probably best known for his reformation of civil service policies by signing the Pendleton Act that the Congress passed. His acts regarding the tariffs, the “Mongrel” Tariff Act and the Tariff Act of 1883, cannot go unnoticed since he made great deal of efforts in reducing the tariffs. All in all, President Arthur opted for an honest administration and his administration was the first one that enacted the first general Federal Immigration Law.

Here are some of President Arthur’s other presidential policies...

• Edmunds Act (banned Bigamists and Polygamists from voting and holding office)
• Contract Labor Act (Foran Act)
• Chinese Exclusion Act

President Grover Cleveland

Both the 22nd and 24th president before and after his successor President Harrison, President Cleveland was a democrat and the first democratic president since President Andrew Johnson. I believe that President Cleveland used his power of appointment pretty wisely since he didn’t use the spoils system to give away the governmental offices to his own party, although he later started replacing the government with democrats. With that power, he also decreased the number of federal employees. One of President Cleveland’s notable acts is his authorization of the usage of federal troops to break up the Pullman workers’ strike in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike).

Here are some(probably not all) of President Cleveland’s policies...

• Dawes General Allotment Act
• Interstate Commerce Act
• Presidential Succession Act
• Repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act
• Wilson-Gorman Tariff Bill

President Benjamin Harrison

President Benjamin Harrison, a republican president, is well known for supporting the bill that promoted voting rights of African Americans in the South, although it never reached concession in the Congress. Another speculation that is made about President Harrison is that his policies(listed under) hastened the Panic of 1893 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893). The well-known system of checking on corporations was established with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and while it wasn’t really useful during Harrison’s time, presidents such as President Roosevelt used this system effectively.

Here are the acts/polices made during President Harrison’s term...

• Sherman Anti-trust Act
• Dependent Pension Bill
• Dependent and Disability Pensions Act
• Sherman Silver Purchase Act
• The tariff was removed from imported raw sugar, and sugar growers in the United States
• Act that created the United States Circuit Court of Appeals
• McKinley Tariff
• Anti-Lottery Bill

Preview of the Upcoming Presidents Part 1 (1869-1881)

Since the test is over, I was thinking of blogging for preview. 
So here I am with facts about the presidents we will soon learn about!

President Ulysses S. Grant

Notable for his military achievements as the general of the U.S. Army in the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant was already a popular choice as a president. A Republican president with Lincoln’s moral visions and militaristic ways of solving problems, Grant was believed to have had no real policy for Reconstruction since he continued the Congressional Radical Reconstruction. He did things according to the opinions of the Republicans and sent troops to the South in an attempt to stop the Ku Klux Klan or similar racist cults, which the South thought was militarism directly from the federal government. 

Here are some of the list of acts/laws President Grant passed and his accomplishments...
(sorry they are not in order)

• Civil Rights Act of 1875
• 15th Amendment
• Specie Resumption Act
• Indian Appropriation Act
• Ku Klux Klan Law
• Federal Election Law
• Civil Rights Act of 1870
• Enforcement of Civil Rights for African Americans in the Reconstruction States
• Signed the Amnesty Act of 1872
• Signed the bill that promoted Black Voting Rights
• Passed the Inflation Bill in 1874
• Signed the Treaty of Washington for settling the Alabama Claims dispute between Britain and the United States by International Arbitration

President Rutherford B. Hayes

Overall, President Rutherford B. Hayes’ presidency was uneventful; however, one notable action that this Republican president did was dismantling the Reconstruction regime imposed on the defeated Southern states. No matter how unpopular this idea was, President Hayes wasn’t given much choice to decide on this matter, and he had to relieve the South of the heavy Northern influence and remove the federal troops in the former Confederacy. (*To all the advocates of feminism out there, President Hayes was the one who passed the bill that allowed female attorneys to argue cases before the supreme court of the United States!)

Here are some of President Hayes’ policies...
(again they are not in order)

• Bland-Allison Act 
• Prohibited federal office holders from taking part in party politics and protected them from receiving party contributions
• Signed the Domestic Act
• Signed the Bill requirement for Black rights
• Compromise of 1877
• Desert Land Act (1877)
• Timber and Stone Act (1878)
• Tidewater Act (1879)

President James A. Garfield

President James A. Garfield’s achievements as a president is almost unnoticeable, well, mainly because he was assassinated. Again, a Republican, President Garfield was the one who started the work of Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. He is mostly known for his long rivalry and dissent with the New York Senator Roscoe Conkling.

Here are President Garfield’s policies...
(order is debatable)

• Attempted to reestablish the Independence of the presidency
• Civil and Post Office Reform
• Civil Rights and Universal Education

stay tuned for....Part 2!

Test Review Help

Hey guys!

So, I found this cool gadget online - it's called Scrible, if anyone wants to try it out - that lets you highlight/annotate articles online. I used some really helpful outlines from www.apnotes.net and thought I'd share them with you all so that anyone who wants a quick overview can take a look.

I've included links for Chapters 21, 22, and 23.

Note: I have already highlighted the pages, so sorry if that confuses anyone. Hopefully it will help you.

(General color code is:
Red = Confederacy
Orange = Confed. Victory
Light Blue = Union
Dark Blue = Union Victory
Green = Neutral/Statistic/Fact
Purple = Ignore [personal notes that would not be helpful])

The rest should be inconsequential...hope this helps!

Here are the links:

http://www.scrible.com/contentview/page/A4OA1111IM1CO3IR00C3K2AT44C0042F:50658757/index.html?utm_source=archive_share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=trans&_sti=798354

http://www.scrible.com/contentview/page/E4OA1915I61EO3IR00O1K1AD44C0042A:50674722/index.html?utm_source=archive_share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=trans&_sti=798354

http://www.scrible.com/contentview/page/E4OA1115I6HSO3IR00S1G39P44C4042A:50674725/index.html?utm_source=archive_share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=trans&_sti=798354

Hope it helps! Good luck!

Opinion Post: Reconstruction?...A Failure

So we learned in class today that the Panic of 1873 during Grant’s presidency eventually turned the Northerners away from Reconstruction in the South to focus on the country’s economic crises. While some may argue that the Reconstruction was successful since the Union was able to bring back all of the seceded states (which was the primary purpose of the Civil War for the North), and make freed slaves (freedmen) become part of the society (no matter how minimal that effort was), this era was full of abuses and corruptions that trapped the Blacks from escaping the cruel system they were forced to be part of during their years of slavery. Sharecropping and tenant farming are two of the most common examples of the unbreakable shackles placed on the Freedmen by mostly likely their previous masters. Yes, the rights of citizenships were guaranteed to the Blacks through the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments; however, these reforms were ignored by the Southerners once the Compromise of 1877 removed all the troops sent by the military by the federal government when the once rebel states readmitted to the Union. The social order that the Northerners hoped to find wasn’t really achieved in any of the Southern states with maybe a few exceptions here and there. So from the Black codes to the violations against the Blacks imposed by the Ku Klux Klan, it was inevitable that it was impossible to change the ways the South had been from the beginning. 

Here are some clauses/laws that tried to/did take away the rights of the Blacks:

Jim Crow Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Grandfather clause 

This clause is the one that required a grandfather(s) with citizenship for any person to vote.

It takes away the rights passed by the 15th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

Literacy Test

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

Poll Taxes (Tax per Head)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes

White Primaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries

It is important to note that not only did the failure of Reconstruction and the elevation of the Jim Crow Law bring downfall to the rights of Blacks, it also limited or even prevented the rights of Whites in the South who were not rich nor eligible to pay the taxes that promoted the formation of second class citizens. Therefore, the poor Southern white males who sided with the pro-slavery Southerners during the civil war dug their own graves and the anti-black laws prevailed to bring disadvantages to the blacks. 

Class Notes

End of Slavery: Beginnings of Jim Crow Segregation

13th Amendment (1865)

• Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude will exist in U.S.

Response and Issues of 13th Amendment

• Although it was an end to the concept of slavery, there were no legal protections or definitions of rights for freedmen
• Rise of Black Codes: restriction of liberty of freedmen
• Civil Rights Act of 1866 --> Gave freedmen citizenship and protections
• Johnson's veto and Congressional override = Johnson's limited power as president
• Freedmen's Bureau (1866) was passed my Congress which provided food, clothing, medical care and education to both freed slaves and white refugees
• Race riots

Politics of Reconstruction

• Restoration or Reconstruction?
• Radical Republicans - "South should be treated as conquered territories!"
• Moderate Republicans
• Democrats - pro Restoration
• "Carpet baggers" and "Scalawags" supported Reconstruction (deemed traitors by the South)
• Freedmen
• "Old South" and "New South"

Perspectives of Reconstruction

• 1864 Lincoln's View and Plan
• Wade-Davis Bill (1864) - a program proposed for Reconstruction of the South that was written by two Radical Republicans (got vetoed by Lincoln)
• Lincoln's Assassination (1865)
• Radical Republicans: "Reconstruction"
• Military Reconstruction

14th Amendment (1868)

• Section 1 - You can't deny a person's rights unless you use legal means to do so
• Everyone has citizenship if naturalized

Response and Issues of 14th Amendment

• Share cropping and Tenant Farming
• Denial of voting rights to Freedmen
• Intimidation and Terror (ex. Ku Klux Klan)
• Meanwhile: Impeachment of President --> Tenure of Office Act & Command of the Army Act

15th Amendment

• Section 1 - You can not deny someone from voting due to race, color, or previous servitude

Response and Issues of 15th Amendment

• New methods of disenfranchisement (denial of voting rights)
• Denying South Obstruction
•     --> Red shirts, White League, Mississippi Plan
•     --> Legislation: Force Acts & Ku Klux Klan Act
•     --> South Votes Democratically
• Politics: How to END Reconstruction?
• Panic of 1873 due to paper money no longer being supported by gold
• Compromise of 1877 ends Reconstruction
•      --> But South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana still haven't readmitted themselves to Union
• Withdrawal of Federal Troops from South

Rise of Jim Crow Segregation - Economics

• Southern Economy
• Cheap Labor
• Crops-Liens/Share cropping
• Convict-Lease - Use of convicts for labor
• lack of Opportunities

Rise of Jim Crowe Segregation - Politics

• Civil Rights Act of 1875

How Reconstruction was successful(or not?)

We all know that the DBQ will be on this so I decided to give you all some pointers on what to write/ponder.

The Reconstruction Era, lasting around fourteen years, overall was a success. Unfortunately, when you look at the specifics of it, the reconstruction of the South can appear to be a failure. It was a success in that it brought the South back into the country and the slave were freed for real this time. The thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments protected long awaited rights for the freed blacks, including voting rights and citizenship. While this may make it seem like everything was suddenly awesome for free blacks, this is not the case. Southerns weren’t happy with the sudden upgrade for their former slaves and found many ways to get around dealing with it. Such organizations that oppressed black rights included the Ku Klux Klan and the White League. This was during the time of Jim Crow Segregation, which lead to unfair disadvantages for freedmen and a lack of opportunities for them in the work place. Another point to think about is how reconstruction ended. Southerners were fed up with the constant nagging from the north on what they should do regarding their diverse population and the North was bored of do it. In the end, black rights’ issues were set aside to allow the North and the South to focus on coming back together. It is up to you to decide which you want to argue for, success or failure, as there are evidence to back both arguments. I personally believe that which ever you decide to be the “right” answer can potentially be proven plausible:)

Congress is driving the boat

I thought I would do a recap of today’s lecture because that seems to be trending, so here you go:

After the Civil War, a period of reconstruction, or to others, restoration, dawned upon the United States. With the end of slavery, came the Jim Crow Segregation laws, but as we learned earlier, the Emancipation Proclamation was not the real end of slavery. Slavery was not technically abolished until 1865, when the 13th Amendment was passed. However, as this amendment protects people from involuntary servile, it does not give protection for any other rights of the “freedmen” or freed slaves. This gave rise to the Black Codes, that ensured that freed blacks really didn’t have any freedom at all. As we look back on this situation now, it is fairly ironic how, although the blacks were claimed to be freed, the whites were still enslaving them in any way they possibly could. This was especially apparent in “crop sharing”, which was clearly demonstrated by Mr. Stewart, if you can recall. These types of situations lead to the Civil Rights Act and Freedmen’s Bureau in 1866, which were both vetoed by President Johnson. It is important to note that these propositions were vetoed by Johnson, because, as he was Lincoln’s second in command, his purpose in the election was only to attract the popular vote. This means that he appealed to the South and supported their values as his own, which translated negatively to the republican government Lincoln had set up. However(this is where the title of this post comes in), Congress is right there to override these inappropriate vetoes and carry out the Lincoln Plan.

Hope this helped!:)

Todays Class Reading

In Class today, we went over some very neat material and I was just thinking about the Civil war as a whole. To be honest, I feel like had quite had one overlying theme; Battles can be thought over for as long as you want, but what really matters is how well you react in the field in the heat of battle. Battle after battle the Confederacy proved this to the union. Lee along with other other southern generals capitalized on the unionist weaknesses and because of this, one battle. It seems like quite the strange thing to think if the south had one our world would be completely different. But that is a completely different subject. Overall, the civil war shows us that men with courage were successful and cowardliness led to great defeat.
On a further note, how do you guys feel about how costly the war has become? both sides have taken many lives and lost astounding amount of men. what could that tell us about the advancements and short comings of this era. Weaponry has evolved greatly sense 1812 but the tactics have stayed fairly the same. This creates a bloody massacre on the battlefield because men would line up just like targets for the opposition to shoot at them. Field Medicine hasn't changed for the new weapons either. If you got hit in the torso you were dead. If you got shot in the limb you would have to get it amputated. It was a very scary time for the common private. What are your guys' thoughts?

Slavery in the Modern Times

Ponder.

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-global-slavery-20131018,0,808184.story

A conservative take on the shutdown...

This is an article from the conservative (very conservative) "Red State" blog.  For those who are interested in how Republicans who voted to reopen the government possibly will be targeted by the Tea Party Conservative Movement it will provide a view into the political struggle within the Republican Party.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/16/advancing-ever-advancing/

The End of the Government Shutdown

After a 16-day shutdown, the United States government has finally reopened. This article provides a decent summary of the current political situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/us/politics/government-reopens.html

For those who want a basic summary, last night the Republicans finally agreed to finance government until January 15 and raise the nation’s debt limit through the middle of February, minutes before the deadline would have expired. Following the Senate and the House, President Obama signed the temporary spending measure into law. Thus, this morning federal agencies and public facilities began to reopen for business. Many furloughed federal workers were very relieved to have their jobs back. Vice President Joe Biden is said to have welcomed the returning workers with muffins. Not all normal government operations have been resumed, though, and it is not clear when they will start up again. Politicians are already preparing for another confrontation over budget negotiations, because in truth this is only a temporary measure and the government needs to find a more permanent way to resolve these issues. In short, the government is functioning once again, but America needs to either find a true solution quickly or face another blow-up.

Optional Articles: What Took The North So Long

In case you didn’t have either time or the inclination to read any of the optional articles Mr. Stewart listed on Edmodo, here is a summary of the first one, an eight page article by William Murray, What Took the North So Long.

In his article, Murray argues that the length of the war had “less to do with the supposed superiority” of the Confederate troops and generals than it did with the “formidable strategic complexities that the North’s leadership so brilliantly overcame”, although they took a while to do so.

While, some emphasize the incompetence of Northern generals on the eastern front, Murray claims that the shortcomings of the Southern generals on the western front more than made up for it. Similarly, he states that the rank and file soldiers of both sides were about equally matched.

Murray emphasizes instead the “complexities of modern war”. The Civil War was the first of its kind, a modern war such as this had never been fought, and thus there was no precedent set on how to fight in such a war. In the North, they had few experienced officers to train their men, and the few they did have were “not used to the best advantage”. The South, however, “spread [those with experience] through the newly formed state regiments”, where they were able to “provide an example to others”.

The first year of the war, Murray states, was primarily focused on raising and equipping an army with the “strategic and political requirements” demanded by the war. New innovations in weaponry had changed warfare, with an increased musket range that rendered Napoleonic tactics invalid. The soldiers and officers of the Civil War had to gain experience through “learning on the battlefield”.

The initial plan of the Federal army was the Anaconda Plan, which did not have the momentum nor the support to subdue the South. Not only did they have to outlast the Southern soldiers, the Union had to “break the will of the population”. This fact, however was not understood by the leadership in the beginning, and so the war was off to a slow start.

Lincoln and Grant, Murray says, saw early on that a “concerted, concurrent Union effort in all theaters would be required to break the… Confederate resistance”. Eventually Grant was elevated to commander of all the Union armies, and was able to put this into practice, and turn the tide of the war.

At the onset of the war, Murray argues, neither the “strategic vision nor the military capacity to win the war existed”, so it is no wonder that the war lasted for far longer than many critics suggested at its beginning. Murray proposes that the true question is not why the North took so long, but how the leaders of the Union were “able to see it through to its successful conclusion”.

Monday Class Recap and Intriguing Inquiry

For Mondays Class of USHAP I was wondering how every body felt about the material. For me, I felt like we had already gone over this previously on Friday and it was a good review of what we have learned so far. That being said, I feel like the extra practice might mean that this will be very important. On another note, I was feeling that one question could be on all of our minds. Why is the Confederacy holding up so well against the great behemoth the Union? And for me it came down to three 3 advantages that the Confederacy had early on.

1. Morale: The spirit of the war effort was drawn on by the rally for rights and the freedom to be independent. This is much stronger of a rally call in comparison to the Unions, "for the Union".

2. Military Dominance: the South had a key military dominance in the beginning of the war. General Lee was  a Legendary tactician and would be ready to lead in the heat of battle. McClellan is overly cautious and the South capitalized on their mistakes

3. On Defense:All the south must do to win is to break the will of the north to fight. The soldiers are fighting for the defense of their home land, which ties back to point 1.

But what are some of your guys' ideas on the topic?

Slavery

The question that I wish to ask you today is something that I have thought about greatly and feel some elaboration would help me come to a consensus. Did Southerns like slavery or did they continue it because it was necessary for their economy to thrive?

The Role of House Speaker...

For those who are having trouble understanding the role of John Boehner in the current political struggle...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/boehner-shutdown/?iref=obinsite

The Civil War: Highlights Part 2

This post is a follow-up to my earlier post, which covered the first three chapters.

P53-Significance of the Battle of Bull Run, which was a devastating blow to the Union cause and allowed the Confederacy to sit contently and wait for the Union to make the next move. The picture on page 52 depicts a soldier who's youth serves to shock readers and remind them that many of the fighters in the Civil War were under 20 years of age.
P60-Explains the importance of the Battle of Shiloh in more detail; the first day was a bloody Union loss, while the second day saw the tides turn to favor the Union. The casualty list was enormous, and the troops had been badly handled.
P63-General McClellan's handicap, the active distrust and hostility of Republican leaders, must be taken into account when assessing his actions during the war. His background, growing up with a silver spoon in his mouth, and having little experience with failure should also be taken into account.
P64-Another handicap of the Union was the use of "political generals," who were given their titles with little to no military experience. McClellan's disastrous battle is also dissected in this section, pointing out McClellan's continual over-estimations of the enemy's force.
P66-By skillfully manipulating his troops, especially his cavalry, Jackson gives the impression of large numbers and manages to frighten the Federals greatly. Thus, 50,000 Northern troops retreated in fear of Jackson's 17,000 men.
P82-The naval part of the Civil War was also important, introducing new models like submarines and iron-clads. Had the South had access to the manufacturing might of the North, their skillfully designed ships might have destroyed Federal blockades. Blockade runners also contributed to the direction of the war, contributing to keeping the South stocked with supplies during the blockade.

The Civil War: Highlights Part 1

On Monday, Mr. Stewart went over some of the key points in Bruce Catton's The Civil War. For those who may not have caught some of them, here is a brief review of the highlights.

P19-John Crittenden's Compromise: re-establish the Missouri Compromise line, let future states enter on popular sovereignty, enforce fugitive slave law, the Constitution would never be amended to let Congress have power over slavery

P21-Provides a good summary of the steps taken to prevent the war

P24-The bombardment of Fort Sumter was an anticlimactic beginning to the Civil War, no soldiers were killed until a malfunction after Northern surrender. Most soldiers in the Civil War actually died of disease or weapon malfunctions rather than other soldiers.

P27-Describes the degree to which America was not ready for this war. The soldiers were untrained and had no experience with drill, preventing them from maneuvering in battle. This would result in many unnecessary deaths in later battles.

P30-Highlights the significance of the Border States, which contained over half of the South's industrial might and would be key to determining the direction of the war

P33-Goes into Northern and Southern advantages: The South lacked means of production and transportation, but they only had to convince the North to give up in order to win; Old Winfield Scott's slow plan to constrict the South is also examined

P38-"Cotton is King," the South's false beliefs that refusing to export cotton would convince European nations to step in and oppose the North, later this hope was proved false when England and France were getting along so nicely that cotton was shipped back to New England

Where did the name "Civil War" come from?

As we dive deep inside the causes and repercussion of all out warfare against our fellow country men I feel it is important to understand a crucial point that many disregard or decide not to discuss. This is the naming of the War and how the name civil came about. The first thing to look at is what Civil actually means. Though it can be interpret as nice and polite the term came from the idea of state. Being nice and polite are ways that you should act in a state and hence why we use that term. This originated back in Ancient Rome where battles between different governmental factions were known as civil wars. Basically a civil war is a battle within a nation state. This is why this name is fitting for the purpose of the successful Unioners because to them it was a worth within there nation like a rebellion that they successfully crushed. Now looking at this there are other names that can be attributed to be valuable depending on what side you look at things. For example, during the time period the Confederates believed this war was a showcase of them fighting for freedom and called it the War of Southern Independence. The north knew it as the War of the Rebellion because to them this whole conflict was just one large rebellion. These are the general view points that existed during the time period. As you search deeper into history you can see partisan view points that clearly communicate the ideas of the time period. For example, some confederates believed that the name should be War of Northern Aggression because what it did was showed how forceful the north was being. Finally, a perspective that people don't usually consider when looking at this war was the point of view of the slaves. They believed that this war was all being fought for their freedom and fittingly called it the Freedom Wars. All in all the idea that even the name of the war being a subject of debate and change between different groups of people shows how different this war is and how much of it can change just by differing view points. This is not specifically important but I feel it is an important thing to understand. With history comes controversy.

Propaganda During the Civil War

Looking through The Civil War, I noticed that a small percentage of the pictures were propaganda used by the North/South and I thought it would be interesting to look into examples of cartoons that were used during the time of the Civil War.

The purpose of propaganda during the war was to persuade people to support either the Union or the Confederacy. The most popular and optimal methods of propaganda were cartoons because they required little concentration in order to understand the overall message. Below are two examples of Northern and Southern cartoons.

One famous cartoonist was Thomas Nast of the North.

Above is one of his famous cartoons entitled, Compromise With the South. In the picture, the crippled man on the left (the North) is reluctantly and disappointingly shaking hands with the triumphant man of the South. His foot is on the grave of a man who died in a "useless war," and in the background we see that the battlefield is ravaged with the ruins of war. Behind the two men, a family of African Americans appear to be in distress. Also, the Confederate flag is proudly waving while the Union's is upside down and tattered. In essence, the point of this cartoon was to illustrate that compromise with the Union would result in vain sacrifices, and slavery would continue to plague the United States.

A popular cartoonist of the South was Adalbert J Volck, who, naturally, supported the Confederacy.

This cartoon is called Writing the Emancipation Proclamation. Here we can see Abraham Lincoln who looks tired and frustrated, writing the Emancipation Proclamation surrounded by symbols of satanism, in an effort to depict him as a demonic being. The painting behind Abraham Lincoln is a representation of a slave riot which Volck believes will be a result of the document. This particular work was popular among the South and inspired many proslaveryites to viciously oppose Lincoln.

Current Political Showdown

A up to the hour summary of the current situation of the domestic political showdown.  Compare to what President Lincoln had to deal with in terms of more extreme elements of his own party and his political opponents.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-government-shutdown--20131013,0,6593863.story

Malala Yousafzai, an Iconoclast

Malala Yousafzai is a Pakistani girl, age 16, who has pioneered the women's education movement against the subjugation of the tyrannical Taliban. About a year ago, after speaking out publically on behalf of women's education, talibs hunted Malala down and shot her in the head for spreading propaganda that was harmful to the regime and contradictory to Islamic code. Luckily, she survived the gunshot, narrowly avoiding death, and has resurfaced, this time on a national stage, opening the Malalafund, a non-profit for promoting women's education around the world.

Malala's central dogma is the practice of peaceful protest, something we studied briefly in the prior unit. Henry David Thoreau was an American philosopher who published the idea of peaceful revolution as opposed to bloody revolution. Perhaps the South should have taken note; this method worked beautifully in the case of Malala.

The South, when seceding from the Union, began the Civil War with somewhat less extreme dispositions than those that developed as the war progressed. Jefferson Davis' attitude at the start of the war was that of focusing solely on defense: he wouldn't attack the North, he would only defend himself if the Union invaded. Of course, this method spiraled into disaster and ruin when this conflict became the bloodiest in American history.

Obviously, there's a huge discrepancy between the Northern-Southern conflict and the Taliban's presence in Pakistan. And yet, both are conflicts over idealism, and similar idealism, at that. The Civil War was fought over the worth of the individual, namely the African American individual. The peaceful protest that Malala has waged against the Taliban is also about the worth of the individual, namely women in Islamic societies.

The South went to war with the North over its conflict and blood was spilled; still, the South lost in protecting its ideals. Malala's process in waging peaceful war of idealism may just work, because, in contrast with the Civil War, Malala refuses to take up arms; she's only trying to spread her message. And, in that way, there's hope for women's education in Pakistan and around the world.

Dred Scott Case and the Political Shuffle

Today we learned of the harsher hostilities and the even deeper ridge separating the Southern states from the Northern states. For example, Chief Justice Roger Taney (pronounced "taw-nee"), who was a pro slavery southerner, not only degraded all blacks to a position of non-citizenship, but also declared the relatively ancient Missouri Compromise (which had upheld stability between the South and the North for decades while allowing for additional states to be added) to be unconstitutional. Taney was clearly ruling against Dred Scott, the defendant in question, to preserve the views of the South. Earlier, Scott had been freed under state court, but the idea of freeing slaves contradicted against southern ideals, making the southern argument against freeing blacks weaker.

Another segment of the documentary we watched was about the mass political shifting during the 1850s. The Whig party met its demise because it had irreparably split over the issue of slavery. When Southern pro slavery Whigs nominated General Winfield Scott, many Northern Whigs fled from the Whig party.

The Democratic party likewise split; Southern pro-slavery Democrats stayed Democrats while many Northern anti-slavery Democrats joined the newly founded Republican party, comprised of former Democrats, Free-Soilers, and other anti-slavery parties. Eventually, two major parties emerged: Democrats in the South, and Republicans in the North. The lack of a unified political party did not help in keeping peace...

Lincoln's First Inaugural Adress

Summary:

On Monday, March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln delivered his first inaugural speech which started his presidential career strongly. When Lincoln was elected to be the sixteenth president of the United States, he lost the popular vote, but won the electoral votes needed to win. This meant that the majority of the country was against supporting him, which put extra pressure on Lincoln to deliver a concrete speech to convince them that he was a solid president. 

The actual speech itself was indirectly focused on the South, who's seven states had recently seceded to form the Confederate States of America. Throughout his speech, and throughout his entire presidency, Lincoln never actually acknowledged the Confederate States of America as an actual nation. In fact he still considered them to be part of the Union, ignoring the fact that they seceded altogether. He specified that he did not intend to use force upon the Confederate States of America, but he made it clear that he would do whatever it took to keep the Union together. He emphasized the importance of unity between the South and the North by using the word "union" twenty times. Lincoln said he would only use force if it was necessary to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" that belonged to the Federal Government, or if the South applied hostile force first. 

Lincoln mentioned several other things in his speech such as his willingness to enforce the fugitive slave law, a general overview of his slavery polices, and his view on the legality of the current Southern Situation. As far as Lincoln was concerned, he was fully supportive of the Fugitive Slave Act as long as nobody took advantage of it and illegally sold free blacks back into slavery. He also had no intentions of changing any of the Southern legislation concerning slavery. He said that he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no indication to do so". Lincoln quoted presidential oath that he had taken before hand by saying that he had promised to "preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution", and he believed that it was still his duty to enforce the laws of the constitution, even in those states that had seceded. Towards the end of his speech, the Illinois native closed his speech with "I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies". His main goal for his presidency, which he made quite clear, was not the issue of slavery, but keeping the Union intact and in harmony. 

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Overview:

The Lincoln Douglas debates were a series of seven debates in 1858 between Abraham Lincoln, the Republican candidate for Illinois Senator, and Senator Douglas, the Democratic candidate for reelection.  The main topic up for discussion was slavery. Each debate was held in a different town in Illinois over the course of a little less than three months. The debates grew rapidly in popularity as people from other states traveled many miles to see the two orators combat each other with words. All of the debates were covered by Chicago newspapers, and the newspaper companies even sent stenographers to record and publish the entire debate so those at home could know what was going on as well. However the newspapers were biased and the Republican papers edited out any errors on Lincoln's behalf, but the Democratic newspapers did the same with Douglas' speech too. The way the debates worked was the first candidate spoke for an hour, an following that the second candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and after the second candidate spoke, that, the first candidate was allowed 30 minutes to refute or solidify his argument. The order in which was the candidates spoke first was alternated, leaving Douglas to speak first four times, and Lincoln to strike first three times. 

The Debates:

Both Lincoln and Douglas discussed a variety of topics, but the one everyone was most interested in was slavery. Douglas tried to poison people's view of Lincoln by saying that Lincoln believed that the slaves should be set free as equals of the white man, endangering the jobs of all the hardworking white males of America. Lincoln refuted by saying he did not view the blacks as equals, he said "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But the right to eat the bread , without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." Lincoln explains how the slaves deserve to be paid for their hard labor, even if they are not the "equal" of the white man. He argues that regardless of their skin color or social class, they should be able to rejoice in the fruits of their labor. He also challenges Douglas' policy of popular sovereignty, forcing Douglas to explain the Freeport Doctrine. He explained how he believes that the new Territories or States should have the right to govern whether or not they want to allow slavery to be present within their boundaries. This pleased few people on either side, because it brought up concerns for the South by threatening their way of life, because they were worried that the black freedom would spread to the South. It also concerned Northerners because they were distressed at the thought of the ideals and ideology of slavery being so close to home. Lincoln saw a fatal flaw in Douglas' popular sovereignty policy, because of Douglas' firm support of the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott case basically said that it was illegal to ban slavery anywhere in the United States because the fifth amendment protects a citizen's property, and because of the Dred Scott case, all slaves were to be considered property. This means that to outlaw slavery would be illegal to prohibit a man's right to property, or slave in this case. Lincoln had successfully trapped Douglas, putting Douglas in a sticky situation. 

Results:

Although Lincoln had effectively trapped his opponent, Douglas ended up winning the Senate race because in that time period, Senators were elected by State Legislatures, and the Democrats were able to take over control of the Illinois Legislature. However, even though he lost the Senate race, this wasn't a complete loss for Lincoln. Even with his loss, Lincoln gained mass popularity and national support, which gained him the Republican nomination for president in the presidential elections two years later, and this time he managed to defeat Douglas and become the president of the United States. 

Did the Naval Blockade Help or Hurt the Union?

Since this is a question I was sort of pondering, I wanted to see what everyone else thinks.

At the start of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a naval blockade of the Confederacy. This almost immediately proved to be a mistake, because it recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. Naval blockades are only carried out against foreign powers, and ports within the country are simply shut down by the government. By blockading, Lincoln was admitting that he had no authority over Southern ports. The South immediately jumped on this, and sought help from European powers.

England, as an experienced maritime superpower, was hesitant to get involved. They feared that the situation could be binding, and they didn't want such hostile relations with the Union. No formal alliances were made, but a system of "blockade runners" was set up. First, cargo ships came from Europe to rendezvous points in the West Indies (often the port of Nassau). From there, the precious cargo would be transferred to the Confederate blockade runners, which were small, light and swift. These crafts would attempt to slip past the blockade and bring much needed supplies to the Southerners. About eighty percent of the time, they were stopped. However, successfully blockade running was considered highly admirable, and captains were glorified for making only one or two trips.

The blockade was put in place to cease the export of cotton and the import of weapons, going to and from Europe. The force that the Union scrapped together to execute this job was an eclectic mix, including everything from gunships to steam boats to skimmers. Such a mix made the Union seem disorganized, but in reality, it granted them the ability to pursue ships of any kind. Thus, their forces were more versatile, and they were fairly effective in stopping the Southern blockade runners.

After a while, it became clear that the South did not have enough self-sufficiency to survive. They had overestimated the lengths that European powers would go to to acquire cotton. France and England, in fact, were well stocked on cotton, for in the previous few years, they had received an ample supply from the South. "King Cotton" was finally failing on the Southerners. They also did not possess the manufacturing power of the North. This meant that, not only could they not grow their own food, but they also could not make their own weapons. As a result, the Southern economy began to slowly run dry.

So the Union had recognized Southern independence, but the South had proven that, although they could try for independence, they could never be self-sufficient. This was a glaring weakness for the South, particularly as their need for supplies grew more and more dire. What had initially looked like a fumble for the Union ended up battering the Southern economy. One could stop there, and say that it helped the Union, but there is one more important factor to consider...

The South's desperate need for naval defense sparked the inspiration for the Merrimac. The Merrimac was originally a vessel owned by the North, but it was not put into combat. When the South took a Northern shipyard, they gained over a thousand cannon, along with the Merrimac. After lots of innovation, the Southerners turned the this old ship into a threatening giant. It moved extremely slowly, but was so well equipped that, at one point, it easily took out two Federal navy ships with only minor damage to itself. The significance of the Merrimac is that it came as a direct result of the blockade, for it was created to defend Southern waters.

In the end, the Union was able to build far more ships than the South due to their superior manufacturing abilities. The Confederacy ended up burning the ship themselves for fear that the Union would use it, so the Union undoubtedly won this battle. However, the question still remains whether or not it was worth it for the Union to carry out a blockade. The Merrimac caused an uproar of panic in the North, and it certainly caused significant harm to the Union. The blockade itself was a success, but it directly resulted in a disaster. All things considered, one can easily say that it the blockade as a whole did benefit the North due to  the North's naval strength, which both carried out the blockade and quelled the Merrimac.