EdCafe Review

                Overall I thought the EdCafe model worked well for discussion.  I enjoyed talking with my peers in a smaller group.  I felt more comfortable to speak up and I believe others did too.  The discussion felt natural, rather than awkward and forced.  I think with the EdCafe model you get more out of presenting than attending.  To present you have to understand your topic.  Sometimes it may require research or searching for primary source images.  To develop really good questions and keep the discussion moving you really need to become an expert on your topic.  With attending however, you may know the topic but do not know the questions.  I felt somewhat unprepared since we did not prepare any notes or highlights as attendees.  The one main thing we should work on improving is the variation of topics.  Most of the group all discussed similar questions which became boring very quickly.

                I personally enjoyed presenting.  I always enjoy leading and presenting.  It felt very easy and was not at all daunting since the groups were so small.  I think I did well talking and keeping the discussion going.  If people did not understand a question, I would repeat it and explain it.  I also would fill in with some guiding thoughts if I sensed a lull or would suggest we move on to a new question.  Also, providing previously researched pictures was a benefit.  Our group’s topic was family (“Bonded to Family”) and I showed everyone a picture of a slave family that really connected to our questions.  Next time I want to improve providing some key notes for attendees.  Most groups were writing the main ideas of what they were saying on their board and I wish I had done the same.  It seemed to really help attendees keep track of the discussion.  Finally, I wish I had paced our discussion better.  We spent a long time on each question and were unable to get to some of the other more interesting questions. 

                As an attendee I tried to participate as often as possible.  I tried to share lots of thoughts and opinions, but I also tried not to monopolize the discussion so others could share as well.  When we discussed why slave owners tried to get runaway slaves back I brought up that besides just money, slave owners wanted to have power over the slaves.  To them slaves were very far below them socially and were a piece of property.  For pride and power they did not want to let them run away; especially in the case of the Harriet Jacobs narrative.  In another discussion I shared that family would be a primary motivation not to commit suicide because of the feeling of responsibility to care for your family.  These were a few of my favorite ideas I shared in the discussions that I think helped to also get others to share similar ideas and thoughts.  As an attendee I also tried to take as many notes as possible.  If the leaders wrote down any ideas or notes I would also write those down.  I also tried to write down the question and then all the ideas discussed below the question.  It was sometimes hard to take notes if you were speaking.  I felt I never really had a chance to actually write down my own thoughts, but I wrote down everything that everyone else said.  Also, I always wrote down our group’s takeaway at the end.  I believe my notes are a fairly accurate representation of what I learned.  The EdCafe model for discussion is an interesting and new way to share thoughts and ideas.

Northerners in Antebellum America Supported Slavery!

Americans in the antebellum north were not opposed to slavery on economic grounds and indirectly relied on slave labor.  They were also not completely opposed to slavery on moral grounds and allowed people in the south to own slaves.  Economically the north relied largely on slavery.  As seen in the graph below, as the number of textile mills in Lowell (a city located in the north) increased, the number of pounds of cotton needed increased.  This caused the number of slaves used to also increase because slaves were needed to grow and pick the cotton.  As the industrial revolution grew in the north and became their fundamental economic structure, more cotton was needed to make fabrics in and clothes in factories, thus requiring the south to need more slaves to meet this demand for cotton.  The north was economically reliable on the south and their use of slaves. 

Some of the wealthiest and most prominent people in the north depended on slave labor and the slave trade occurring in the south.  In a documentary about the DeWolf family, it is revealed that this family lived in Rhode Island, but has been the largest American slave traders in history.  The DeWolf family was rich because of their rum business, but the only way for this business to have been successful was through the use of slaves on sugar plantations. 

                The following short clip from the documentary about the DeWolf family, Traces of the Trade talks about the DeWolf family and their involvement in the slave trade.  

Even though the slave trade became illegal in 1808, the DeWolf’s were not morally opposed to continue trading slaves to fund their business after it was illegal.  Even president Thomas Jefferson looked the other way on their illegal activity.  He was clearly not morally opposed to slavery since he was allowing illegal slave trade activity just because the DeWolf’s supported his presidential campaign.

                In Lowell, people were morally supportive of slavery.  There were anti-abolitionist groups who stated they were “no advocates of immediate abolition”¹.  They believed abolishing slavery denied southerners their constitutional right to property.  Morally not being opposed to slavery, northerners viewed slaves (people) as property.  The anti-abolitionist groups were “opposed to every species of unasked intermeddling or advice to the Slave States, or to individual-slave holders”¹.  Northerners were not morally opposed to slavery enough to interfere with the slave states and slave owners.  They consciously allowed other people to own slaves.   The only thing they were morally against and viewed as violence was “Southern Lynch-Law, Southern mobs, and Southern threats”¹.  They did not view slavery itself as being violence and being morally wrong.  Slavery was not opposed to on moral or economic grounds by Americans in the antebellum north mainly due to the north’s indirect dependence on slaves.

¹Excerpts from Lowell Patriot’s Coverage of Lowell’s Anti-Abolition Meeting, August 28 1825, Courtesy of Pollard Memorial Library Lowell. http://www.edline.net/files/_wdH66_/b4d0623095d7fd993745a49013852ec4/Unit_4_Activity_5_Doc_9_Lowell_Patriot.pdf

Trace’s of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North, June 24 2008. http://www.pbs.org/pov/tracesofthetrade/film_description.php

Temperance Movement PSA

                Withington, William. A Temperance Bowling Alley, for the Maine Law. 1852. Brown University, Center for Digital Initiatives.  http://library.brown.edu/cds/catalog/catalog.php?verb=render&colid=7&id=1091557147718750 (accessed December 25, 2013).

In A Temperance Bowling Alley, for the Maine Law, William Withington describes the success of Maine’s temperance law and how other states should follow in Maine’s footsteps.  William Withington was from Jackson, Michigan and was a Civil War officer, republican state representative, senator, and owned a manufacturing company called the Withington & Cooley Manufacturing Company.  Being a fairly successful and important and most likely educated man, Withington is a fairly reliable source.  His ultimate political agenda is unknown which could cause this source to be unreliable to some degree.  In this source, Withington is trying to convince other states to adopt similar temperance laws as Maine.  He asks for women to help and says the laws and the movement will benefit them.  He wants alcohol to stop “ruling” the country as it had been during the early 19^th century.  The country’s alcohol consumption was extremely high causing many problems in society, especially domestic violence against women.  Withington feels that the temperance movement is like a bowling game.  Maine has gotten the ball rolling and other states need to all follow until the game ends.  Withington is very passionate and uses rhyming and the bowling analogy to convince other states and especially the “ladies” to continue the temperance movement until all states follow Maine’s lead.   

Andrew Jackson Cartoon

                President Andrew Jackson has a longstanding reputation as being the “people’s president”.  He was known for being very democratic.  Some believe, however that he may not have been as democratic as his reputation represents him to be, and that he did not advocate as much for “the people” as he was credited for.  His controversial actions caused many people to have opposing views on whether Jackson was indeed the “people’s president”.

                One action that Andrew Jackson took that can be seen as democratic was he fought against the national bank to protect the Americans from being exploited.  To fight against the banks, Jackson used the power of the veto to reject a bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  Jackson said that “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes”¹.  The wealthy people could unfairly use the bank to their advantage.  The bank controlled the economy of the country since it gave out loans.  A lot of people depended on the bank and it practically had “a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange”¹.  Jackson believed the banks had too much power and that corporations, a new type of business, used the banks to become wealthy.  These corporations were just anonymous machines out to make money.    Jackson wanted the bank destroyed because “great evils to our country…might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people”¹.  He felt that the few wealthy people in control of the bank would inevitably use the bank to take advantage of the poorer people that they did not care about.

                A prominent and wealthy senator named Daniel Webster was disgusted at Jackson’s decision to veto the bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  He believed this decision was very undemocratic.  He said that “It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich”².  It would just turn the poor against the wealthy and the wealthy against the poor and cause problems and fighting.  It also “sows…the seeds of jealousy”².  He thought it would cause people to just hate each other and the poorer class to become jealous of the wealthy class.   

General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster

                This political cartoonist agrees with Jackson’s decision to destroy the bank.  He depicts the bank as a monster with many heads.  These heads are the wealthy people in charge of the bank as well as the corporations using the bank to their advantage.  Jackson is shown destroying this evil and malicious monster, the bank.  The cartoonist depicts Jackson defending the people and would agree that Jackson is the “people’s president”.

                Andrew Jackson should not completely be considered the “people’s president” because he made a lot of mistakes, but he should be acknowledged for often defending “the people”.  Instead of giving certain jobs in the government to well qualified people, he tried to reward people who helped him win office, by giving them these positions, which is known as the spoils system.  This system of changing the people in office appeared to Jackson a loyal and considerate thing to do, but unfortunately in one case, it did not work, as one of the people he trusted and gave a position to, stole a huge sum of money.  Jackson also claimed to be a father to the Native Americans, but he never truly defended them; instead, he made these people leave their homes.  But, he was the “people’s president” when he used the power of the veto to fight for the people and he fought against the bank which was only helping the wealthy and large corporations.  Andrew Jackson tried to be the “people’s president”, but certainly made some mistakes during his term.

¹ James D Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902, 1905.

²Daniel Webster, July 11, 1832.

The Slow Increase of Suffrage and Democracy in the United States in the 19th Century

                Democracy is a form of government where everyone has a say.  As defined by the Miriam-Webster dictionary, democracy is a “government by the people”¹.  Democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or  indirectly”, meaning everyone votes on laws or everyone votes for people to represent them and help make laws.  Voting should occur “periodically”¹.  Democracy involves “free election” meaning democracy should be defined as a fair government where everyone has the right of suffrage¹.

                The United States at the beginning of the 19^th century was not very democratic.  It was much more democratic than other European countries, but still had many flaws.  Over the course of the century, however, the United States slowly became more democratic. 

In a painting depicting an election day, by George Caleb Bingham, many of the flaws of voting are pointed out.  

These flaws on election day contribute to the United States not being as democratic as it claimed to be since suffrage is a large part of democracy.  In the painting, there are no women, showing that the voting was restricted to just men.   There is also a black man shown selling drinks to a voting man in the painting.  The black man clearly cannot vote, meaning that suffrage was limited to just white men.  It also shows that the people voting did not take the election seriously since the man drinking will be voting drunk.  At the beginning of the century not only were white men the only people who could vote, but they had to own property worth at least fifty dollars.  This also limits the right of suffrage and makes the United States less democratic, since if a man loses his property but “in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government and his acquaintance with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers”, “the man cannot vote” because “the jackass [property] is dead”².  So few people had a say in their own government since suffrage was very limited and Townshend found, “The attempt to govern men without seeking their consent is usurpation and tyranny”³.  People were being controlled by a government that they had no input in, so Townshend claimed that the United States is like the monarchy in Austria where the people did not have a say in the government.  

Suffrage and the people’s say in the government did increase in the 19^th century, which increased how democratic the United States was.  The graph below shows that the number of states that required men to own property decreased as well as requirements to pay taxes decreased, meaning the right to vote became less and less about economics.  Suffrage increased and thus democracy increased.

Below, is another chart that shows an increase in people instead of a legislature voting for the electors in the 19^th century.  Again, this helped more people to have a say in their government, making the United States more democratic.

This transition of increased suffrage due to less financial requirements was gradual and not very violent in most states.  Only in one state, Rhode Island, the transition occurred but took a lot of effort and was very violent.  This transition is called the “Dorr War” since Dorr led the fight to eliminate the property requirement for voting.  Rhode Island was still using a charter from the time the United States was controlled by Britain and Dorr questioned this by saying “We begin by inquiring whether it be consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of American Independence, and becoming the character of Rhode Island Republicans, any longer to acknowledge the charter of a British King as a Constitution of civil government?...”⁴.  He thought that Rhode Island was being undemocratic by not allowing everyone to vote and using a charter from the time that England controlled them.  Eventually a new constitution was adopted and even Rhode Island increased the number of people allowed to vote and thus increased how democratic the United States was in the 19^th century.

                The United States slowly became more democratic over the course of the 19^th century.  Originally suffrage was limited to only white men who owned property or paid taxes.  By the end of the 19^th century almost all white men could vote.  Suffrage was still limited because women and black men could not vote, but the right to vote still increased.  Also, many states started allowing people instead of a legislature to vote for electors.  Through the wider spread of suffrage, the United States became more democratic in the 19^th century. 

¹ Democracy (From Mirriam­Webster Dictionary).

² Benjamin Franklin, The Casket, or Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment (1828).

³ Norton Townshend, Ohio Constitutional Convention, 1850.

⁴ Copyright 2012 Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook_print.cfm?smtid=3&psid=387.

Romanticism

                Romanticism was a movement in literature, music, visual arts during the 19^th century.  This movement occurred due to enlightenment, a time when many wealthy class citizens talked of rights but did not do anything to secure these rights for lower class citizens.  They talked about the importance of majority but made decisions in favor of themselves, the minority.  Romantics wanted the enlightenment thinkers to take action on some of the ideas they discussed, such as giving people rights.  Romantics also argued against some of the ideas of the enlightenment thinkers.  Romantics thought that people cannot control nature, that not every decision should be intellectually based, that individuals are important, that not everything is beautiful, and that not everything always makes sense or is rational.  This goes against the beliefs and ideologies of the enlightenment thinkers.

The Turkish Patrol
1831
Oil on canvas, 115 x 179 cm
Wallace Collection, London

                This romantic piece of art is very emotional.  Two men are being chased by a group of men with guns and swords.  These men outnumber the two men running from them.  The group of men who are chasing the two have almost caught up with them as they run away.  The painting gives one the scary emotional feeling of being chased and hunted down.  To make the painting even more emotional, three women and a young child are watching the whole scene unfold.  It would be very scary and upsetting for the women to see this chase, and it would be emotionally scarring for the young child to watch men try to kill others.  This piece also highlights the importance of the individual.  The man on the horse is elevated in the picture and is painted in the most light.  He is also one of the only men wearing a bright, white turban.  This picture shows that the man in charge of the group chasing the other two men has the most power.  The other men in his group are following his lead.  Since he has the power in the group, he does not have to concern himself with actually attacking because the other men will do that for him.  This picture also shows an awe of nature.  The horse is the one piece of nature in the painting.  The horse is painted strong and fast.  The horse is at the front of the group about to attack the two men in front.  This painting is horrific as well.  Two men are being attacked by a horse and other men with guns and swords.  People are watching.  Being chased down to most likely be killed is very horrifying.  This piece of art demonstrates various themes of romanticism.

The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

                The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not complete successes, but were also not complete failures.  Most of the revolutionaries were fighting against a government or a specific monarch.  Many revolutionaries wanted freedoms and rights.  The governments fought to maintain conservative ideas and an absolute monarchy.  Though not all the goals of the revolutions were achieved, the revolts did keep revolutionary ideas alive and spread them across Europe.

                The revolution in Poland in 1830 had some success.  Nationalists in Poland revolted wanting to achieve independence and separation from Russia.   These revolts had strong nationalistic ideologies behind them and were said to be “truly polish”¹.  The Russian government, obviously wanting to keep Poland under its control, opposed the revolt and claimed that, “The Polish kingdom is forever linked with the Russian Empire”².  The revolt in 1830 was successful at first because they gained their independence and “snatched [it] from the lawful authority”, but after only five months this independence was once again lost to Russia who regained control of Poland³.  Despite this, the nationalistic spirit remained strong.  Poland had short lived success as the freedom they gained was short lived, but national pride was preserved.

                In France a second revolution occurred in 1830.  This revolution had some success.  The radicals and liberals were both against the monarchy.  The radicals did not want a monarchy at all and liberals wanted a constitutional monarchy.  The radicals and liberals wanted freedom of press, suffrage, and to oust the current monarch Charles X.  Charles X took away the freedom of press when he wrote that, “The liberty of the periodical press is suspended”⁴.  He also limited suffrage causing many people to dislike him.  The revolution was successful in getting a new monarch since Charles X was “too profoundly pained at the evils which afflict or which may threaten my people” and thus he took “the resolution to abdicate the crown” and Louis Philippe came into power⁵.  Louis Philippe was better liked and put in some policies that favored the middle class.  The reason the revolution was not a total success was due to the fact that the changes were short lived and freedom of press and widespread suffrage was not achieved.  Voting privileges were limited as census suffrage was used meaning votes were weighted based on your rank in society.  Also, one could not run “if, at the day of his election, he is not thirty years of age, and if he does not pay five hundred francs of direct taxes”⁶.  The French Revolution of 1830 was successful in eliminating an unpopular monarch, but did not achieve the rights and freedoms sought after. 

 http://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/french-revolution-1830/13399412/?s=EJcjwn&ref=link


            The Frankfurt Assembly in Germany existed from 1448-1849.  Nationalist rebels wanted a constitutional monarchy and to unite the country, like Poland had wanted.  The people of Germany wanted to unite Germany and have “a powerful ruling house”⁷. 

To accomplish this, the German people asked Frederick William the 4^th to be their monarch.  Frederick William though turned down the crown “because the Assembly has not the right, without the consent of the German governments, to bestow the crown which they tendered me”⁸.  Since the offer came from the people of Germany and not kings, Frederick the 4^th would not become the monarch of Germany.  He was then considered the opponent since he turned down the offer and was a conservative who did not care about the nationalistic ideologies.  This revolution was basically a failure because while they eventually achieved a constitutional monarchy, it only lasted for approximately a year, and many had to die fighting to achieve this short lived victory.  

            In Europe most of the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 ultimately did not fully succeed, but many aspects were achieved.  Sometimes success was short lived and other times the ideas of the revolutions lived on and spread.  The radicals, liberals, and nationalists against the conservative governments and monarchs caused change in various ways in Europe.

¹ Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, 1830

²Constitution of The Kingdom of Poland November 27, 1815. Official Journal of the Polish Kingdom Rights of 1815, Vol I, pp. 1-103.  http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/users/khpp/fontesu/1815.htm.

³ Tsar Nicholas I, Imperial Manifesto on Poland, March 25, 1832.

Etty, John, ed. Primary Sources in Russian History, 1801 – 1917.  London:  First and Best in Education, 2009.  www.google.com/books.

⁴ The July Ordinances, July 25, 1830 By Charles X and His Ministers. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁵ Abdication of Charles X.  August 2, 1830. In Duvergier, Lois, 87-88. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁶ Declaration of the Chamber of Deputies, August 7, 1830.  In Duvergier, Lois, 93-101. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁷ Johann Gustav Droysen: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

⁸ Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Parliament