Monday February 27, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 5 of our textbook. Though I found the topics of Andrew Jackson and Nullification to be interesting, I especially liked the parts about Indian Removal. When Andrew Jackson brought the Indian Removal Act up to Congress, there were many questions. One question in particular was: Do Indian nations have the right to establish an independent government within a state?" According to Jackson, this would undermine the federal and state governments because Indians would be following their own laws, and not the laws of the country. Jackson had an immense hatred on Native Americans, but he was sure to back up his arguments with reasonable facts, like how he used to fight Native Americans on the frontier in his early years. Jackson said that Indians should assimilate into "normal" culture. Though this is a good idea, it would have never worked because no matter how a Native American acted, what job they had, or what they believed in, they would always be looked down upon by society. During the times before the Indian Removal Act, however, many Native Americans married whites and tried to blend in to the culture. In the south, Indians learned about slavery and plantation work, whereas in the north they learned more about industrial work. I have often come upon the question "in history, which group of people had a harder time, Native Americans or African Americans?" This question is mind-boggling to me because there is so much information that needs to be taken into account. The Native Americans were killed by the thousands from diseases, forced off their land, and basically put into exile. The African Americans were taken from their homes, forced to work for no wages, and then after they gained freedom with the 13th amendment, still had to face racial discrimination! So it would come down to the lesser of two evils: be killed off, or face decades of racial injustice? This is a question that I honestly cannot answer and my opinion is always that both groups of people suffered and were looked down upon for no good reason and they really could not do anything to change their situation because the wealthy, land owning white people had all the power. (ahh.....got a little side-tracked there!)
Document 4 in our textbook further deals with the autonomy of the Indian nations. Good ol' John Marshall decreed that the Federal government could make treaties with Indians, but individual states could not. He used countries such as Great Britain and France to back up his argument. He said the Indians were technically a foreign power and only the federal government had the authority to deal with foreign governments. A dicta was created that would explain the situation and position of Native Americans and their relationship with the U.S. (meaning the government wanted to "lay down the law" and establish a Constitutional position on what to do and how to deal with Native Americans). According to the text, this was not really about the Indian Removal Act, but was about establishing a formal procedure. A famous court case dealing with the Indian Removal Act was Cherokee Nation versus Georgia. This VIDEO briefly discusses the court case, along with the relationship between John Marshal and Andrew Jackson.
Though Illinois was a free state, there were still racial discrimination. A clip from Youtube.com talks about Illinois position on Native Americans during the era before and after the Civil War.
I was once told that Jackson's treatment of Indians during the Trail of Tears created a "curse" on the presidents of the United States. The story went something like: Indians were so upset that they put a curse on the presidency. From Andrew Jackson on to the next couple of presidents, all presidents were either killed in office, died of illness in office, or were severely injured while in office. When looking on Youtube.com for a clip on it, I came across a different interesting CLIP. According to this video, almost all of the presidents are related! Plus, they are related back to King John Lackland (the King of England who signed the Magna Carta). It was a very interesting video....
The other topic which we covered in class was the idea of modernity. Modernity is a post-traditional, post-medieval, concept. This is a movement away from feudalism and toward capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the nation-state. According to historians, 1500 to the 1970s is ttechnically referred to as the "modern" era. This movement is often referred to as the end of the "isms" and grand theories. Concepts like Marxism and existentialism are not accepted anymore. Modernity is the creation of new things, such as art. As we discussed in class, modernity is the end of originality. Mankind has come a very long way since the 1500s and have accomplished many things. We have put a man on the moon, discovered sunken ships, harnessed electricity, built massive towers, and more. It seems like humans have discovered all they can and the only thing left to do is make things better. We can make improvements on already existing things, but people are skeptical of creating new things. Today we live in a world where "normal" and "safe" are considered good things. No one is willing to take risks anymore because it could mean failure and loss of money, resources, and respect. So instead of creating new things, we improve existing things. For example, we have went from vinyl albums, to 8-tracks, to cassettes, to cds, and now we are digital. We are not creating new ways of music, but making them more efficient and smaller in size. Another example is space. For thousands of years people have wondered about outer space and the weather patterns. Today, we have explored the majority of outer space (as far as technology can reach), and have a pretty good grasp on weather patterns and weather forecasting. People feel as if there is not much else to accomplish, so they try to make money by making improvements. Personally, I slightly believe this concept of modernity. Since I was born in the early 1990s not much has changed (clothes, music, cars, buildings, etc). I have seen things improve, but there hasn't really been any new amazing inventions. I mainly believe this is happening because it is the safe route. People have seen depressions and economic hardships, so they are not as willing to put themselves out and try something new. I really hope that this idea of simply making improvements is over soon because I am sure that there are inventions out there that are not yet created that can change the world. Oh, and by the way, its 2012 and I was promised LONG ago that by now we would have flying cars, robots and computers to do everything, and people would be inhabiting other planets! I doubt I will see any of these things in my lifetime....
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Departmental Theory & the Establishment of Judicial Review
Wednesday February 22, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 4. It was all about Judicial Review and the textbook had several examples of court cases throughout history to make a point. Judicial Review is the power that is given to all courts. This power is to make sure that things are Constitutional, like laws and executive actions. This is vital to our government because it creates checks and balances! Judicial Review is the main check is has over the other branches of government because the Judicial branch can tell the Legislative branch that the laws that they are passing are not Constitutional, or the Executive branch that the President (or anyone else) is not acting Constitutional. This one power can keep many people "in-check" and make sure that everything in each branch of government is equally balanced.
We spent a good portion of class discussing the difference between state and federal judges. State judges are elected by the people for a specific term (10 years in Illinois). While there are elections, more than usual the current judge stays in office (newcomers rarely win). I was told that it is not like a normal election. The election is basically "do you want to keep this judge in office or not?" So it can easily be seen that the person in office usually stays in office. This is quite similar to federal judges. Federal judges are appointed by the President and serve for life. The only way to remove a judge is to try them in court for a crime. These crimes are really high crimes, not like petty not paying a parking ticket crimes. Another way for a judge to leave office if for them to quit or retire. I don't particularly like this idea of a judge serving for life. I mean, its a good thing so the President does not waste a lot of time appointing people. The idea of a person staying in one job for their life does not seem fair to me. Also, if that person has bad judgment or is super right or left wing, they could change the outcome of every case! We talked about how after certain major events that the judges change their standpoint, but, honestly, how often does that happen? I think judges should have certain requirements that they must meet. Then be appointed by the President (or even elected by the people), then given the go-ahead by Congress or other parts of government. That would make sure that each judge is qualified for their job, but also get their job based on their merit.
We also talked about jurisdiction. This is the area in which you can determine a case. The Supreme Court of Illinois has jurisdiction over all of Illinois whereas the Federal Supreme Court as jurisdiction over the entire country. Also, a writ of Mandamus is a judge telling someone to do something. This could be considered a check and balance, or a judge using their authority and power to get something to happen. A writ of mandamus was used in Marbury vs. Madison to help bring the case to a close.
The other topic which was covered in class today was Presentism. This is a type of historical and moral judgment. It is often self-congratulatory because we think our generation, ideas, and actions are better than those before us. So, instead of judging something based on the standards of the time in which an event happened, a person would judge based on the standard of their present time. The idea of presentism is almost always looked at as a bad thing. Historians spend years trying to train themselves not to be bias. Even though I, personally, cannot think of a time or instance when presentism could be considered a good thing, I still believe that presentism is not all bad. I can't really describe the idea, but I feel quite optomistic about the idea that presentism can be used as a good thing, instead of the bad reputations that it has received in many colleges and historical studies.
Today we discussed Chapter 4. It was all about Judicial Review and the textbook had several examples of court cases throughout history to make a point. Judicial Review is the power that is given to all courts. This power is to make sure that things are Constitutional, like laws and executive actions. This is vital to our government because it creates checks and balances! Judicial Review is the main check is has over the other branches of government because the Judicial branch can tell the Legislative branch that the laws that they are passing are not Constitutional, or the Executive branch that the President (or anyone else) is not acting Constitutional. This one power can keep many people "in-check" and make sure that everything in each branch of government is equally balanced.
We spent a good portion of class discussing the difference between state and federal judges. State judges are elected by the people for a specific term (10 years in Illinois). While there are elections, more than usual the current judge stays in office (newcomers rarely win). I was told that it is not like a normal election. The election is basically "do you want to keep this judge in office or not?" So it can easily be seen that the person in office usually stays in office. This is quite similar to federal judges. Federal judges are appointed by the President and serve for life. The only way to remove a judge is to try them in court for a crime. These crimes are really high crimes, not like petty not paying a parking ticket crimes. Another way for a judge to leave office if for them to quit or retire. I don't particularly like this idea of a judge serving for life. I mean, its a good thing so the President does not waste a lot of time appointing people. The idea of a person staying in one job for their life does not seem fair to me. Also, if that person has bad judgment or is super right or left wing, they could change the outcome of every case! We talked about how after certain major events that the judges change their standpoint, but, honestly, how often does that happen? I think judges should have certain requirements that they must meet. Then be appointed by the President (or even elected by the people), then given the go-ahead by Congress or other parts of government. That would make sure that each judge is qualified for their job, but also get their job based on their merit.
We also talked about jurisdiction. This is the area in which you can determine a case. The Supreme Court of Illinois has jurisdiction over all of Illinois whereas the Federal Supreme Court as jurisdiction over the entire country. Also, a writ of Mandamus is a judge telling someone to do something. This could be considered a check and balance, or a judge using their authority and power to get something to happen. A writ of mandamus was used in Marbury vs. Madison to help bring the case to a close.
The other topic which was covered in class today was Presentism. This is a type of historical and moral judgment. It is often self-congratulatory because we think our generation, ideas, and actions are better than those before us. So, instead of judging something based on the standards of the time in which an event happened, a person would judge based on the standard of their present time. The idea of presentism is almost always looked at as a bad thing. Historians spend years trying to train themselves not to be bias. Even though I, personally, cannot think of a time or instance when presentism could be considered a good thing, I still believe that presentism is not all bad. I can't really describe the idea, but I feel quite optomistic about the idea that presentism can be used as a good thing, instead of the bad reputations that it has received in many colleges and historical studies.
Rights in the New Republic
Monday February 20, 2012
Today in class we discussed chapter 3: Rights in the New Republic. Martha had a very interesting question to start off our discussion session: "What do you think would have happened if the Bill of Rights had not been included in our Constitution?" My first thought was that the new country would not look like a nice place for immigrants. The Bill of Rights guarantees the basic rights of every American citizen. You could probably go anywhere around the world and ask "where have you heard the phrase: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" I bet that almost everyone would think of America. Our Bill of Rights is what makes the U.S. different from any other country because we have specific rights that we get no matter what and the government can not take those away from us.
However, after some thought I came to the conclusion that England does not have a Bill of Rights and their government works well with the people. The English government has been in place for centuries, and there is no specific rights that are guaranteed! So I finally came to the conclusion that the creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to be different from England, while at the same time giving each citizen basic human rights. So, if there was no Bill of Rights, I still believe that America would have been created just the same, like England, but adding the rights makes America look like a more appealing place to live than other countries.
The other question that I found interesting was: "According to Levy, what did Jefferson mean by freedom of the press? Do you think the same freedom still exists today?" This, in my opinion, was an excellent question because our idea of freedom of the press today is VERY different from the idea from Jefferson's time period. Today, we believe that a person has the right to write, type, or publish anything that they want, even if it is untruthful or fraudulent. Now, who would actually agree to publish this type of material is a different matter... But Jefferson believed in a different type of free press. Jefferson said that freedom of the press is basically freedom from censorship. No one will have their writings censored and that a person can write about whatever he/she decides. He believed that people are completely responsible for what they write, no matter what. So, for example, if someone wrote about how the government is corrupt and these writings started a riot in which people got killed, Jefferson would say that the writer would be completely responsible for the deaths. A person can pretty much escape a crime because of this! A man can go out and kill another man and say, "well, you know I read this news article and it made me want to kill this guy." And instead of the killer being punished, the author of the article would be! If this was how people thought today, I believe that there would not be very many books, magazines, and newspapers published. So, this is one of the many good things that come from our government and country maturing: thoughts and ideas change over time and become less intense than what they once were.
Today in class we also discussed the idea of mentalite. This is a French word which pretty much means mentality. This is the opposite of presentism. Mentalite started in the 1950s and is the study of the common people. This can be generational, icons, tragedies, and more. This type of study can be somewhat difficult though. The study of the common people....well for a great majority of history the common people did not know how to read or write and were often completely forgotten about after they died. Common people do not work in government, have lots of money, or leave a lasting legacy, so finding information and primary sources about them could be quite difficult. This could also be the same for after a war. Who writes the history of the land and people?... the WINNERS! So, all of the documentations from before a war can easily get destroyed or replaced with the winner's idea of correct history. This can be seen in times of ancient Greece and Rome. When the Library of Alexandria was burned down, there was no way of replacing the thousand upon thousands of books and materials that were there. People tried to re-create certain things, but it will never be the same as it once was.
The study of mentalite can also change over time. For example, if someone interviewed me the day after the September 11th attacks and documented it, then interviewed me again 10 years later, the stories and my own thoughts would be very different. So, a person must live through the times in order to understand what people thought and why the felt that way. One of the examples that was used in class was the life and fame of Whitney Houston. People who grew up when Whitney hit it big will believe that she was an icon who represented a sense of "American-ness" (especially when she sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl). More than likely, ten or twenty years from now people will just remember her as a singer from long ago. Decades later Whitney Houston will not be remembered for the icon that she was to my generation (and slightly my mother's generation). So, I think that it would be very difficult to study "the common people," what they lived through, and how they felt because it would be hard to disregard any presentism and think back to how life was at a certain point in time, even if only twenty years earlier. It would take several years of practice in order to be able to look back in time and not have any bias. Being a history-lover, this is something that I hope to be able to conquer through research, writings, and learning from others.
Today in class we discussed chapter 3: Rights in the New Republic. Martha had a very interesting question to start off our discussion session: "What do you think would have happened if the Bill of Rights had not been included in our Constitution?" My first thought was that the new country would not look like a nice place for immigrants. The Bill of Rights guarantees the basic rights of every American citizen. You could probably go anywhere around the world and ask "where have you heard the phrase: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" I bet that almost everyone would think of America. Our Bill of Rights is what makes the U.S. different from any other country because we have specific rights that we get no matter what and the government can not take those away from us.
However, after some thought I came to the conclusion that England does not have a Bill of Rights and their government works well with the people. The English government has been in place for centuries, and there is no specific rights that are guaranteed! So I finally came to the conclusion that the creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to be different from England, while at the same time giving each citizen basic human rights. So, if there was no Bill of Rights, I still believe that America would have been created just the same, like England, but adding the rights makes America look like a more appealing place to live than other countries.
The other question that I found interesting was: "According to Levy, what did Jefferson mean by freedom of the press? Do you think the same freedom still exists today?" This, in my opinion, was an excellent question because our idea of freedom of the press today is VERY different from the idea from Jefferson's time period. Today, we believe that a person has the right to write, type, or publish anything that they want, even if it is untruthful or fraudulent. Now, who would actually agree to publish this type of material is a different matter... But Jefferson believed in a different type of free press. Jefferson said that freedom of the press is basically freedom from censorship. No one will have their writings censored and that a person can write about whatever he/she decides. He believed that people are completely responsible for what they write, no matter what. So, for example, if someone wrote about how the government is corrupt and these writings started a riot in which people got killed, Jefferson would say that the writer would be completely responsible for the deaths. A person can pretty much escape a crime because of this! A man can go out and kill another man and say, "well, you know I read this news article and it made me want to kill this guy." And instead of the killer being punished, the author of the article would be! If this was how people thought today, I believe that there would not be very many books, magazines, and newspapers published. So, this is one of the many good things that come from our government and country maturing: thoughts and ideas change over time and become less intense than what they once were.
Today in class we also discussed the idea of mentalite. This is a French word which pretty much means mentality. This is the opposite of presentism. Mentalite started in the 1950s and is the study of the common people. This can be generational, icons, tragedies, and more. This type of study can be somewhat difficult though. The study of the common people....well for a great majority of history the common people did not know how to read or write and were often completely forgotten about after they died. Common people do not work in government, have lots of money, or leave a lasting legacy, so finding information and primary sources about them could be quite difficult. This could also be the same for after a war. Who writes the history of the land and people?... the WINNERS! So, all of the documentations from before a war can easily get destroyed or replaced with the winner's idea of correct history. This can be seen in times of ancient Greece and Rome. When the Library of Alexandria was burned down, there was no way of replacing the thousand upon thousands of books and materials that were there. People tried to re-create certain things, but it will never be the same as it once was.
The study of mentalite can also change over time. For example, if someone interviewed me the day after the September 11th attacks and documented it, then interviewed me again 10 years later, the stories and my own thoughts would be very different. So, a person must live through the times in order to understand what people thought and why the felt that way. One of the examples that was used in class was the life and fame of Whitney Houston. People who grew up when Whitney hit it big will believe that she was an icon who represented a sense of "American-ness" (especially when she sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl). More than likely, ten or twenty years from now people will just remember her as a singer from long ago. Decades later Whitney Houston will not be remembered for the icon that she was to my generation (and slightly my mother's generation). So, I think that it would be very difficult to study "the common people," what they lived through, and how they felt because it would be hard to disregard any presentism and think back to how life was at a certain point in time, even if only twenty years earlier. It would take several years of practice in order to be able to look back in time and not have any bias. Being a history-lover, this is something that I hope to be able to conquer through research, writings, and learning from others.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Public Speaker Today!
Wednesday February 15, 2012
EXCITING DAY! I worked for over two hours on my resume that I brought to class today! We had a speaker talk to us about things like interview, proper clothing, and proper things to do at the beginning of a job or internship. The speaker was well informed on her topics. I learned that it actually is a good thing to tell stories about yourself during an interview because it helps make a personal connection between the interviewee and the potential candidate. I already knew that when you are asked “what is your biggest weakness?” that you are supposed to make a good quality sound kind of bad. My answer is usually that I sometimes take on too many tasks at once. I am a perfectionist and always want a job to be done very well and organized so I usually take the job on more personally to make sure it is awesome. This actually has gotten me stressed before. In high school I would always get paired up with people who didn’t care about their grades and would not do anything on projects, so it was up to me to either do only my part and fail because the other person did nothing, or do the whole thing and get a good grade.
I also found out that I need to start setting aside more money for clothes! Everyone was dressed so nicely today! I had a long sleeve shirt on and brown pants. I actually don’t own any dressy clothes because I never go anywhere important. So all I own is jeans and T-shirts! I will be doing methods and pre-teaching in the fall, so I have to make sure I get some nice, proper clothes this summer! I definitely do not want to look like a bum or unprofessional!!!!!
I found some things useful, but I already knew a lot of the things we discussed. I have been to several interviews over the years, and I always either get a second interview, or get offered the job on the spot. This has happened with Ace Hardware, Maurice’s, Old Navy, and more. So I think that my strategy is working. However, I will have to change it up a bit when it is time for a professional job interview. I plan on being a teacher on or by a military base, so I will definitely have competition!
It is always appreciated when a teacher had speakers such as this come into the class and talk about what it is like in the job-world. I find it easier to get many different ideas and techniques from different people and combine them in order to fit my personality and specialties. I actually kept all the handouts we got today and filed them in my cabinet next to my resume and other things that I have for jobs. I can’t wait until I can actually use these techniques when being interviewed for my career in History for Secondary Education!
EXCITING DAY! I worked for over two hours on my resume that I brought to class today! We had a speaker talk to us about things like interview, proper clothing, and proper things to do at the beginning of a job or internship. The speaker was well informed on her topics. I learned that it actually is a good thing to tell stories about yourself during an interview because it helps make a personal connection between the interviewee and the potential candidate. I already knew that when you are asked “what is your biggest weakness?” that you are supposed to make a good quality sound kind of bad. My answer is usually that I sometimes take on too many tasks at once. I am a perfectionist and always want a job to be done very well and organized so I usually take the job on more personally to make sure it is awesome. This actually has gotten me stressed before. In high school I would always get paired up with people who didn’t care about their grades and would not do anything on projects, so it was up to me to either do only my part and fail because the other person did nothing, or do the whole thing and get a good grade.
I also found out that I need to start setting aside more money for clothes! Everyone was dressed so nicely today! I had a long sleeve shirt on and brown pants. I actually don’t own any dressy clothes because I never go anywhere important. So all I own is jeans and T-shirts! I will be doing methods and pre-teaching in the fall, so I have to make sure I get some nice, proper clothes this summer! I definitely do not want to look like a bum or unprofessional!!!!!
I found some things useful, but I already knew a lot of the things we discussed. I have been to several interviews over the years, and I always either get a second interview, or get offered the job on the spot. This has happened with Ace Hardware, Maurice’s, Old Navy, and more. So I think that my strategy is working. However, I will have to change it up a bit when it is time for a professional job interview. I plan on being a teacher on or by a military base, so I will definitely have competition!
It is always appreciated when a teacher had speakers such as this come into the class and talk about what it is like in the job-world. I find it easier to get many different ideas and techniques from different people and combine them in order to fit my personality and specialties. I actually kept all the handouts we got today and filed them in my cabinet next to my resume and other things that I have for jobs. I can’t wait until I can actually use these techniques when being interviewed for my career in History for Secondary Education!
Chapter 2 - Creating an American Republic
Monday February 13, 2012
Ahhh… finally felt good enough to attend class today. You know, I never feel like I miss certain things when I read by myself, but I catch so many good points that I didn’t even think of when the class discussions go on. So today we talked about chapter two - Creating an American Republic. There were many many documents to get through in this chapter and I think Scott did a good job in picking questions out from each one. We spent a great deal of time talking about how the ideas of John Locke influenced how the Declaration of Independence was written. Writers of the Constitution knew that they did not want to have a king in power because it did not work out well, like England’s control over the colonies. The Constitution guarantees life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Locke had said life, liberty, and land. I think that land was left out because the government did not want to have to guarantee land to everyone. This way, happiness means that anyone can come to the country and do what makes them happy, and the government does not have to give land away.
Scott asked us “why do you think Jefferson criticized the King of England in the Declaration of Independence and not Parliament?” I had to actually think this question through a few times because each time I came up with a different answer. The first time I thought that the king was in charge of the government and it was he who placed ridiculous orders on the colonies. But, no, that was actually Parliament. Then I thought it was the king who got the blame because Jefferson did not want to offend members of Parliament. Finally, I thought that the king was the figure head of the country, just like how the president is now for the U.S. It was much easier for Jefferson to place blame on the King/figure head of the country, then on the many members of Parliament. This created on scapegoat/enemy that everyone could recognize and dislike. I think this was an excellent idea from Jefferson. Americans banned together on the dislike of one person and in the end fought for and created their own country.
Another subject discussed in the chapter was that of political parties. Even though when the Constitution was drafted there were not legitimate political parties, I still believed people banned together with common ideas. America has always been divided on political issues and it is only natural for people to support political figures who believe the same things that they do. Now, political parties are what run the country! Heck, most people I know will say that they are a democrat or republican, but they don’t really even know the values and beliefs of the party. Most people follow what their parents believe or what they have been taught from others.
The governmental system of checks and balances was put into place because the founding fathers believed that everyone was predisposition to be evil. I somewhat agree with this argument as well. The system of checks and balances works very well in America because no one branch of government can out power the other. This creates a sort of harmony. England does not really have checks and balances because their different branches of government overlap and there is a hierarchy of power among the government agencies. I think that is was not so much that the founding fathers believed that people would become evil and misuse the government, but that there should also be a clearly defined differences among the branches. At the time, the newly forming U.S. did not want to be like England in any way, and many of the founding fathers knew that that England’s system of government could easily be tweaked to created a new and unique government. Even though the U.S. government is not perfect (what government is!?) is works well for our country because every branch must work together instead of overpowering each other.
Ahhh… finally felt good enough to attend class today. You know, I never feel like I miss certain things when I read by myself, but I catch so many good points that I didn’t even think of when the class discussions go on. So today we talked about chapter two - Creating an American Republic. There were many many documents to get through in this chapter and I think Scott did a good job in picking questions out from each one. We spent a great deal of time talking about how the ideas of John Locke influenced how the Declaration of Independence was written. Writers of the Constitution knew that they did not want to have a king in power because it did not work out well, like England’s control over the colonies. The Constitution guarantees life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Locke had said life, liberty, and land. I think that land was left out because the government did not want to have to guarantee land to everyone. This way, happiness means that anyone can come to the country and do what makes them happy, and the government does not have to give land away.
Scott asked us “why do you think Jefferson criticized the King of England in the Declaration of Independence and not Parliament?” I had to actually think this question through a few times because each time I came up with a different answer. The first time I thought that the king was in charge of the government and it was he who placed ridiculous orders on the colonies. But, no, that was actually Parliament. Then I thought it was the king who got the blame because Jefferson did not want to offend members of Parliament. Finally, I thought that the king was the figure head of the country, just like how the president is now for the U.S. It was much easier for Jefferson to place blame on the King/figure head of the country, then on the many members of Parliament. This created on scapegoat/enemy that everyone could recognize and dislike. I think this was an excellent idea from Jefferson. Americans banned together on the dislike of one person and in the end fought for and created their own country.
Another subject discussed in the chapter was that of political parties. Even though when the Constitution was drafted there were not legitimate political parties, I still believed people banned together with common ideas. America has always been divided on political issues and it is only natural for people to support political figures who believe the same things that they do. Now, political parties are what run the country! Heck, most people I know will say that they are a democrat or republican, but they don’t really even know the values and beliefs of the party. Most people follow what their parents believe or what they have been taught from others.
The governmental system of checks and balances was put into place because the founding fathers believed that everyone was predisposition to be evil. I somewhat agree with this argument as well. The system of checks and balances works very well in America because no one branch of government can out power the other. This creates a sort of harmony. England does not really have checks and balances because their different branches of government overlap and there is a hierarchy of power among the government agencies. I think that is was not so much that the founding fathers believed that people would become evil and misuse the government, but that there should also be a clearly defined differences among the branches. At the time, the newly forming U.S. did not want to be like England in any way, and many of the founding fathers knew that that England’s system of government could easily be tweaked to created a new and unique government. Even though the U.S. government is not perfect (what government is!?) is works well for our country because every branch must work together instead of overpowering each other.
The Start of a New Textbook!
Wednesday February 8, 2012
Unfortunately I was sick with the flu during the, so I was not able to attend class today. However, chapter one of “Major Problems in American Constitutional History” was quite interesting to me. So far, I think this book is a great follow up to Daniel Farber’s book. I liked how in the introduction that the book explained some of the different ways that the U.S. Constitution is studied:
-Political Scientists focus on the relationship among government institutions, the allocation of powers, and the development of doctrine.
-Law professors seek historical support for a specific side in a current debate (mainly to help prove their own point).
-Historians study the past to gain a greater insight and study the changes over time.
I thought that essay #1 had a good point in debating how the Federalists focused on protecting property above other things while establishing the new republic. They believed that civil rights needed to be kept separate from public rights, which I agree with.
The main thing that I got out of essay #2 is that early America had no sense of nationalism. America was a new country and the people that made it up came from many different backgrounds, nationalities, religions, etc. Because of this great diversity America could not be created based on specific things, like religion. Instead, Americans defined themselves with ideas and beliefs, such as liberty, equality, and a republican government. I believe this was a good idea because the founding fathers knew that America was a diverse nation, and it was only going to become more diverse. So by establishing the country based on ideals rather than a common ethnicity or religion was an intelligent idea. This also made every immigrant feel welcomed because at the time there was no “perfect American” because everyone was free to express their own beliefs.
The last (#4) essay was my favorite! I always find it funny when I liked to read things that talk about the differences in gender. It always seems that women and minorities can focus on gender and racial inequality better than the common “white man.” Only when certain rights and liberties are withheld do people realize and understand the inequalities. America has come far since the beginning, but there are still inequalities. Ha, there is even a poster at my job that shows a one dollar bill and next to it 73 cents. The poster says that for every dollar a man makes a women doing the same job only makes 73 cents. The poster is meant to make people aware of unequal pay for the same job. This essay discusses several problems of inequality, such as immigration, sex discrimination, and what the “gender role” is for men and women. Even regarding the issue of children, it is the man who gets to make the decision if he wants to claim them or not. What is that?! A man (or parent) should be responsible for their child no matter what! This is one of the biggest problems in America now, and I can only imagine how it was in early days…you know when slave owners had “illegitimate” children with their slaves, or when Indian women were taken in as “second wives” because there were more men than women! Over the years, I am sure, there have been countless thousand court cases such as Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service! And, since I started following the news a few years ago, it seems that court rulings can greatly differ for cases that seem quite similar. Court decisions are all made based on how the people interpret the laws and Constitution, so I guess that is why they can differ.
All in all, this book has good arguments in it. I like how there are several different essays in each chapter, each essay shows a different perspective. This kind of book really helps me to see an issue from several different perspectives and makes me think of things that I never would have thought of!
Unfortunately I was sick with the flu during the, so I was not able to attend class today. However, chapter one of “Major Problems in American Constitutional History” was quite interesting to me. So far, I think this book is a great follow up to Daniel Farber’s book. I liked how in the introduction that the book explained some of the different ways that the U.S. Constitution is studied:
-Political Scientists focus on the relationship among government institutions, the allocation of powers, and the development of doctrine.
-Law professors seek historical support for a specific side in a current debate (mainly to help prove their own point).
-Historians study the past to gain a greater insight and study the changes over time.
I thought that essay #1 had a good point in debating how the Federalists focused on protecting property above other things while establishing the new republic. They believed that civil rights needed to be kept separate from public rights, which I agree with.
The main thing that I got out of essay #2 is that early America had no sense of nationalism. America was a new country and the people that made it up came from many different backgrounds, nationalities, religions, etc. Because of this great diversity America could not be created based on specific things, like religion. Instead, Americans defined themselves with ideas and beliefs, such as liberty, equality, and a republican government. I believe this was a good idea because the founding fathers knew that America was a diverse nation, and it was only going to become more diverse. So by establishing the country based on ideals rather than a common ethnicity or religion was an intelligent idea. This also made every immigrant feel welcomed because at the time there was no “perfect American” because everyone was free to express their own beliefs.
The last (#4) essay was my favorite! I always find it funny when I liked to read things that talk about the differences in gender. It always seems that women and minorities can focus on gender and racial inequality better than the common “white man.” Only when certain rights and liberties are withheld do people realize and understand the inequalities. America has come far since the beginning, but there are still inequalities. Ha, there is even a poster at my job that shows a one dollar bill and next to it 73 cents. The poster says that for every dollar a man makes a women doing the same job only makes 73 cents. The poster is meant to make people aware of unequal pay for the same job. This essay discusses several problems of inequality, such as immigration, sex discrimination, and what the “gender role” is for men and women. Even regarding the issue of children, it is the man who gets to make the decision if he wants to claim them or not. What is that?! A man (or parent) should be responsible for their child no matter what! This is one of the biggest problems in America now, and I can only imagine how it was in early days…you know when slave owners had “illegitimate” children with their slaves, or when Indian women were taken in as “second wives” because there were more men than women! Over the years, I am sure, there have been countless thousand court cases such as Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service! And, since I started following the news a few years ago, it seems that court rulings can greatly differ for cases that seem quite similar. Court decisions are all made based on how the people interpret the laws and Constitution, so I guess that is why they can differ.
All in all, this book has good arguments in it. I like how there are several different essays in each chapter, each essay shows a different perspective. This kind of book really helps me to see an issue from several different perspectives and makes me think of things that I never would have thought of!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Doris Kearns Goodwin Speech
Tuesday February 7, 2012
Tonight I went to see Doris Kearns Goodwin give a speech in Crimi Auditorium. Our Problems In History class was the only Aurora University class present, so I felt a little more privileged than others… There were a lot of older people at the event. I do not know if these were political figures from the community or just older people interested in a free and fun event. One of my other professors said that there would be many political figures from the Aurora area present, but I could not really tell because I don’t know what any of them look like. All in all, the auditorium was packed! There were many people standing all around the back and people were packing in as best they could.
The majority of the class sat together, which was nice. I was actually surprised to learn that Doris Kearns Goodwin was very popular and has written so many books. I had never heard of her before, so I did some research prior to going to the speech. She has written several books, is a political commenter, and has worked with several presidents and within the government for a long time. Anywho, the topic of her speech (from what I got out of it) was the power of storytelling and that history is full of amazing stories. Goodwin was actually a good story-teller. She had note cards, but rarely used them because she was talking about something that she was very educated in, her life and the lives of two great presidents - Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson. She also touched on other presidents such as Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. She incorporated several appropriately timed jokes into her speech.
When talking about Lincoln she made it a point to say that her had less than twelve months of formal schooling in his entire life, but he loved to read and loved education so much that he often taught himself. Lincoln had a lot of sorrow in his life - his mother and sister died when he was quite young. Lincoln wanted to be remembered by future generations, so he studied law at night and worked during the days and soon became a politician. Even though he lost many elections, he never gave up.
Switching to another president, Goodwin began talking about FDR. She said that his struggle with polio left him more focused and less smug. Goodwin talked about how FDR was working on the war front of WWII while Eleanor was focused on the home front. Even though Goodwin has never written a novel about a First Lady, she had many short stories about Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor said we should help to strengthen democracy at home before working for it in other places in the world. She also fought for African Americans and women to gain factory jobs on productions lines because so many men were away at war. This helped to greatly increase wartime production! Goodwin said that both Lincoln and FDR encouraged people and praised people a lot, even if the person had nothing to do with the job well done. Also, both men never lost their tempers, which is an excellent quality in a president. FDR stayed calm during the attacks on Pearl Harbor and Lincoln during the Civil War.
Goodwin also talked about Lyndon B. Johnson. It was slightly confusing to me because she jumped around quickly when talking about several different presidents. I found it funny, however, that Goodwin herself was an anit-Vietnam supporter, but ended up working for the President. It sounded to me like she sold out her beliefs for a job, but then again I don’t know the full story or what she did for the president. Mrs. Goodwin had several stories from her time working with L.B. Johnson. She said that during her time with Johnson he signed three great bills, but the Vietnam War destroyed his reputation and legacy. She told many jokes that Johnson told her and she said that humor is lacking in politics today because everyone is high strung and always busy.
Doris Kearns Goodwin ended her speech by talking about her love of history. Her passion started at a young age because her father always asked her to record Dodgers baseball games for him then tell him about the games when he got home from work. She noticed that she got more attention from her father when she told the game like a story and used many details. This activity helped her learn how to become an excellent story-teller, which she spun into a successful writing career. Goodwin says that she will always be grateful for her love of history.
After the speech had concluded questions were asked. There were only a few questions asked because she went into great detail answering them, so time was quickly up. One of the most interesting question to me was about how she conducts her research. Goodwin says that she gathers secondary and primary resources then puts them all in chronological order. She said it took her over ten years to write her book about Lincoln because there was so much information to gather and organize. From this point she started talking about how computers make her research easier because all information is stored and easily retrieved. This brought her to an interesting point: future historians will have a very difficult time gathering information because today everything is technology based. Her research is done by looking at letters, journals, and articles, but today everything is done with computers and no one keeps journals or hand-writes letters anymore. This will make doing research on the 21st century very difficult. For this reason, she prefers to write about the earlier centuries. I really wanted to ask her a question (if she ever considers public opinions, songs, and movies in her research), but I was very nervous about talking out loud because my nose was super stuffed up and my throat was all swollen and cracked (I hate colds & the flu!). I wanted to ask her this question because I had a class in high school that was about history, but we looked at songs and movies from particular events in history to get a better insight. Songs like “Born in the U.S.A” by Bruce Springsteen and cadences from soldiers were interesting to me. Altogether, I thought the speech was very insightful and interesting and it makes me want to read one of her books even more, which is great because I have to do a book review on one of them for my class! It is always enjoyable to say that you have seen a successful author/historian in person!
Tonight I went to see Doris Kearns Goodwin give a speech in Crimi Auditorium. Our Problems In History class was the only Aurora University class present, so I felt a little more privileged than others… There were a lot of older people at the event. I do not know if these were political figures from the community or just older people interested in a free and fun event. One of my other professors said that there would be many political figures from the Aurora area present, but I could not really tell because I don’t know what any of them look like. All in all, the auditorium was packed! There were many people standing all around the back and people were packing in as best they could.
The majority of the class sat together, which was nice. I was actually surprised to learn that Doris Kearns Goodwin was very popular and has written so many books. I had never heard of her before, so I did some research prior to going to the speech. She has written several books, is a political commenter, and has worked with several presidents and within the government for a long time. Anywho, the topic of her speech (from what I got out of it) was the power of storytelling and that history is full of amazing stories. Goodwin was actually a good story-teller. She had note cards, but rarely used them because she was talking about something that she was very educated in, her life and the lives of two great presidents - Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon B. Johnson. She also touched on other presidents such as Obama, Clinton, Bush, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. She incorporated several appropriately timed jokes into her speech.
When talking about Lincoln she made it a point to say that her had less than twelve months of formal schooling in his entire life, but he loved to read and loved education so much that he often taught himself. Lincoln had a lot of sorrow in his life - his mother and sister died when he was quite young. Lincoln wanted to be remembered by future generations, so he studied law at night and worked during the days and soon became a politician. Even though he lost many elections, he never gave up.
Switching to another president, Goodwin began talking about FDR. She said that his struggle with polio left him more focused and less smug. Goodwin talked about how FDR was working on the war front of WWII while Eleanor was focused on the home front. Even though Goodwin has never written a novel about a First Lady, she had many short stories about Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor said we should help to strengthen democracy at home before working for it in other places in the world. She also fought for African Americans and women to gain factory jobs on productions lines because so many men were away at war. This helped to greatly increase wartime production! Goodwin said that both Lincoln and FDR encouraged people and praised people a lot, even if the person had nothing to do with the job well done. Also, both men never lost their tempers, which is an excellent quality in a president. FDR stayed calm during the attacks on Pearl Harbor and Lincoln during the Civil War.
Goodwin also talked about Lyndon B. Johnson. It was slightly confusing to me because she jumped around quickly when talking about several different presidents. I found it funny, however, that Goodwin herself was an anit-Vietnam supporter, but ended up working for the President. It sounded to me like she sold out her beliefs for a job, but then again I don’t know the full story or what she did for the president. Mrs. Goodwin had several stories from her time working with L.B. Johnson. She said that during her time with Johnson he signed three great bills, but the Vietnam War destroyed his reputation and legacy. She told many jokes that Johnson told her and she said that humor is lacking in politics today because everyone is high strung and always busy.
Doris Kearns Goodwin ended her speech by talking about her love of history. Her passion started at a young age because her father always asked her to record Dodgers baseball games for him then tell him about the games when he got home from work. She noticed that she got more attention from her father when she told the game like a story and used many details. This activity helped her learn how to become an excellent story-teller, which she spun into a successful writing career. Goodwin says that she will always be grateful for her love of history.
After the speech had concluded questions were asked. There were only a few questions asked because she went into great detail answering them, so time was quickly up. One of the most interesting question to me was about how she conducts her research. Goodwin says that she gathers secondary and primary resources then puts them all in chronological order. She said it took her over ten years to write her book about Lincoln because there was so much information to gather and organize. From this point she started talking about how computers make her research easier because all information is stored and easily retrieved. This brought her to an interesting point: future historians will have a very difficult time gathering information because today everything is technology based. Her research is done by looking at letters, journals, and articles, but today everything is done with computers and no one keeps journals or hand-writes letters anymore. This will make doing research on the 21st century very difficult. For this reason, she prefers to write about the earlier centuries. I really wanted to ask her a question (if she ever considers public opinions, songs, and movies in her research), but I was very nervous about talking out loud because my nose was super stuffed up and my throat was all swollen and cracked (I hate colds & the flu!). I wanted to ask her this question because I had a class in high school that was about history, but we looked at songs and movies from particular events in history to get a better insight. Songs like “Born in the U.S.A” by Bruce Springsteen and cadences from soldiers were interesting to me. Altogether, I thought the speech was very insightful and interesting and it makes me want to read one of her books even more, which is great because I have to do a book review on one of them for my class! It is always enjoyable to say that you have seen a successful author/historian in person!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Presentation Day!
Wednesday February 1, 2012
Today all the groups presented on what they found most interesting about the Lincoln exhibition. Martha and I went first. We had a good idea of what direction we wanted the presentation to go in, but sadly, the class did not do a good job in participating. We cut the class in half and made half “northerners” and the other half “southerners.” The class was supposed to debate over our topics based on their mindset, either north or south. Unfortunately, only a few people participated and we ran out of time.
It was very interesting to watch the other groups present because we got to see the topics that they found most interesting. Most groups stuck to the presentation’s topics: secession, slavery, and civil liberties. One would think that this would be boring to listen to the same presentation over and over, but it was not like that. Each group presented their information is a unique fashion. My favorite idea (and I am jealous that I did not think of it first) was Keely’s idea. She made the class put Civil War events in chronological order. It was very fun and interesting! I actually wrote the idea down so I can use it in the future when I teach. I will give the test to the class before and after lesson plans to see how much they absorbed.
Richard and Michael seemed to be VERY informed on their presentation. They did not really look at their slides and seemed to use extra information on every slide. They did a good job connecting the events and issues of the Civil War era to things that are happening today.
Overall, I think the presentations helped me understand the topics a little bit better. Its funny because I usually read the book and listen to the professors lecture, but it also helps me when my peers teach me about a subject. I actually learned in my Reading Across the Curriculum class that students do learn from “peer instruction” because your peers have also just recently learned the material and can show you where your thinking is wrong. Whereas, professors are experts in their fields and have learned the information a long time ago, so they don’t know where students get slipped up and have a hard time explaining something that comes so natural to them to students who are new to the subject. This was actually on a radio talk-show about a year ago. It was called “Don’t Lecture Me.” It explains how lecturing is the least effective way of teaching students! It is definitely something to consider when creating lesson plans…."Don't Lecutre Me" transcript.
Today all the groups presented on what they found most interesting about the Lincoln exhibition. Martha and I went first. We had a good idea of what direction we wanted the presentation to go in, but sadly, the class did not do a good job in participating. We cut the class in half and made half “northerners” and the other half “southerners.” The class was supposed to debate over our topics based on their mindset, either north or south. Unfortunately, only a few people participated and we ran out of time.
It was very interesting to watch the other groups present because we got to see the topics that they found most interesting. Most groups stuck to the presentation’s topics: secession, slavery, and civil liberties. One would think that this would be boring to listen to the same presentation over and over, but it was not like that. Each group presented their information is a unique fashion. My favorite idea (and I am jealous that I did not think of it first) was Keely’s idea. She made the class put Civil War events in chronological order. It was very fun and interesting! I actually wrote the idea down so I can use it in the future when I teach. I will give the test to the class before and after lesson plans to see how much they absorbed.
Richard and Michael seemed to be VERY informed on their presentation. They did not really look at their slides and seemed to use extra information on every slide. They did a good job connecting the events and issues of the Civil War era to things that are happening today.
Overall, I think the presentations helped me understand the topics a little bit better. Its funny because I usually read the book and listen to the professors lecture, but it also helps me when my peers teach me about a subject. I actually learned in my Reading Across the Curriculum class that students do learn from “peer instruction” because your peers have also just recently learned the material and can show you where your thinking is wrong. Whereas, professors are experts in their fields and have learned the information a long time ago, so they don’t know where students get slipped up and have a hard time explaining something that comes so natural to them to students who are new to the subject. This was actually on a radio talk-show about a year ago. It was called “Don’t Lecture Me.” It explains how lecturing is the least effective way of teaching students! It is definitely something to consider when creating lesson plans…."Don't Lecutre Me" transcript.
Lincoln: The Constitution and the Civil War Exhibition
Monday January 30, 2012
Today was a field trip day! We went to the library to view the Lincoln exhibit. It was called “Lincoln: The Constitution and the Civil War.” The American Constitution Center teamed up with the American Library Association and created this traveling exhibit. It was an interesting exhibit and had both good and bad qualities.
Good Qualities. To begin with, this exhibit was at the library, so it was open to anyone to view, free! This makes learning available to everyone! Also, the exhibit was easy to walk through and understand. There were many images throughout! There were pictures, painting, pictures of artifacts, and political cartoons! The political cartoons were my favorite! Depending on where there cartoon originated, Lincoln is either viewed as a tyrannical dictator, or a hero and liberator. A pro-Lincoln sketch depicts him as a rail-splitter who is about to chop down a tree labeled “slavery.” Up in the tree is a person, but this person looks wild and inhuman. This shows how strongly Lincoln felt about ending slavery once and for all. Second is an anti-Lincoln sketch. Lincoln is portrayed as a very large monster who is wearing a crown. The “monster-Lincoln” is also standing on the freedom of press and Habeas Corpus. This cartoon pokes fun at every aspect of Lincoln and even goes as far to say that martial law was completely out of hand. Political cartoons are an excellent source of learning because they show how people felt about what was going on.
Poor Qualities. First, there is no one person, or group of people that work the exhibit. This makes it difficult to ask questions or clarify any misconceptions. Another downfall is the lack of actual artifacts. Everything is on the panels: written texts, quotes, pictures, and pictures of artifacts. While it would be very costly to use and insure actual artifacts, the presence of them would make the set-up more detailed and useful for students.
Last, this exhibition was designed for a specific audience. Due to the lack of detailed information many people would say that this exhibit was designed for middle and high school students. Each topic covered is only briefly touched upon and does not go into enough detail to be useful for college-level courses. Though the information that is presented is indeed interesting, the displays are not well equipped for someone who has background knowledge of the Civil War era.
I liked viewing this exhibit, but I would have never paid to see it. I felt like we went from one extreme to the next in class. I say this because the Farber book was SO detailed and almost killed a person with fact after fact while, on the other hand, the exhibit was a “dumbed-down” version of the topic. We went from a great amount of details and examples to something that only focused on three main topics. Both the book and the exhibit were from Lincoln’s eyes and dealt a lot with the Constitution. In the end, I am still glad that I read Daniel Farber’s book and viewed the exhibit because it opened my eyes to some things that I never knew about Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
Today was a field trip day! We went to the library to view the Lincoln exhibit. It was called “Lincoln: The Constitution and the Civil War.” The American Constitution Center teamed up with the American Library Association and created this traveling exhibit. It was an interesting exhibit and had both good and bad qualities.
Good Qualities. To begin with, this exhibit was at the library, so it was open to anyone to view, free! This makes learning available to everyone! Also, the exhibit was easy to walk through and understand. There were many images throughout! There were pictures, painting, pictures of artifacts, and political cartoons! The political cartoons were my favorite! Depending on where there cartoon originated, Lincoln is either viewed as a tyrannical dictator, or a hero and liberator. A pro-Lincoln sketch depicts him as a rail-splitter who is about to chop down a tree labeled “slavery.” Up in the tree is a person, but this person looks wild and inhuman. This shows how strongly Lincoln felt about ending slavery once and for all. Second is an anti-Lincoln sketch. Lincoln is portrayed as a very large monster who is wearing a crown. The “monster-Lincoln” is also standing on the freedom of press and Habeas Corpus. This cartoon pokes fun at every aspect of Lincoln and even goes as far to say that martial law was completely out of hand. Political cartoons are an excellent source of learning because they show how people felt about what was going on.
Poor Qualities. First, there is no one person, or group of people that work the exhibit. This makes it difficult to ask questions or clarify any misconceptions. Another downfall is the lack of actual artifacts. Everything is on the panels: written texts, quotes, pictures, and pictures of artifacts. While it would be very costly to use and insure actual artifacts, the presence of them would make the set-up more detailed and useful for students.
Last, this exhibition was designed for a specific audience. Due to the lack of detailed information many people would say that this exhibit was designed for middle and high school students. Each topic covered is only briefly touched upon and does not go into enough detail to be useful for college-level courses. Though the information that is presented is indeed interesting, the displays are not well equipped for someone who has background knowledge of the Civil War era.
I liked viewing this exhibit, but I would have never paid to see it. I felt like we went from one extreme to the next in class. I say this because the Farber book was SO detailed and almost killed a person with fact after fact while, on the other hand, the exhibit was a “dumbed-down” version of the topic. We went from a great amount of details and examples to something that only focused on three main topics. Both the book and the exhibit were from Lincoln’s eyes and dealt a lot with the Constitution. In the end, I am still glad that I read Daniel Farber’s book and viewed the exhibit because it opened my eyes to some things that I never knew about Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, and the Civil War.
Historical Narrative
Wednesday January 25, 2012
Today was my turn to present! I was presenting on chapters 7 and 8 of Daniel Farber’s book (Lincoln’s Constitution). These last two chapters of the book were, in my opinion, the most interesting. Chapter 7 was about individual rights and chapter 8 was on “the rule of law in dark times.” When looking back on my prior education about Lincoln, many teachers only paint the glorified picture of Lincoln - freeing the slaves, ending the Civil War, things like that. It reminds me of Christopher Columbus…the younger generations are taught that he was such a glorious explorer, when really he killed many people (non-intentionally) and he was not even the first person to discover America (the Vikings did that way before Columbus did!).
Anyway, Lincoln actually did some things that are still heavily debated about today, such as oppressing some main civil liberties. Lincoln said that because the country was in a state of emergency (the Civil War), he had the authority to do some things that he would have never gotten away with in other times. Not only did Lincoln put restrictions on the First Amendment by controlling the freedom of speech and press, he also instituted martial law. Martial law is when the military is in control instead of the local governments. It was interesting to read that many northern states were in favor of this act. Martial law was beneficial to the northern states because it offered more protection and got towns ready for battle. The southern states, however, were not as happy with the situation. Under martial law in the south local governments were forced to step down, strict punishments were put in place, and civilians felt that they were loosing their individual rights.
Lincoln also took advantage of property rights during his time. The Union Army destroyed crops and buildings in the south while fighting the war. Though Lincoln was not actually there when this destruction took place, many people blamed him because he was the commander-in-chief and needed to have more control over his troops. By announcing the Emancipation Proclamation more property rights were being violated. The southerners viewed slaves as property: they bought the slaves, fed them, and took “care” of them. So when Lincoln announced that all slaves in rebel areas were free the southerners took great offence to it (as one could imagine).
Now for chapter 8... “the rule of law in dark times” The title of this chapter automatically shows that law can be different when times are bad. Lincoln actually used this argument for many of the things he did while in office during the war. One thing that really stood out to me was his “All the laws but one” speech. He basically stated that in order to keep the country together, some laws needed to be overlooked for the time being. He said that he was not going to disregard all the laws, just to follow one. I actually agree with Lincoln’s justification, especially when he restricted habeas corpus. Lincoln was in a position where the government was not cooperating and the country was falling apart, so he did everything in his power (and some things not in his power, according to the Constitution) to try and keep the country together. If this means disregarding some laws, then yes, it should be done.
Butters’ topic for the day was writing narrative history. This is my favorite type of history because the book does not just list events in order, it actually tells a story or account of the times. History textbooks (like those in high school) are not that interesting because they do not tell stories, just list the facts and definitions. Narrative history stories make the past come to life and are more engaging. The Farber book is definitely not like this. Each chapter is about a different topic and it does not tell a story, just lists the issues, how Lincoln felt about them, and what he did (not that interesting). A really great example of narrative history is the Dear America series of books! I used to read them when I was younger, which helped strengthen my love for history. The series is actually independent books by different authors, but they are all written in the same format. The books are diaries or journals from guys and girls throughout the years. Each book deals with a specific historical event like the Titanic, WWI, WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Trail of Tears, the journey on the Mayflower, and many, many more! Even though these books are fiction, they still use real information and have a “Historical Note” section at the end that gives real facts.
Butters also talked about things that need to be considered when starting to write. He has written several books and definitely has a handle on where to start and the best process for beginning to write. Outlining is very important because it helps gather all your thoughts together and it makes sure you stay on track with your writing and don’t leave anything out. It is actually easy to write about your experiences in the third person (no using “I” or “me”). Every good narrative has a strong driving force - the plot. If the plot is not interesting the story can easily fail (especially because everything in the story is based around the plot!).
In my opinion, Daniel Farber’s book was not that interesting. Well, there were parts that were interesting, but he did not connect the chapters together very well. His book is definitely not written in narrative format and would be well suited for someone who is specifically studying the topic at a masters or doctorate level. I can read very well and I found myself going back and re-reading a lot of things because they did not make sense to me! Overall, I learned things from it, but I would not recommend this book or read it again just for fun.
Today was my turn to present! I was presenting on chapters 7 and 8 of Daniel Farber’s book (Lincoln’s Constitution). These last two chapters of the book were, in my opinion, the most interesting. Chapter 7 was about individual rights and chapter 8 was on “the rule of law in dark times.” When looking back on my prior education about Lincoln, many teachers only paint the glorified picture of Lincoln - freeing the slaves, ending the Civil War, things like that. It reminds me of Christopher Columbus…the younger generations are taught that he was such a glorious explorer, when really he killed many people (non-intentionally) and he was not even the first person to discover America (the Vikings did that way before Columbus did!).
Anyway, Lincoln actually did some things that are still heavily debated about today, such as oppressing some main civil liberties. Lincoln said that because the country was in a state of emergency (the Civil War), he had the authority to do some things that he would have never gotten away with in other times. Not only did Lincoln put restrictions on the First Amendment by controlling the freedom of speech and press, he also instituted martial law. Martial law is when the military is in control instead of the local governments. It was interesting to read that many northern states were in favor of this act. Martial law was beneficial to the northern states because it offered more protection and got towns ready for battle. The southern states, however, were not as happy with the situation. Under martial law in the south local governments were forced to step down, strict punishments were put in place, and civilians felt that they were loosing their individual rights.
Lincoln also took advantage of property rights during his time. The Union Army destroyed crops and buildings in the south while fighting the war. Though Lincoln was not actually there when this destruction took place, many people blamed him because he was the commander-in-chief and needed to have more control over his troops. By announcing the Emancipation Proclamation more property rights were being violated. The southerners viewed slaves as property: they bought the slaves, fed them, and took “care” of them. So when Lincoln announced that all slaves in rebel areas were free the southerners took great offence to it (as one could imagine).
Now for chapter 8... “the rule of law in dark times” The title of this chapter automatically shows that law can be different when times are bad. Lincoln actually used this argument for many of the things he did while in office during the war. One thing that really stood out to me was his “All the laws but one” speech. He basically stated that in order to keep the country together, some laws needed to be overlooked for the time being. He said that he was not going to disregard all the laws, just to follow one. I actually agree with Lincoln’s justification, especially when he restricted habeas corpus. Lincoln was in a position where the government was not cooperating and the country was falling apart, so he did everything in his power (and some things not in his power, according to the Constitution) to try and keep the country together. If this means disregarding some laws, then yes, it should be done.
Butters’ topic for the day was writing narrative history. This is my favorite type of history because the book does not just list events in order, it actually tells a story or account of the times. History textbooks (like those in high school) are not that interesting because they do not tell stories, just list the facts and definitions. Narrative history stories make the past come to life and are more engaging. The Farber book is definitely not like this. Each chapter is about a different topic and it does not tell a story, just lists the issues, how Lincoln felt about them, and what he did (not that interesting). A really great example of narrative history is the Dear America series of books! I used to read them when I was younger, which helped strengthen my love for history. The series is actually independent books by different authors, but they are all written in the same format. The books are diaries or journals from guys and girls throughout the years. Each book deals with a specific historical event like the Titanic, WWI, WWII, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Trail of Tears, the journey on the Mayflower, and many, many more! Even though these books are fiction, they still use real information and have a “Historical Note” section at the end that gives real facts.
Butters also talked about things that need to be considered when starting to write. He has written several books and definitely has a handle on where to start and the best process for beginning to write. Outlining is very important because it helps gather all your thoughts together and it makes sure you stay on track with your writing and don’t leave anything out. It is actually easy to write about your experiences in the third person (no using “I” or “me”). Every good narrative has a strong driving force - the plot. If the plot is not interesting the story can easily fail (especially because everything in the story is based around the plot!).
In my opinion, Daniel Farber’s book was not that interesting. Well, there were parts that were interesting, but he did not connect the chapters together very well. His book is definitely not written in narrative format and would be well suited for someone who is specifically studying the topic at a masters or doctorate level. I can read very well and I found myself going back and re-reading a lot of things because they did not make sense to me! Overall, I learned things from it, but I would not recommend this book or read it again just for fun.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)