James Madison's Transition

A couple weeks ago, we learned how the United States was initially split into the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. I was interested in why James Madison, commonly known as the “Father of the Constitution,” later formed the Democratic-Republican party with Jefferson in spite of what would have seemed to be Federalist roots.

At first, Madison believed that America required a strong centralized federal government to protect its citizens, which motivated him to write the Federalist papers along with Hamilton and Jay. Madison also supported the Federalist policy of tariffs in order to finance the government, but he started to draw the line when it came to the national bank. Although Madison initially supported a strong central government, he saw Hamilton’s and Jay’s policies as going too far. As a result, Madison was also motivated to propose amendments to the Constitution in order to protect from an overly strong government that Hamilton would have advocated. Madison later decided that his views better aligned with Jefferson’s, which motivated his part in the formation of the Democratic-Republican party.

Hamilton’s transition from holding a Federalist belief to leaning more Democratic-Republican is one of many instances in history where a politician’s views evolved over time. Sometimes we forget that politics and political beliefs are not always (and often not) static, and Madison serves as a strong reminder of that. Another example of evolving beliefs is President Abraham Lincoln, whose political views on slavery evolved from his initial debut in politics to throughout his presidency, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation. In Lincoln’s case, his political evolution was very important in shaping the America we have today.

Sources:

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/James_Madison

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/james-madison

Weapons During The Civil War

One of the biggest differences between the Civil War and previous wars was the weaponry used. In the time since the previous wars weapons had advanced making them more accurate and more deadly. Among the weapons used were cannons, guns, and the Minié ball. In previous wars, soldiers had typically carried muskets. Muskets which only held one bullet at a time and had an "effective" range of only about 80 yards. Because of this soldiers had to be pretty close to their target to get an accurate shot. During the Civil War, however, soldiers carried rifles, a much more advanced gun. The original rifle had a much farther range, about 1,000 yards. This made it so soldiers didn't have to be quite so close to their targets. However, the bullets were still big and a soldier would have to reload after each shot, which was a slow process. Thus in 1848 came in the invention of Minié balls. A French officer named Claude Minié invented this cone-shaped bullet with a diameter that was smaller than that of the rifle. Rifles with minié bullets were much more accurate and thus more deadly. As a result during the war, troops who were far from the line of fire had to protect themselves by building trenches and other fortifications. Even with the minié bullet soldiers still had to reload after each shot. However, by 1863, there was a new invention. These rifles were called: repeaters. These rifles could fire multiple bullets before needing to reload. The most famous of these rifles was the Spencer Carbine, which could fire seven shots in 30 seconds. These advancements gave the north a huge advantage over the south as the south did not have the equipment to nor knew how to make these new rifles. The advancement in war weaponry lead to a much greater number of casualties than any other war and is part of what made the Civil War stand out from all other wars that America had fought.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/civil-war-technology
http://www.historynet.com/minie-ball

The Battle of Chancellorsville

The battle of Chancellorsville was a major Civil war battle that took place near Chancellorsville, Virginia. This battle is often remembered as one of General Lee's greatest victories. The battle took place from April 30 to May 6, 1863. Lee faced General Joseph Hooker's army, an army nearly twice the size of his own. Hooker's army had crossed the river and ended up behind Lee. Hooker told Lee that he could either leave or fight. Lee along with his subordinate Stonewall Jackson decided to fight. Lee decided on the tactic of splitting his troops. Although it was a risky move it worked a Lee was able to defeat Hooker's army. Jackson's attack was a brilliant and tactical success which destroyed nearly half of General Hooker's line. However, nightfall prevented Jackson from a complete success and because it was dark Jackson ended up getting wounded by his own picket line. The most intense battle occurred on May 3.  Lee attacked the troops which Hooker had left behind. The attack was successful and on May 6, Hooker recrossed the Rappahannock River. Throughout the battle, Hooker lost 17,000 men while Lee only lost 13,000. Of these losses, the most significant was that of Stonewall Jackson, who was one of the most trusted generals in the Confederate army. 

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/battle-of-chancellorsville
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/chancellorsville

How Cotton Conquered the South

Many of us have heard of the horrors of slavery, but not as much attention is paid to the why. What could drive people to travel thousands of miles across the ocean for the sole purpose of kidnapping people and selling them as a commodity? The finger can be pointed at cotton: through the use of slaves, it's safe to say that this cash crop singlehandedly built the South.

At the start of the civil war, if the Confederacy was (recognized) as its own nation, it would have been the 4th richest in the world. The region produced a whopping 75% of the world's cotton, and there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River Valley than anywhere else in the United States.

The history of cotton is a fascinating one. Grown since ancient times, for many millennia it had been considered a luxury item in Europe, being only sold as a finished good. However, that all changed with the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1793. Now the previously laborious task of picking the seed out of cotton could now be done much more efficiently. It could be produced more cheaply, making it available to more people, thus causing huge demand for it. At the same time, the Industrial revolution that was happening in Britain led to the opening of many textile factories there, all which would need huge amounts of cotton. Back in the U.S, tobacco looked less and less appealing, as the crop depleted soil of its nutrients, and was dropping in value, which encouraged many landowners to switch to farming cotton. And huge portions of land in the South had just been opened up. With its warm climate, it was perfect for cotton cultivation. A combination of these things created the perfect storm for the South to become the "King of Cotton".


This economic success wasn't just limited to the South. The North benefited greatly from importing large amounts of raw material and turning them into finished product. In 1860, New England consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton, which was 67% of U.S production at the time. This is kind of ironical; the North's economy depended on the thing they heavily opposed: slavery.


Many of the Worlds great powers and Empires obtained their wealth and through the trade of raw materials, and America is no different. Through the mass production of this simple crop, it set the stage for America to become an economical superpower.

Sources
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/video/the-cotton-economy-and-slavery/

History of the Mormon Religion

The Mormon Religion

While discussing the Second Great Awakening and the number of new religions and faiths that emerged,
I decided to look more into one of them: the Mormon religion. Founded in 1823 by Joseph Smith,
the Mormon religion has expanded in great amounts. The religion originated in Rochester, New York,
but it is most centrally located in Utah. The belief is that Joseph Smith was a prophet and he claimed that the angel, Moroni, had spoken to him. He said that there was actually a third part to the Bible
(The Book of Mormon). Moroni supposedly spoke of an ancient Hebrew text that had been lost and
was over 1,500 years old. This text was said to be engraved on golden plates and that it was Joseph
Smith’s responsibility to spread the word of God. He spent years transcribing the word of God onto
paper that could be copied. His ideas spread when, in 1830, the official Book of Mormon was published.
Soon, in places like Illinois and Ohio, the religion was gaining supporters. They set up Mormon
communities in these states, but unfortunately, Joseph Smith was shot by an angry mob as many people
didn’t approve or agree of the Mormon religion. Brigham Young took over as the leader
of the religion after his death and moved across the country until finally finding the ‘promised land’
in Utah. The capital of the Mormon community is now known as Salt Lake City. Although the hub of the
religion is further west now, the idea was originally started around the time of the Second Great
Awakening.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mormon-church-established

The Father of Photojournalism: Matthew Brady

Have you ever heard of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"? This saying is the theory behind the idea of photojournalism. Photojournalism is a form of journalism that uses images to tell a news story. It helps us humans sympathize and better connect with the story that we're hearing. Pictures give humans a chance to convey some parts of reality. It tells a story without even saying anything. Images to some people can be more powerful than words and it also provides us with more solid evidence of the occurrence of events.

We have this amazing phenomenon thanks to a man named Matthew Brady. Mathew Brady is often referred to as the father of photojournalism and he is well known for his photographs of the Civil War. He was arguably the most famous 19th-century American photographer. His photographs had a tremendous impact on society at the time of the war and still are today. He is usually synonymous with civil war photography. Before the civil war, in 1844, he established a studio in New York. By 1860, he was one of the foremost portrait photographers and was the primary source of pictures for leaders. When the Civil War broke out, with his own money, Brady organized a group of photographers and employees to follow the troops as field photographers. They photographed many images of the Civil War including the First Battle of Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg. The Civil War came to be the first major war that was ever recorded by the camera.

In 1862, Brady displayed the first photographs of the war in his New York Studio in an exhibit called "The Dead of Antietam." These were the first pictures of a battlefield before the dead were removed and were the first to be distributed to the public. His pictures brought the scale and pain of the war to the country. His team and him "brought home the terrible reality and earnestness of war". When the pictures were shown, people would look at them in awe. It was the first time the Americans had seen their OWN dead. People hoped to recognize their family and it was horrific and it was the real first-time people saw the real horrors and how bloody the war was.


By the end of the war, Brady had accumulated humongous debts. He had thought the pictures would cell, but the cost of the photographs bankrupted him. In order to pay for his debt, Brady's work was sold to the US government in 1875 for $25,000.Why did Matthew do this? He spent all this money and even going into debt. Matthew said, “a spirit in my feet said ‘Go’, and I went”. He was driven even though he knew it might not have been the best business wise choice. After the war, Brady's popularity had declined, so he continued studio portraits on a small scale. Eventually, he dies poor and underappreciated in 1896. However, Americans soon realized that he was one of the first to really understand photography as an art. He was a man with a vision and was out front and nobody NOBODY could outdo him for that era.

Here are some of his most famous pictures:

Portraits
 

Portrait of Lincoln

Portrait of General A. Custer





Civil War Photos

A Revisionist View of President Lincoln

Some historians question whether Lincoln was truly the great abolitionist and emancipator that we know him as today. Although Lincoln did hold respect for individuals such as Frederick Douglas, his opinion of the general black population, more likely than not, followed the prejudices of his time. 

   

 In Lincoln’s debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, Lincoln expresses white supremacist beliefs. In 1858, Lincoln states, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” He goes on to say that he never intends to make them voting citizens or allow them to hold office. He states that there are innate physical and mental differences between whites and blacks that dictate intermarriage as wrong. He ends this statement by saying that there must be inferior and superior positions in society to allow for coexistence and that the white man must be superior. 

   

 It has been argued that Lincoln was not committed to abolishing slavery for the good of the black population. Rather, he was a politician who saw it in his favor to prevent the system’s expansion. When the war against the Confederacy was going poorly, Lincoln saw an opportunity to cripple the heart of the Southern economy and rally Northern troops through emancipation. 

    

Weeks before Lincoln presented his Emancipation Proclamation, he submitted a peace plan to Congress that would end the war and allow the south to preserve slavery for forty more years. This greatly angered and confused Abolitionists. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln declared that it was not a war over slavery but a war to preserve the union and went on to say that all blacks should leave America. Then, he promised emancipation. Next, he wanted to allow southerners to keep their slaves for forty more years. After that, he finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation. 

Lincoln's various actions contribute to his complicated character, known for his acts of compassion and morality yet conforming to the racist beliefs of his time. 

 "A complicated Lincoln – Harvard Gazette." 13 May. 2010, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/a-complicated-lincoln/. Accessed 25 Sep. 2018.

Mr. Lincoln and Negro Equality. - The New York Times." https://www.nytimes.com/1860/12/28/archives/mr-lincoln-and-negro-equality.html. Accessed 25 Sep. 2018.

 "Lincoln and the Problem of Race: A Decade of Interpretations." https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0002.104/--lincoln-and-the-problem-of-race-a-decade-of-interpretations?rgn=main;view=fulltext. Accessed 25 Sep. 2018.

"Looking for Lincoln | PBS : Looking for Lincoln." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/lookingforlincoln/. Accessed 25 Sep. 2018.

Douglas Vs. Lincoln Debates

Debates have been an essential function of intellectual conversation since the evolution of the human race. From small decisions like where to go for lunch with friends to more serious concerns, like abortion rights, debate is a recurring theme in modern society. In history, the art of debate has been influential over every famous historical event.

In American history, a series of prominent debates took place between Stephen Douglas and Lincoln during the Illinois state elections of 1858. Lincoln and Douglas discussed and tackled issues that would remain a key part of American history long after the "poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself [Lincoln] shall be silent”, as stated by Lincoln during a debate.

Lincoln and Douglas engaged in a series of seven debates throughout the election. In the debates, Douglas maintained a goal of reelection for a third term in Senate, and Lincoln was looking to replace him and take his seat as a Republican. The debates not only acted as a method to discuss key issues, it gave fame and recognition on a national level to Lincoln. The campaigns, because of the events surrounding them, (sectional divisions between political parties and the increasingly problematic slavery issue), aligned to put an emphasis on them. Shortly before the debates, Douglas had opposed the already controversial Lecompton Constitution under Buchanan, which allowed him to gain further support from the Republican party. Interestingly, because of slave interests and Buchanan's conflict with Douglas, Lincoln received support from Southern Democrats. During the debates, Lincoln's main objective was to prevent Douglas from gaining the support of Illinois Republicans, which he attempted to achieve by bringing to light the philosophical differences between them and Douglas, as well as to gain the support of the abolitionist movement and some former Whigs.

The basis of Lincoln's campaign was framed during his House Divided speech. Lincoln argued that slavery could no longer be maintained between two different positions in the United States, it would either become widespread throughout the nation or eradicated immediately. This later became known as the Irrepressible Conflict. Lincoln argued that Douglas' support of popular sovereignty would not only allow new states to adopt the peculiar institution but spread it to the free states. Lincoln argued the slavery was unconstitutional and illegal as it violated the right of equality established in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln then used a decisive political tactic to "trap" Douglas in their debates. Lincoln gave Douglas two options, to accept the Dred Scott decision, which would alienate the North, or to reject it, causing him to lose support from the South. He established his position in the Freeport Doctrine, in which he supported that popular sovereignty could eliminate slavery in new states. This was seen as "Freeport Heresy" in the South.

Lincoln was seen as the "winner" of the debates but still did not receive enough votes to ensure him a seat in Senate. Ultimately, although Douglas won the election, Lincoln gained the fame and recognition that would later help his campaign for the presidency.  

The Great Awakenings and The Antebellum Movement

The first Great Awakening was based around emotional preachings of sin and hell. Prominent figures of the first Great Awakening were heavily influenced by Calvinist teachings. These teachings included the idea at all humans were innately sinful and those who went to heaven were a part of the elect. This left the possibility of salvation out of the hands of the individual. 

The Second Great Awakening was prominent in rural areas where traveling preachers spread ideas of Arminianism. These teachings contradicted the Calvinist belief of predestination and the absence of free will. It taught that salvation or damnation was based upon your own choices and that all people had the potential to be saved. Individuals could achieve salvation through revival, repentance, and conversion. These preachers focused on converting the hearts of their listeners. Rather than holding sermons in a traditional church setting, they were often outdoors at camps where listeners would travel many miles to attend. To a certain extent, this Great Awakening promoted democratic ideals by challenging traditional church authority, reaching out to a larger population of followers, and contributing to a growth in non-traditional denominations such as Methodism and Baptism. Its teachings followed more closely with the values of America of taking fate into your own hands and reaping the benefits of your own work. 

The Second Great Awakening directly led to the Antebellum Reform movement. The ideas of public education, abolitionism, and temperance had roots in deep religious devotion. Many people believed that it was in God's plan to reform society. The churches saw it as their duty to redeem their communities by bringing individuals closer to salvation and changing laws and institutions that took people farther away from salvation. It was the Second Great Awakening that lead to a greater moral consciousness and created the platform for the Civil War to transpire. 

A film analysis of 12 years a slave

In 2013, director Steve McQueen released his most acclaimed movie, 12 years a slave. I remember when it first came to theaters my parents were in a hurry to see it. I too, after having watched the trailer, desperately wanted to watch it. Not surprisingly, my parents wouldn’t let me, due to its R-rating. Last night, I finally got to watch the whole thing (without telling my parents off course), and I can see why they didn’t want me to watch it. It was violent, gory, and very depressing. But unlike most mainstream movies of today which, in my opinion, use violence and gore simply to attract an audience, McQueen truly managed to use bestial imagery to make an audience feel and understand the injustice, prejudice, and corruption of 19th century American society.

Solomon Northup was a free black man living in the state of New York. He made his living through violin concertos, and he had a wife and two children; it is fair to say he lived a happy life. That is, until two illegal smugglers kidnap him and sell him as a slave in New Orleans. So starts twelve years of torture, rape, death, and unrelentless labor. He goes through three different owners, one kind and appreciative of his talents, one who is quite unremarkable, and one who makes Solomon and the fellow slaves suffer endlessly. He meets fellow free men who have been smuggled, mothers who have lost their children, whites who believe in abolitionism, and one slave who seems to have lost just about everything. By the end however, he is recognized as being a free-man, and he writes an autobiography that is widely spread in the North. The devastating part of the movies plot, was that it was not a work of fiction. It was not inspired by a real story. It was a very close renaction of a real man's life.

The thing I liked most about this movie was Solomon’s valiant struggle to retain his dignity. It gave me hope to see him fight when all seems hopeless. However, even Solomon is reduced to an obedient servant by the end of the book. He lies about his literacy, whips a fellow slave after being told to, and lies about another slave being drunk. There were several recurrent themes in novel also. The most important is arguably his violin. At the beginning he plays the fiddle with joy and pride. Near the middle when his master forces him to play, his music seems mechanical and robotic, as if it has lost all joy and emotion. Near the end of the book he destroys his violin in guilt, after having whipped a fellow slave. Furthermore, the same recurring violin melody plays everytime there is a moment of hope.

The Curse of Tecumseh

After hearing about the Curse of Tecumseh during a lecture in class a few days ago, I immediately started a draft for a post about it. One of my favorite things is delving into myths, legends, and superstitions (there's also the fact that it reminded me of the curse in Harry Potter that befell all professors of Defense Against the Dark Arts) so writing about it seemed like a no-brainer. Here is a brief overview of this supposed curse that has befallen U.S. presidents.

The Curse of Tecumseh, also known as the Curse of Tippecanoe, refers to the pattern of deaths of U.S. presidents elected or re-elected in years divisible by twenty. The curse's name originates from the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 between American forces and a coalition of Native American forces. The origins of this conflict come from the Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809 in which the Indiana governor William Harrison employed questionable tactics to convince Native American leaders to sell their land to the American government. The treaty outraged the Shawnee leader Tecumseh and brought American soldiers and Native Americans to the brink of war in a period known as Tecumseh's War. Tecumseh and his brother organized groups of Indians tribes in order to resist the westward expansion of the United States. In 1811, Tecumseh's forces, under the leadership of his brother, Tenskwatawa, attacked Harrison's army. Harrison defeated the Native Americans and this victory brought him great fame and the nickname "Old Tippecanoe." In the aftermath of the war, Tenskwatawa,  also known as the Prophet, supposedly set a curse against Harrison and future presidents elected during years with the same end number as Harrison.

In the years that followed, seven U.S. presidents followed the fate outlined in Tecumseh's curse. William Henry Harrison, elected in 1840, died of typhoid. Elected in 1860, 1880, and 1900, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, and William McKinley were each, respectively, assassinated. Warren G. Harding, elected in 1920, died of unknown causes, though, a heart attack or stroke are the most widely accepted theories. Elected in 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt died from a cerebral hemorrhage. Finally, elected in 1960, John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Exceptions to the curse begin for presidents elected after 1963. Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980, did not die in office but was, however, seriously wounded in an assassination attempt within months of his inauguration. He also went on to survive treatment for colon cancer while in office. Elected in 2000, George W. Bush survived two terms in office that included fainting from choking on a pretzel and an assassination attempt that involved having a live grenade thrown at him. In addition, it could be argued that Zachary Taylor's death while in office is an exception given that he was not elected in a year divisible by 20.

While this curse is a fun and interesting tidbit in American lore it also serves as a reminder of this country's dark past and the atrocities that built this nation, including the near complete destruction of Native American life and culture.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Tippecanoe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Wayne_(1809)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Tippecanoe

Charles Sanders Peirce

He has been described as "the most original and versatile of American philosophers and America's greatest logician". Others have gone further and called him "the most original thinker and greatest logician of his time". Even Bertrand Russel called him as "certainly the greatest American thinker ever". Few 19th century American mathematicians are as highly regarded as Charles Sanders Peirce.

Born in 1839 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he was the son of a well established Astronomer and Mathematician, Benjamin Peirce. Although he showed fascination in the study of logic from an early age, his academic profile is nothing extraordinary. He received his masters degree from Harvard University in 1863. From 1859 to 1891 he worked various roles of the United States Coast and Geodesic Survey and this exempted him from being involved in the Civil War (he was a rare case: a confederate in Massachusetts). During this time most of his work was on gravimetry (using pendulums to measure earths gravity and different locations). During this time he also became a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the National Academy of Sciences. Also during this time, he proposed defining the Meter as a certain number of wavelength of light at a certain frequency. In 1879 he lectured about logic at John Hopkins University, his only academic position. He co-authored several papers at Hopkins, but was fired due to problems with his marriage. From 1887 onwards Peirce suffered from major poverty. He could not heat his house in winter, had to eat stale bread donations from the nearby bakery, and his debts made him a fugitive in New York City. He died impoverished and penniless in 1914 (the year WW1 starts).

Today Peirce is most remembered as the Father of Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the belief that a truth or belief should be valued based on its practical applications (In Peirce's own words "Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings, you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object".) This view of epistemology leans toward realism (pragmatic meaning real). Peirce believes that an idea or conception whose parts are not well understood, and whose effect is unclear, is generally considered bad. Although not formally a philosopher, Peirce also wrote about the validity of the scientific method, and much more.

His mathematical works are also very numerous. He suggested a cardinal system of infinite numbers (different types of infinity). He showed that boolean algebra can be implemented in real life through circuits (years before Claude Shannon). He also did a lot more work on pure mathematics that is too complicated for me to understand.

The Texas Revolution

Today in class, we learned briefly about Texas's independence from Mexico, and the Mexican War that ensued. I decided to learn a bit more about the fight for independence that occurred in the Texas Revolution.

The Revolution was actually a part of a larger series of uprisings that occurred against the Mexican President, António Lopez de Santa Anna. However, what set Texas apart from the other revolting provinces was the Mexican government's belief that it was receiving support and a promise for annexation from the United States. It was also the only region to have a successful revolt, with the rest of the provinces getting defeated by the Mexican forces. The goal of the war was widely debated, some believing that complete independence was the desired result, and others hoping to return to the Mexico Constitution of 1824, which made Mexico's government less centralized.

The revolution began with small battles fought between several Mexican garrisons and the emerging Texan army during late 1835. In 1836, enough support had been rallied for Texan independence that a political convention officially declared it to be the new Republic of Texas. Santa Anna sent new troops to Texas in retaliation, and was quickly met with momentary victory. The troops defeated all uprisings along the coast of Texas, and executed most of the soldiers that surrendered. This march up the coast eventually culminated in the Battle of the Alamo, which was a major Mexican victory, with the 1,800 Mexican soldiers defeated the 200 Texans in a 13-day siege.

However, despite being a victory in numbers for the Mexican forces, it inspired many Texans and citizens of the United States to rally behind Texan independence in protest of Santa Anna's violence and cruelty. The new Texan army was led by a man named Sam Houston, and focused its strengths on becoming a mobile, militarily capable force. He led his newly strengthened troops against Santa Anna's forces in the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836. The 18-minute fight resulted in the capture of Santa Anna, who agreed to sign a peace treaty and lobby for Mexico's independence in Mexico City after being held captive for three weeks.

Despite that battle being the decisive end to the Texas Revolution, conflict was still present between Texas and Mexico during the first half of the 1840s. The United States' annexation of Texas in 1845 was the last straw for Mexicans, and started the Mexican-American War that we learned about in class.

Overall, I really enjoyed learning about this revolution. It was really interesting to see how the Texan army, which numbered 2,000, was able to defeat the Mexican army of around 6,500, because it show the importance of tactics and strategy over numbers, a topic I find very interesting. I also find it interesting that Santa Anna's cruelty was essentially his downfall, as it caused the Texan Revolution to gain support and numbers. This really shows how war isn't just a matter of winning the battles themselves, but is also about winning the support of the public.

A History of Duels in the United States

Google defines a duel as “a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor.”  But today I go beyond that, and ask: how does America define duels?

The history of American dueling starts not in America, but in Europe.  Duels were used to settle disputes, and the religious roots in Europe caused people to believe that God would save the right person in a duel.  Dueling, as described by google, was about honor.  And this attitude translated over to America.

Of course in America it was also about honor, but democracy began to throw something new into the mix: politics.  Dueling became more popular around the revolution and afterwards rather than before due to the revolution’s emphasis on free speech and the divide between people who supported America versus Britain, and also due to the democracy created by America and the political parties that sprang up around it.

Dueling is interesting as it has been seen in many different ways, as both civilized and uncivilized, due to the many aspects and associations it has.  Duels have been romanticized in literature but also seen as a brutal way to settle petty arguments.  The rules of a duel are very civilized and strict however, to prevent long family feuds that go back generations.  Despite the danger and the fact that duels were illegal in many states, backing down from a challenge was seen to many as a terrible weakness that could destroy a reputation.  This depended who you were and where you were from though, as duels were a slightly more southern focused thing, so in places such as New England there was less stigma attached.  Dueling was more popular in the south because of the lack of enforcement for the laws when they were made, as well as duels over slavery and the fact of honor and social standing being of more importance.

Many politicians were involved in duels, and those went beyond regular duels and have become more well-known in history.  The most famous political duel was Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, the duel in which Hamilton was shot and killed.  Other politicians that were involved in duels include the man who just seems to pop up everywhere, Henry Clay, as well as Virginia senator John Randolph, Tennessee congressman Sam Houston, and even president Lincoln (though he never actually dueled, was just challenged and was very close before a third party intervention stopped it from happening).  Other famous duels include those between naval officers Stephen Decatur and James Barron, and between David Broderick and David Terry. And of course I would not forget Andrew Jackson, who famously had fought many duels.

Dueling, as mentioned before, had gone out of favor in the north.  This was the beginning of the dueling downfall.  By 1859, 18 states had outlawed dueling.  After the Civil War, dueling became far less popular, likely due to the extreme bloodshed from the war.  In the twentieth century, dueling laws were more enforced, and the practice has all but died out completely.  Sadly, dueling is illegal in California as of 1994, but in some states it’s still technically legal, so do with that what you will.

Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/politics-and-pistols-dueling-in-america/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/duel-104161025/
http://www.librarypoint.org/dueling_days_in_early_america
https://www.goldengatearms.com/california-dueling-laws-repealed/

A List of Important American Scientists of the Early 19th Century

A List of Important American Scientists of the Early 19th Century

A couple of nights ago I was doing my V.O.F reading (as a good USHAP'er is expected to do) and I came across a passage of John Quincy Adams arguing for greater scientific involvement from the US (#58). The excerpts description said that "Adams's proposals alarmed all believers in strict construction of the constitution. Few of his ambitious ideas received support in congress". I was marginally surprised, since in the 20th century the US was, and still is, a key player in the scientific world. So when did things change? Was the early 19th century really a dark time for American scientists? To help answer these question I compiled the below list of lesser known 19th century American scientists and their greatest achievements.

Charles Goodyear - discovered vulcanized rubber in 1844 - vulcanization is instrumental in the creation of reliable and usable car tires and also footwear. He was completely self-taught and his discovery initiated decades of successful rubber manufacturing in the Lower Naugatuck Valley.

Samuel Colt - an American inventor, industrialist, businessman, and hunter. He helped make a type of revolver that was commercially producible. In the Civil War his company, the Colt Manufacturing Company, supplied both the North and the South with firearms.

Asa Gray - considered the most important American 19th century botanist. His most famous work, Darwiniana, argued that religion and science are not mutually exclusive and that evolution must be guided by God. He worked at Harvard University for 10 years and maintained close correspondence with Charles Darwin. He also discovered that some East Asian plants are very similar to some East American plants, now called the Asa Gray Disjuncture

William Worrall Mayo - a British-American medical doctor and chemist, Mayo studied in Manchester with John Dalton. Once on the US, he held numerous occupations including: tailor, lab assistant, military doctor, census-taker, assistant steamboat operator, farmer, and justice-of-the-peace. After a tornado hit his town, Mayo began a clinic that evolved into the modern day Mayo Clinic

Maria Mitchel - the first American women to work as a professional astronomer, she discovered a comet in 1846 that became known as Miss Mitchel's Comet. She received a medal from King Frederick VI of Denmark for her discovery. She also helped make on of the first extensive collections of sun-spot photographs. She was in-touch with Herman Melville and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

John Wesley Powell - famous for leading the first US expedition across the Grand Canyon, geologist John Wesley Powell is also well known for his three month Powell Geographic Expedition. He, along with thousands of others, helped explore the western coast of the US.

Alexis de Tocqueville- Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville- Democracy in America

In the late 1700's and early 1800's the world seemed to undergo a democratic revolution. In North America, the United States was founded as a nation based on equality and suffrage. In South America most of the Spanish colonies fought for independence and freedom under the leadership of Simon de Bolivar . In Europe the French Revolution shook the globe with its cries for "liberty, equality and fraternity".  Even England saw some movements towards a freer state, as exemplified in the Reform Act of 1832.  One also cannot forget about the Haitian Revolution that brought an end to slavery in St Dominique. One man who set himself the task of analyzing democracy was the frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville.

Born in 1805 to an aristocratic family, Tocqueville became active in French politics during the July Monarchy (under King Louis Philippe I) and later during the Second Republic (under Napoleon III). It was during the July Monarchy that Tocqueville and his life-long friend, Gustave de Beaumont, travelled to the US to study the prison systems. In later years Tocqueville wrote that both friends used their official business trip as a pretext to study American society. In the may of 1831, they arrived in New York City and travelled the US for nine months. After returning to France he wrote and published his most famed book: Democracy in America.

He begins the book with a description of how and why the world is becoming more democratic. He believed that this change was due to improved economic conditions for the masses, the abolition of primogeniture (the male heir adapting the family estate as apposed to a daughter), and the granting of all men to enter the clergy.

He then describes the Puritan founding of the US democratic state of equality and explains that though the constitution plays a very important part in the protection of freedom, the more important factor is the "habits of mind" (mores) of the American people. Here he talks about fear of the tyranny of the majority, individualism, family, self-interest and materialism. He also writes about the separation of Church and State, believing this to be the weakness of the French Revolution.

In his book he also examines an effect now called the Tocqueville effect; he essentially argues that social frustration grows as social conditions grow. In other words "the appetite grows by what it feeds on". Furthermore, he was one of the first social critics to focus in-depth on women in the US. Because of his being one of the first to perform an extensive study of society, his book is on the syllabus of many political science courses all over the world. He is also often praised for having predicted a civil war over slavery and of a superpower rivalry (as demonstrated in the Cold War) between the US and another nation.

Los Altos High School: A Product of Christian Republicanism

Los Altos High School: The Product of Christian Republicanism

          Should anyone recall steps taken during the revolutionary era towards religious toleration, they might also remember the irony that came with it: the Christian Republic, the new goal.  As Christianity and truly any structured religious denomination within its realm remained prominent, the people agreed that a society with ingrained religious values meant a society with strong moral standards.

          And so formed the republic.  So formed the swearing on the Bible to ensure no lies disrupted the due process in court.  And so led the precedent set by presidents (all 45 Christian so far) to declare "So help me God!" during their inauguration.  Yet, a very core part of maintaining a moral population, in the revolutionary Americans' viewpoint (including politicians), meant raising an educated (future) electorate.  The next step: public school.

           Now the irony that comes with this is twofold.  Firstly, while this public school phenomenon would make America one of the most educated nations in the world, it would also result in a less Christian nation.  As science has evolved, the concept of religion has been widely challenged in all its facets.  Religion has also been removed from public school, making way for the constitutional freedom of religion/speech that falls under the First Amendment.  In my eyes, that has allowed more room for religious tolerance in the country, especially compared to what was considered sufficiently tolerant back in the days of the birth of Christian Republicanism.  For example, the Jews were not permitted political roles across colonies except for New York.  They were considered to be "tolerated", but not necessarily equal.  Today, that Christian Republican ideal of public school has effectively supported morality and education to great degrees by enabling everyone's ideas and voices to be heard.  However, I cannot be sure whether this exact result would excite them.
            The other part I have to question is whether public schools' current educational standards are outdated.  Perhaps it must change to maintain a truly educated youth/future electorate, with new requirements such as experience.  Schools have begun this, with some mandating community service hours for graduation, but Los Altos is not one of these schools.  Experience in the real world is key to understanding others and making well-informed decisions, and as we turn 18 and are legally able to vote as soon as we leave high school, this experience needs to come before graduation.  Our current education system is academically sufficient, however, a truly educated electorate would not vote a maniac into the presidency.  We as a nation must ensure that the future electorate, currently in school, is not taught with the same education standards of our parents and of the generation that elected incorrectly.
            Regardless— as a non-Christian, as a not-religious-person actually, as an atheist: I applaud Christian Republicanism, not for its problematic leftovers of sometimes-church-not-separate-from-state things (like swearing on a Bible), but for the chance to learn for free here at Los Altos.  I know I will ensure that I do not waste this gift, nor will I return it (not just because I never got a receipt).

Dolly Madison and her Painting

           The legend that Dolley Madison saved a painting of George Washington from a burning White House not only allowed the First Lady to be realized as courageous and patriotic - but also capable of saving a symbol of America.  During the war of 1812, when the British burned the White House in retaliation for the Americans burning Toronto - Mrs. Madison decided that the most crucial object in the White House was the statue of America's first president.  In all the panic, she was somehow able (presumably with help) to retrieve an 8-foot painting that was bolted into the wall.  However - this was good news for the American people because it sent a message that the White House was willing to risk their lives for the sanctity of the nation.
           And although the painting was just a painting, George Washington has long represented for Americans the values of the American revolution - liberty, democracy, and patriotism.  It was all in some way a metaphor for the war with the British.  When America is in a state of catastrophe, American leaders will still find a way to hold on to their core values.  They would never allow a portrait of the founder of the country to be confiscated by the British.
           However, it is still widely disputed whether or not she actually rescued the painting.  In a letter to a friend, Madison wrote that because the painting was so difficult to unhinge, she had ordered the frame broken and rather saved the painting itself.  Strangely, there are no written records of her doing this other than the letter - including any witnesses or accounts from the people that actually broke the frame.  Whether or not she actually saved the painting, Dolley Madison fulfilled the American values of sacrificing everything for her country.
       
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/artwork/dolley-madison-comes-to-the-rescue/

Evolution of Political Parties

  Although we tend to think of the Democrats and Republicans as these two unchangeable blocs of government, they haven’t always been there. The United States government has seen several parties with significant power rise and fall in its centuries of existence. How did these two parties with such distinct views emerge?

   During our nation's tumultuous entry into statehood, two main political parties dominated the political landscape, the Democratic-Republican (which has no affiliation with either of today’s parties) and the Federalists. The Federalists, spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong centralized government at the national level and helped to establish the union with the modern Constitution, as an alternative to the weak Articles of Confederation. They also supported reforms to urbanize and to grow the industrial sector of America. The Democratic-Republicans opposed a strong national government and wanted to see America continue as a mostly agrarian society with power held mostly by states. It could be argued that the Federalists had the most impact during the early 1800s: pushing through The Constitution, establishing a national bank, and influencing the state to stay out of European Affairs during the French Revolution. However, at the outbreak of the War of 1812, everything changed.

   Many Federalists held pro-British sentiments and vehemently opposed the outbreak of the war. Ultimately this lead to the party’s downfall as when the US emerged victorious from the war many Federalists were labeled as traitors and the party no longer carried any meaningful support. The Democratic-Republicans became the only party in the US in what began to be known as the “era of good feelings”. During this era, four presidential candidates ran for office, all from the Democratic-Republican party. However, just like before, people began to polarize again over new issues. This lead to the creation of the Democratic Party with Andrew Jackson as its first president. This being the modern Democratic party, however, a very different one from the one we see today. This party actually opposed “big government” and many of its 20th-century viewpoints were forged during the heat of the Civil War and the Reconstruction era. To oppose the Democrats, the Whig party arose - it mainly took issue with Jackson and many of his polarizing actions. The legacy of this party would be the GOP (Republican party) that we know today. However, like the Democratic party, it would take a civil war to fully cement its position at the forefront of American politics.

   The tension leading up to the Civil War was in part created by the polarization of Americans between these new political parties. However, slavery was a mixed issue. Some northern Democrats opposed its existence and some Whigs remained rather indecisive on the issue. However, after the Missouri compromise where at this point many argue that the Civil War became inevitable, it became clear that the political landscape would finally have to incorporate the controversial topic of slavery. Surprisingly, what we now think of as the more liberal party, the Democrats, actually sided with the South and accepted slavery.  This left many disgruntled Northern Democrats along with the Whigs and several other parties joining forces to create the GOP. This new party gained traction and while at first not openly opposing slavery in the South, many abolitionists in the party later known as radical Republicans wanted to see the practice completely abolished. The party’s support was predominantly located in the North, where much of America’s industrial and corporate sectors were located. As a result, the party took many of its small government, low tax, and pro-business stances on issues from that remain to this day. With the election of Lincoln into office and the outbreak of the Civil War, the two Political Parties effectively solidified their stances. The GOP advocating small government and abolishment of slavery or the stopping of the expansion of slave states.The Democrats effectively became the pro-slavery party of the South. With the Confederate defeat and the abolishment of slavery, the Democratic Party took on a new role, representing disgruntled Southerners who wanted to see the rights of blacks reduced. With Democratic support many racist laws, such as the grandfather law, helped to suppress votes and limit rights for black citizens. These laws would be known as “Jim Crow” laws. But how did the party change so drastically?

   The start of the 20th century ushered in a drastically new age for America, the Gilded Age. Gilded for a few otherwise known as robber barons. Robber Barons owned large corporations, enterprises, and effectively had the government in their pocket. This new ugly side of capitalism lead many Americans to push for reforms to strip away this immense power of the few, leading to the doctrine of progressivism. At first, both parties supported this new movement. However, due to Republican beliefs in smaller government and fewer taxes and a new Democratic and progressive president Woodrow Wilson coming to power, the Democratic party began to take on a new role: one of bigger government and limiting corporate power. This helped to solidify the GOP as a party for business and the Democrats as a progressive party. This trend continued throughout the 20th century, where the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed through many progressive reforms in order to combat the Great Depression and fight against the Axis powers. In doing so, he drastically expanded government power. But the true switch came over the issue of Civil Rights, where at this point Democrats a party of the Progressives and Southern Racists had some how coexisted. However with growing progressive support the democratic party finally flipped its political axis and switched to being a more liberal party socially. This lead to the Democrats not only becoming fiscally progressive but socially progressive as well. In the seventies, as the Democrats took on this new role, the Republicans took on a more socially conservative stance, as if to mirror them. It could be said that the GOP really took on its modern stance during the Reagan presidency, where the slashing of taxes and social benefits and an increased interest in the military became the norm for Republicans. This lead to the stances we know today. However, it’s hard to know what the future of the parties will be as Donald Trump’s new doctrine of conservatism and populism seems to be radically diverging from the ideals of the old Republicans in big business. The Democrats seem to be increasingly supportive of more wealthy states such as New York, California, and New England areas that seemingly need less social benefits and lower taxes. Like always, the parties will reform and change with the state of the nation.
Sources:
Images from: http://www.martyduren.com/
https://www.vox.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

“The Gleaner” - Judith Sargent Murray’s Story

In the reading for chapter 8 as well as the VOF homework #46, a particular character came up who I have found myself quite interested in.  Judith Sargent Murray, AKA The Gleaner, was a women’s rights activist in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  Her most famous essay, printed in VOF, is “On the Equality of the Sexes,” published in 1790.  This was even before Mary Wollstonecraft’s work “Vindication of the Rights of Women,” published in 1792.  This makes Murray one of the earlier advocates for women’s equality.

Murray grew up in a well-off household, using the family library to teach herself beyond the regular reading and writing a woman was taught at the time.  She began to write letters and poetry at a young age.  She was given a typical education for a woman of her class, with reading, writing, and household chores like sewing.  However, Murray would go on to become more than a housewife.

Murray married John Stevens in 1769.  Stevens died in 1786, and Murray married John Murray in 1788, taking his last name as the one she is now famous for.  Murray also had a child in 1791, Julie Marie.  Throughout this time, Murray was making a name for herself.  Well, several names.

“Honora,” “Martesia,” or “Constantia” could be seen in newspapers, as well as the man known as “The Gleaner.”  But don’t be fooled, these were all names Murray wrote under as she published her works to multiple news outlets and magazines.  She is most famous for “The Gleaner” as this name was chosen to ensure that her ideas would be considered rather than thrown away simply because she was a women.  However, “On the Equality of the Sexes” was published under the name “Constantia.”

Murray also accomplished many other amazing feats of writing in her time.  She wrote plays, such as The Medium and The Traveller Returned, both of which were produced and performed.  She also published a three volume book called The Gleaner, increasing her body of work.  And her love for poetry from a young age never died, and under her pseudonyms she wrote multiple poems for magazines and newspapers.

Judith Sargent Murray died in 1820 at age 69 in Natchez, Mississippi.  We might glance over her name and her works in passing as we try to cram all the rest of the chapter in our heads, but Murray was a truly amazing women, one of the first to advocate for equal rights.  She was a poet, essay writer, novelist, screenplay writer, and more.  I personally believe she is one cool gal who we should all know a little more about.

Sources:
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/judith-sargent-murray
http://www.jsmsociety.com/Chronology.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Sargent_Murray#Career_accomplishments

Modern-day Slavery

Our Founding Fathers promised the protection of life, liberty, and happiness in the US constitution. However, these freedoms applied only to a select few. In many states, only property-owning, white males enjoyed full liberties. Many of the ideals listed in the constitution originate from European philosophers. John Locke outlined the innate rights of humans, Montesquieu determined that power should be separated into branches, and Voltaire believed in freedom of speech and the humane treatment of prisoners. Despite these morals, the existing system of slavery created the greatest contradiction to these ideals. The founders of the United States created their own system of tyranny and injustices just as they escaped the tyranny of Great Britain.

When The United States declared its independence, slaves accounted for one-fifth of the nation’s population. Slave-owning and trading was an accepted reality of colonial society. Even patriotic newspapers that published arguments of the Sons of Liberty included slave sale notices. The frequent description of Britain as a kingdom of slaves, and America as the land of the free, created immense irony since a large population of Americans were slaves.

In southern states, economies grew completely reliant on slave labor. After the civil war, cheap labor was desperately needed, and the creation of modern-day slavery was invented: the convict lease system. The Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program allowed United States companies to use prison labor. In recent years, the prison population skyrocketed. In 1971, there were less than 200,000 inmates in the US. By the end of 1996, the incarceration rate rose to almost 1.2 million. No other country has a larger proportion of prisoners. The United States has an incarceration rate that is five times Britain's, six times Canada's, and fifteen times Japan's. As African American and Latinos are disproportionately incarcerated, they make up the bulk of prison labor. In Virginia and Oklahoma, approximately one in every fourteen African American men are incarcerated.

These prisoners are leased to industrialists and planters. In 1883, convicts in Alabama contributed ten percent of the state's revenue, and in 1898 they accounted for seventy-three percent. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has a program called Federal Prison Industries which pays inmates under a dollar an hour and generated 500 million dollars in 2016. Government and private contractors gain enormous profits from the increased incarceration rates. This system has even become cheaper than slavery.

In 2017, 24,000 prisoners in 12 different states held protests against the inhumane conditions they experienced. They planned the event around the anniversary of the Attica Prison uprising, where prisoners rallied against overcrowded cells, unsanitary conditions, and medical neglect. Secret graveyards have been discovered that contain the remains of prisoners who were tortured and were apart of inmate labor.

Today, companies such as Walmart get their produce from farms where women inmates work, facing poor conditions, poor medical care, and extremely low wages. McDonald's uses prison labor to manufacture their uniforms. In 2013, federal inmates made 100 million dollars worth of military items and worked for as little as 23 cents an hour.

Outdated and immoral systems are kept alive under different names, subjugating minorities and violating labor rights. The same contradiction of liberties that was created between slave labor and the constitution exists between inmate labor and the constitution today.

"Slavery in the US prison system | Prisons | Al Jazeera." 9 Sep. 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/09/slavery-prison-system-170901082522072.html. Accessed 9 Sep. 2018.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/09/slavery-prison-system-170901082522072.html "Crime and Punishment in America - The New York Times."

"The problem with prisons in America - Lockup nation - The Economist." 14 Dec. 2017, https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/12/14/the-problem-with-prisons-in-america. Accessed 9 Sep. 2018.

Damn John Jay

That Damn John Jay

         Ah, fellow USHAPers.  I know how excited you all are to experience the following few passages.  Today, I hope to question the notion that John Jay must be damned, and rather consider why John Jay was pretty damn funny.  It begins all the way back in 1745.
         December 23, 1745, a mistake would be born; or at least that's what the majority of the United States would come to believe several decades later.  John Jay, a descendant of French Huguenots and a New York native, grew up in a well-off merchant family and did not disappoint his ancestors— for a while.  He studied at King's College, now the world-renowned Columbia University, and became a lawyer shortly after in 1764.  After making it into the first Continental Congress as a prominent New York politician, Jay became increasingly involved in the revolutionary efforts and would later spotlight as a Founding Father.  He was one of three (along with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams) to negotiate the Treaty of Paris with the British, which would formally end the American Revolution.
          He was also a Federalist.  He co-wrote the Federalist Papers suggesting ratification of a new Constitution along with Hamilton and Madison.  Washington even appointed him as the first-ever Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, making way for Jay's significant influence in the workings of the American court system.  So why do we damn him?
           As some might remember from today's class, Jay signed a treaty that was not popular amongst the American population.  To recap, Washington sent him to England to negotiate a treaty to forestall war after tensions between the British and Americans had risen of recent.  This treaty violated the idea of neutrality (when considering French/British conflict) that Washington had promoted for so long, and it upset the American people to see the government seemingly siding with the British government in France's time of need.  After all, the French had supported Americans during our revolution, and yet the same was not the case when the tables were turned.
            Blame it on Napoleon.  It's fair.  He was a risk that no one could calculate, and no one really wanted to take a chance with him.  But, as the entire American government could not be hated without chaos ensuing, Jay became the face America loved to hate.  Jay's effigies were burned throughout the colonies, and he would lose the next two presidential elections in which he would run.
             I often wonder whether people consider what Jay believed he was doing at the time.  Not only did he live to see the French help him and his people against the British, but he was a French descendant— and a descendant of French revolutionaries, in their own right.  He must have known that this was the pragmatic thing to do, and his intelligence cannot be discounted considering the work he had done for the country prior to this unpopular move.  This is what is so damn funny: he probably hated signing that treaty, but he had to and he knew it.
             But instead of pondering this, the people just sat there and pondered the golden rule, I guess.  And there began the "Damn John Jay!  Damn everyone who won't damn John Jay!  Damn everyone that won't put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!"
             Regardless, during Jay's term as Governor of New York, he would sign a bill outlawing slavery.  He would condemn the admittance of Missouri to the Union as a slave state.  So he kept doing good, and he died in 1829, so damn happy.

Sources:
https://www.history.com/topics/john-jay
https://www.nps.gov/articles/backlash-against-jay-s-treaty.htm

The Electoral College Sucks

The Electoral College Sucks

           For centuries, the decisions of one college would lead the United States of America through triumph and defeat, from slavery to equality (to an extent), and most recently, set us back several hundred years.  The electoral college came to be as a mutually beneficial system to both the Federalist and Republican parties.  It not only worked to check the decisions of uneducated voters (as Hamilton saw necessary) but additionally to ensure that presidential candidates still appealed to regions with smaller populations (Jefferson's mandate).

           To expand a bit: in Hamilton's Federalist mindset, a strong and centralized federal government had to be led with a stronger executive branch, meaning a competent president.  Should that core leadership and intellect not exist within the elected president, especially back when the American system of government was in its formative stages, the whole nation might fall apart.  So, just a slight majority would not win any candidate the election.  With Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican party, being the proponents of rural lifestyles and stronger state governments, they saw a system of population-based voting as unfavorable to the states with lesser populations who needed different supports from their president.  In fairness to the people, the House of Representatives adopted population-based delegation and the Senate held two seats for each state's representatives.  But this is not how the electoral college works: that is based on regional voting that makes the decision for each of the 538 total electors.

            Ironically, as of 2016, Hamilton's hopes and Jefferson's views might have completely crumbled the American government, exposing further problems in the checks and balances of our government's structure but especially highlighting the problematic nature of a voting system that is not based on the popular vote.  Hillary Clinton, clinically proven to be the mentally stable candidate regardless of party bias, lost to Donald Trump.

            And it really ends there in terms of what happens after that.  She lost, and he won, and so he is president and there is nothing anyone can do about that except for impeaching him or waiting for him to leave office and then maybe one day electing her if she ever decides to run again.  But looking into the actual results, Clinton won the popular vote— by 3 million votes.  The day that that is no longer enough to declare a sure victory is an expository day, and it has arrived.  While the electoral college failed to secure a stable candidate for the decidedly significant office of president, it is important to note just how much it failed: she lost by 74 electoral college votes.  How might someone win in actuality— in actual votes, by 3 million— and yet lose by 14% of the system's electoral votes?

             The final question is, in today's society, is it really fair that the popular vote does not mean anything?  It is understandable, even by myself, as to why Jefferson saw the need for representation of those in smaller states.  However, they voted for an incompetent president (the smaller states more often voted for Trump).  I am not saying that the popular vote should mean everything, but perhaps the system we have set up centuries ago is no longer applicable in the modern day.  A college whose electors hold little power does not seem to be affected at all (in my experience) by delegates, as Hamilton hoped.  And Jeffersonian ideals of states' greater independence from the federal government are not being met, as Trump refuses to honor sanctuary states and individual states' property tax policies, for example.

             The system failed this time.  It has hurt many Americans, with views of our racist, corrupt, and incompetent president and his selected administration obviously affecting the nature and policies of our nation.  Hamilton and Jefferson would be disappointed.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/president
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/how-does-the-electoral-college-work.html

The Life and Legacy of Deborah Sampson

While reading chapter six of Give Me Liberty! I came across a woman named Deborah Sampson who disguised herself as a man and joined the revolutionary forces in 1782. The book discussed her very briefly in a section regarding women's roles and involvement in the war and I was incredibly interested to learn more about her. Here is a brief history of the life and legacy of Deborah Sampson.

Born December 17, 1760 in Plympton, Massachusetts, Deborah Sampson was one of Jonathan Sampson Jr. and Deborah (Bradford) Sampson's seven children. After Jonathan failed to return from a sea voyage - though it is speculated he left the family and migrated to Maine where he remarried - Sampson's mother was forced to place her children in different households to be cared for. At age 10, five years later, Deborah became an indentured servant to the Thomas family. She completed her indenture at the age of 18 and worked as a teacher during the summer of 1779 and 1780 and as a weaver in the winter.

In 1782, as the Revolutionary War continued, Sampson disguised herself as a man named Robert Shurtleff and joined the Fourth Massachusetts Regiment. In West Point, New York, she was assigned to the Light Infantry Company under Captain George Webb. She was meant to provide flank coverage for advancing regiments as well rearguard. In addition, she had to scout neutral territory and assess the build-up of men and material for units on the move.

During a battle on July 3, 1782, Sampson was hit by two musket balls and was cut on the forehead. Her head wound was treated but, fearful of her identity being discovered, left the hospital and took the bullet out herself with a penknife and sewing needle. She was ultimately discovered in 1783 when she fell ill during an epidemic, taken to a hospital, and lost consciousness where Doctor Barnabas Binney discovered the cloth Sampson had used to bind her breasts. But, instead of informing the authorities, he allowed her to recover in his home where his wife, daughters, and nurse took care of her.

She received an honorable discharge in October of 1783 after General Paterson, who she had worked under for several months, recommended she be rewarded for her service, and returned to Massachusetts where she wed Benjamin Gannet in the spring of 1785. She had three children, Earl, Mary, and Patience. The rest of her life followed that of a typical farmer's wife but in 1802 she began a year-long lecture tour about her experiences, the first woman to do so, in full military regalia. She also petitioned for a pension with the help of Paul Revere and, in 1821, ended up being one of the only women awarded a pension from the state of Massachusetts in the Revolutionary War. She died of yellow mountain fever in 1827.

In 1906, the town of Plympton placed a boulder on the town green with a bronze plaque in Sampson's honor. In WWII, Sampson had a ship, the Liberty Ship S.S. Deborah Gannett dedicated to her. As of 2000, the town flag of Plympton incorporates Sampson as the Official Heroine of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She continues to be regarded as a Daughter of Liberty for her role in the war.


Sources:
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/deborah-sampson
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Deborah-Sampson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson#cite_note-young-5
http://historyofmassachusetts.org/deborah-sampson-woman-warrior-of-the-american-revoultion/

Hamilton VS Jefferson and their Roles in the Revolutionary War

In class yesterday we discussed the differing political opinions of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. After learning about these two men and their views of what America should look like I was curious to see what roles they played in the war. After doing some research I discovered that Hamilton and Jefferson played two very different roles in the revolutionary war.

Alexander Hamilton played the role of the soldier and officer during the revolution. In 1776 he left kinds college to serve as the captain of an artillery company that he helped organize.  Hamilton was intelligent and quite skilled as a commander. In January of 1777 George Washington, who was quite impressed with hamiltons skill in battle, invited him to join his staff as his aid-de-camp, a military officer who acts as a confidential assistant to a senior officer. Between 1777 and 1781 Hamilton worked as Washington's assistant and confidante. In February 1781 Hamilton decided he wanted to be a part of the action and fight in battle, so he left Washington's staff and went off to fight. In July of the same year, he tried to return to the army with a field command but Washington said no. Eventually, Washington gave in and gave him the key assault on a British redoubt at Yorktown. He helped to win the battle of Yorktown alongside his friend and leader Marquis de Lafayette. After the war, Hamilton went home to his wife and went on to become a lawyer and a key person in the founding of America.

Unlike Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson did not fight in the war, he wasn't even present in America during the war. In 1775 Jefferson was selected to be a delegate to the second continental congress. He was asked to draft the declaration of independence, which was adopted on July 4th, 1776. In the fall of 1776 Jefferson resigned from the Continental Congress and was re-elected to the Virginia House of Delegates (previously known as the House of Burgesses. He was later elected to be Governor of Virginia in 1779 and re-elected in 1780. During his time as governor, Jefferson made some choices that many consider questionable. When General Benedict Arnold captured the arsenal outside Richmond, Jefferson and members of the house fled to his plantation. When they were pursued Jefferson took his family to another one of his plantations. Many saw this as a lack of leadership in a time of crisis and because of this, he was not re-elected for a third term. He, like Hamilton, was a well-renowned lawyer and played a key role in the founding of America. 

Sources:
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/thomas-jefferson
http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/index.cfm/people/view/pp0050
http://www.aboutthomasjefferson.com/thomas-jefferson-war/228/