Questions for Jonathan Jones' Discussion Sections
For this week's discussion, you will need to have finished all of this week's assigned readings. Pay close attention, however, to the section in the Henretta textbook dealing with the Dred Scott case (p. 414). Also take a good look at Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech which can be found in the online reader, and also be prepared to discuss Henry David Thoreau's "A Plea for Captain John Brown," in Brown, Clotel, pp. 503 - 512. Please answer, as completely as you can, the following questions:
1. From these selections, what can we discern about the differences between Northern and Southern cultural and political values? Specifically, what were the varying views on slavery and liberty?
2. Were the individual people involved in these events (John Brown, President Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney, John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln) members of a "blundering generation?" Did there actions directly contribute to the coming of the Civil War or was the war inevitable?
3. Finally, was John Brown what Thoreau describes or was he what we may today view as a terrorist?
Answer as completely as you can on this blog, making sure to cite specific examples from the documents to support your arguments, and come to class prepared to discuss these questions. Thanks.
1. From these selections, what can we discern about the differences between Northern and Southern cultural and political values? Specifically, what were the varying views on slavery and liberty?
2. Were the individual people involved in these events (John Brown, President Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney, John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln) members of a "blundering generation?" Did there actions directly contribute to the coming of the Civil War or was the war inevitable?
3. Finally, was John Brown what Thoreau describes or was he what we may today view as a terrorist?
Answer as completely as you can on this blog, making sure to cite specific examples from the documents to support your arguments, and come to class prepared to discuss these questions. Thanks.
posted by Jonathan Jones at 10:27 AM
18 Comments:
1. Northern and Southern Cultures were raised on different issues. For instance, the south consisted of mostly large cotton plantations. Without the use of slaves, the south would not have been able to produce the goods that they did. The north, however, based their daily life on the manufacturing and production of food. They were racists, as stated in Henretta pages 414 when many northern representatives agreed with Chief Justice Roger Taney that blacks could never become U.S. citizens. The north wanted them to be free, but not US citizens. The south, however, upheld its roots to slavery as the way of life and never disowned this belief.
2. The coming of the Civil War was inevitable. John Brown, an abolitionist, did not cause slavery to be the main issue of the country, but simply tried to help free those in slavery. He used personal life experiences from his raising to make his own decisions about slavery and its morals. (Clotel pgs 503-508) President Buchanan, a southern slave supporter, did not intentionally add fuel to an already raging fire. He simply accepted that Kansas, a state that could uphold popular sovereignty through the Kansas-Nebraska act, wanted to join the union as a slave-state. (Henretta pages 409 and 414.) The war could not be stopped by just one or a group of people. It was inevitable.
3. John Brown was a man of moral beliefs. He, after being raised around the inner workings of the army, made his own choice to help those slaves who could not help themselves. However, I do not praise him as a godly relic as Thoreau does in Clotel, page 507. He may have tried to offer aid to some four million men, but should not have been praised as highly as Christ being crucified. Stating all of this, I don't believe that he was a terrorist either. During that period, there were several other people that though the same things he did. This group, known as anti-slavery supporters, was known throughout the country and was not a "terrorist" group as would be considered today.
Seth Norment
The North always opposed slavery, but it became the center of the sectional conflict when the South tried to expand westward and bring slavery with it. To compensate for the South's "Slave Power" conspiracy, the North began the free-soil movement. Abijah Beckwith, an ordinary northern man and free-soiler, commented on slavery by saying, "The curse of slavery threatens the general and equal distribution of our lands into convenient family farms." The North no longer viewed slavery as sinful and unjust.
Although these people made some very important decisions that may have led up to the civil war, I believe the war was inevitable. It seemed with all the different political parties and non-understandings of the constitution a war was bound to break out. There were too many different views and beliefs circling around that caused hate and confusion. For example the northern abolitionists were from the north but were despised by the north. Another instance is the Dred Scott case when the Supreme Court couldn't make a fair ruling because this type of situation was never addressed in the Constitution.
Thoreau describes Captain John Brown as a hero, and in a way he was. His goal wasn't just to kill slave owners because they were treating blacks wrong, but his plan was to make blacks free like the whites were. It wasn't right to lead a violent attack but his intentions to save a whole race of people were right and I think thats what makes him a hero.
1. The north and south had many cultural diffrences. The north was indsutry working in factories they needed no slaves to fit into their working needs. The south used slaves for their everday working needs. They farmed everyday and they used them for that. Also they differed in political views because the south wanted more slave states the north wanted more free states. Canidates never wanted to lose the south or north votes so they wouldn't comment usually on how they felt. After the Missouri compromise some of this was helped but then Polk became president and the south charged into Mexican Territory taking all of their land which most was south of the Missouri line they spoke of. This the caused more problems cutrually and politcally between the North and South.
2. I think the war was going to happen no matter what. Tension was high. As i spoke of in my last post many things were changing with the North and South. Their politicians were thinking more and more diffrently. The war was unavoidable, it was bound to happened, it was more a matter of time thing. Then there was enough tension, as prof. Pasley said, that you could have cut it with a knife. It was a growing problem and just like most other wars it went from words to guns.
3. John Brown can be thought of in two ways I think. Today he is a hero. He was fighting for what today stands for, equality. He might have done it a little extremely and that why he can be looked as a bad person for back then. He was trying to kill people but these pepole were far from innocent. Throeau says that he is a liberator a hero, and looks at him like an angel and many other people did to. He stood for what was right he might have just took it a little overboard, but at this time in the country I think overboard was the only way to get the message across.
1. What we can discern from the cultures of North and South are: The South was based on agriculture. They raised cotton and used slave labor to make there fortunes. The North was based off manufacting in factories. Men each day went to the factory to earn a living. The politics of the North and South had one common thing that neither saw blacks as equal to whites. Although North wanted blacks to be free just not citizens. Were as the South was just fine going the way they had been going. (Text 414 and notes)
2. The civil war was inevitable. It was going to happen one way or another the North and South didn't see eye to eye and many key arguments. The people involved had to do with the Civil war coming into play but they were not the only reason it started. John Brown upset southerns by going into Kansas and killing pro slavery men in his prosuit to end slavery (clotel). President Buchanan upset northerns by wnating to expand slavery further west in america (notes). Justice Taney upset blacks by saying they were less equal to whites and could not become citizens (text 414). Abe Lincoln was not popular in the south for his firm opposition agaisnt slavery and not wanting it to expand further in the union (text 415). They were not the reasons for the civil war but they did play a factor in it.
3. John Brown was what Thoreou thought he was back in the day. Brown was a hero for free soliers back then. But today he would be seen as a terriorst. Taking men out of there houses beatting them, cutting there arms off and then finally killing them. In todays society he would be classified as a terriost and put on the FBI watch list.
1. As history will show, the South became heavily dependant on the use of slaves in agriculture, whereas the North utilized slavery much less in manufacturing and thus were less dependant upon it as a way of life. With that said that does not mean that the North was against slavery, in fact they were fine with it until the political division between the two regions became apparent. The North was dependant upon the south for agricultural goods and the South was dependant upon the north for manufactured goods, which allowed for the South to predominantly side with one political party and the North to side with the other. As this phenomenon occurred, both sides began to dislike the way the others were living. For example the North didn’t like that the south was using slaves even though they themselves felt they were better than African Americans. The south intern had similar thoughts such as the idea that they were honorable southern gentlemen and the Northerners were not, which can be seen with the beating of Sen. Sumner. In summary the differences in the Northern and Southern political values and cultures account for the regional tensions but not because of slavery, although slavery is often the mirage used to explain it.
2. While it would be naive to derive that John Brown, President Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney, John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln were the reasons for the civil war, it can easily be argued that their actions fed the fire. John Brown’s “Massacre” certainly stirred the pot as did Chief Justice Taney’s written opinion after the Dred Scott Case. Taney’s opinion was so degrading that it very well may have influenced many African Americans to fight in the war, but it didn’t cause the war. President Buchanan was focused on his own agenda throughout his presidency and not upon what was best for America and its people, of these men he is probably the one who holds the most blame.
3. John Brown proclaimed for years that violence was not the solution, but yet he himself was driven to it. There is a difference between fighting for what you believe in and slaughtering for what you believe in, John Brown and his men’s tactics were far from civilized and thus he was a terrorist. Had John Brown merely fought for what he believed in, then his actions could be seen as justified, but dragging people out of their homes to dice them up and slaughter them is in fact a crime against humanity regardless of his reasoning.
1. The differences between Northern and Southern cultures had been around since they were established. The South held onto the idea of slavery because it was required to run plantations at that time. The North, for the most part, just wanted to abolish slavery to spite the Southerners. The majority of the North did not care about the slaves, just about wrecking the culture of the South. The Dred Scott case showed that even the majority of Supreme Court justices did not care about the personal liberty of slaves. They essentially created a loophole in federal policy that could allow slaveholders to aquire slaves from a slave state and then move to a free state without freeing their slaves.This shows a disregard of personal liberties for African-Americans at the time.
2. The generation in power during the Civil War did not directly contribute to the outbreak of war between the North and South. War was going to occur and that fact is summed up best in Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. He states “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Pro-slavery and anti-slavery idealists could not live together, much less form a successful government together. Because of the constant strong arm of the Southerners on Northerners, war was inevitable between the two cultures.
3. John Brown was not a terrorist. He did what he believed was right and his actions helped lead to the eventual freedom of all slaves. At the time, he was a considered a terrorist, but in retrospect he is not a terrorist. It is similar to the Founding Fathers during the Revolutionary War. In the time before America’s freedom, they were branded traitors. But because of what their actions led to, they are celebrated as heroes now.
I think the north did not always oppose the thought of slavery. I think that they found a sense of enlightenment that had not yet moved its way south. The north approached slavery with a very limited sympathy. They thought it was constitutionally wrong to enslave people, yet it was all right to give them no citizenship rights. The main difference between the views of the north and south was the northern economy could sustain it’s self without the help of slave labor. If the northern economy would have been as dependant on the labor of slaves I do not think people would have showed as much desire to follow the constitution in abolishing slavery.
I feel that the coming of the war was inevitable. I think that John Brown, along with many other abolitionists, was correct in his thinking that the only way to bring about an end to slavery may very well have been violence. (Clotel pg. 503) There were several contributing factors of the civil war but I do not think you can call this generation a blundering generation.
I feel that John brown was not what he was portrayed by Thoreau. He did a lot of good but his approach was a little overboard. I think that he was a great person who helped a great number of slaves gain their freedom. To call him a terrorist is an exaggeration at its longest stretch. He did more good than harm and his overall intentions were good and just.
1.) Northerners see slavery as unconsitutional, on the other hand Southerners are strong willed toward slavery, because it is an intitial part of thier lives. Northerns also see that the south seems to, at this time, hold all the power and feel threaten by this. An example of this is seen in the Dred Scott case where slavery has upheld.
2.) Yes, I believe their actions led to civil war, in Lincoln's speech "House DIvided" he said that the U.S. could not endure permantly a half slave half non slave society. I believe Lincoln was right that that wouldn't work but instead of having a civil war, I could see the U.S. splitting into two different countries, such as Korea and Vietnam.
3.)I don't see John Brown as a terrorist, he simply stood up for his believes, fighting back against the south that he thought was bulling the north. However I think he was a little barbaric in the way he executed the killings.
The north and the south had very different views on the treatment of blacks and the issue of slavery. The north opposed slavery, but not because it denied the blacks their freedom and liberty. As it states in Henrietta, p 403, the free-soilers stopped emphasizing the “sinfulness of slavery and the natural rights of African Americans” and viewed slavery as merely a threat to “republican liberties” and “white yeoman farming.” The south needed slavery to keep their agriculturally-based way of life going, and also cared not for the liberty of the African Americans.
I believe that the war was inevitable, and it wasn’t the particular actions of individuals but everything that was going on in the country. The government tried many times to compromise between the opposing sides of the nation, but the violence kept escalating because people began to realize that it might be the only way. The tension was rising and war was unavoidable.
Terrorist use fear to get people to go along with their views. I don’t think that John Brown was using fear against the pro-slavery forces. I think that he was just using violence because it was the only thing that he felt the south would understand. Thoreau likens Brown to Jesus in that he laid down his life for the freedom of the blacks, and I think that is the closer picture of him. He wasn’t being violent just to get his point across in a big way; he was doing so because everything else wasn’t working.
In the sections, we can believe that the south and the north had somewhat opposite point of views when it came to slavery and liberty. Both were very racist and thought that the white race was far more superior to the black race. The south though, took it to a whole new level. They viewed slavery as a way of life. This is due to the fact that they were mainly farming people who used slaves in the fields compared to the north where people (generally) worked in factories. The political competition that ensued had very little to do with the farming aspect. It was all about the number of slave states compared to the number of free states. This was proven a number of times in the Henretta book when Kansas, California, Missouri etc. entered as stats. The north viewed that African Americans should be freed, just not equal.
The war itself was inevitable. There was definite tension and whether the government stepped in or not, it would have escalated to a very serious and bloody war between the people. It said on page 414 in the textbook that the fate of the country "hinged" on Buchanon's shoulders. I do not believe that this person or any of these people were direct causes as it was a whole mixture of things that resulted in battle.
John Brown is a very influential and very controversial man. He fought in what he believed in. I think that he was more of a crusader than anything. This also would mean that to other people, people that opposed him, he would be a terrorist in the fact that he used force to go his ways.
1. I believe that Northern views centralized around the free soil movement. Although they did not like the idea of slavery, and their economy was very industrial, the big problem with the South expanding was that there would be lack of jobs for them… free, white northerners. The book quotes Beckwith in saying “The curse of slavery threatens the general and equal distribution of our lands into convenient family farms.” Northerners also felt that their “liberty” was at risk, for most of these people believed in a good work ethic, and without jobs… no work. The Southerners, however, had reasons to back up their desire for slavery. Their economy was based solely on cotton, and without means of production, they would have no livelihood. Like Northerners, to the South “racism” wasn’t key, and didn’t drive the idea of slavery; they just needed to make a living. This is probably why President Polk, a slave owner, decided to expand into Mexico, south of the Missouri Compromise line, to encourage expansion of slavery and support the Southern way of life.
2. The Civil War may not have been inevitable. Since many white northerners were not adamantly against slavery, they just didn’t really agree with it, they might have let it go. If it didn’t affect them, then it wasn’t that big of a deal. It wasn’t until the South started expanding into new territories, like when President Douglas implemented the Kansas-Nebraska Act, did the North decide that they wanted to do something about slavery. The decision in the Dred Scott case put more pressure on the North’s economy when Chief Justice Taney opened up slavery to all territories. Had the South continued colonizing horizontally (exactly horizontally) northern economy would not have been near as threatened, and they may have just frowned upon slavery instead of taking action against it. Therefore, the actions of these individuals may have had an affect on whether or not there was to be major conflict.
3. When it comes to John Brown, I think it depends heavily on whose point of view you are looking at. To blacks and slaves, this was a man that was fighting for them to have a better life, away from oppression and cruel treatment. And to some radical abolitionists, he was fighting for those who could not fight for themselves and doing “God’s work”. He killed “bad people” and wanted to make things “right”. However, to southerners he was an extreme threat. Though he does not compare to terrorists of today, the things that he did really threatened the livelihood of those who depended on slaves to earn a living. It was even questionable if who John Brown killed was even “bad”. He and his crew hacked up some guys that lived near him, so he was indeed a threat to those he opposed. In my opinion, John Brown was fighting for a wonderful cause, but the manner in which he did it was extremely shady. So when Thoreau compared him to Christ, I believe that was a ridiculous analogy.
1. The North was more focused on manufacturing. This job did not call for the use of slaves. The North was willing to do their own labor without paying someone else for it.
Well, the south primary production was cotton and agriculture. Due to the fast amount of cotton plantations the south hired what the called slaves.
This was the primary difference in views for the north and south. The north slavery as unjust well the south viewed it as fine.
2. I believe that even though these people such as Lincon, John Brown, President Buchanan, etc. tried their best to prevent a war. The civil war was inevitable. Both the North and South had different views and these different views were casing tension between the states. Neither the north nor the south could agree. The Dred Scott case, for example, that stated it was ok for him to be a slave in a free state. This caused turmoil between the north and the south because it was against the Missouri compromise which prohibited slavery in the north.
3. John Brown was an abolitionist who believed that slavery was unjust and tried to stop slavery. Is most remembered event was bleeding Kansas were he lead people to help free the slaves. He was an abolitionist. He stood up for what he believed in, and took down anything that got in is way which just happen to be "Bleeding-Kansas" as described by Henry David Thoreau.” He then resolved that he would never have anything to do with any war, unless it were a war for liberty." "A plea for Captain John Brown.” Brown did not want to fight, but he wanted blacks to be free.
Allison Dolan says...
1. The North and South had two opposing views on the issue of slavery. However, both of them still felt that white race was superior to black men. For instance, during the Dred Scott Case, Justive Roger B. Taney, claimed that any negro whether he was previously enslaved or not, could not be considered a citizen. Sadly, this was the only thing that the North and South could agree on. The only difference was that the North wanted to abolish slavery, while the South felt it was necessary to use it. The reason why the south pushed for slavery was because their economy revolved around it. Without slaves to tend to their crops, the South could not profit whatsoever. The North, however, was gradually removing slavery from their territory due to the industrial boom. As more factories took the place of plantations, and more white males went to work while providing for their family, the North did not see the use of slavery.
2. In general, the civil war was inevitable. However, the actions of John Brown and Chief Justice Taney were not the catalysts to this war, but they did not help the situation. Their words and actions provoked others to retaliate. I do believe that the civil war started over disagreements, which then gradually turned into violence. In addition, when Abraham Lincoln gave his famous "House Divided" speech, he stated,“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This powerful statement frightened both sides, knowing that either the South or North would have to change. Therefore, even though these men and their actions did not directly contribute to the civil war, it made the situation more intense and serious.
3. In Henry David Thoreau's "A Plea for Captain John Brown," he captures Brown as a hero. Today, when we look back, some of us may view John Brown as a heroic figure because he stood up for something that was wrong. This is because we know that slavery is corrupt. However, if we were southern slave owners, we would obviously think differently. For instance, on 9-11, Americans viewed that day as a terrorist attack. However, citizens in Afghanaztan praised the individuals who hijacked the planes. (These are two entirely different topics, but it ties it together with the idea of people and their different culture.) Depending on our upbringings and morals, we conclude who we feel are heroes. I do believe that John Brown took the initiative and opened many eyes, but I think it is pathetic that it had to take the lives of five men.
1. The Northern cultures and the Southern cultures varied in many ways. The North focused mostly on manufactured goods as the South stuck to the plantation and cotton fields. The North beileved the blacks had every right to walk free as whites did, as cited on page 414 in Henretta. On the other hand, the South viewed the blacks as nothing more then the dirt they walked on and put them to work in the fields.
2. These people may have played a roll in the coming of the Civil War, but the war was on the horizon and both sides knew it. The North and the South disagreed on too many subjects to push it off and move on. The main aguement between the two sides is the North wanted nothing to do with slaves and the South wanted everything to do with slaves. As for this group being a "blundering generation," im not quite sure what you mean by that so i cant really answer the question. I will ask about it in our discussion though.
3. Thoreau discribes John Brown as being what some people would call a hero but others would call a disgrace. John would go around pulling people out of their house and beat them to death if they didn't agree with his way of living. To those who followed his lifestyle, he was a hero, but to those who oppsed his beilives, John was a killer. In today's society, John Brown would be considered a terrist on many levels. If anyone went door to door killing people because of what they thought was right, the federal government would have you put behind bars in a heart beat!
1. The North and South obviously had many differences. The North was always against slavery and favored manufacturing goods as opposed to the South’s mainly agricultural society. In the South, slaves were almost necessary for their way of life, but in the North, slave labor was needless. One thing the North and South had in common was their belief that African Americans should not be considered citizens.
2. I believe the war was inevitable. If it didn’t happen when it did, it would have happened sometime later down the road. The differences between the North and South would continue to grow. The political figures like John Brown, President Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney, John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln did influence the issue, but if they wouldn’t have done what they did, someone else would have. The political and cultural differences were too great, and they were only going to increase.
3. I would not go so far as to say John Brown was a terrorist, but he is in no way what Thoreau described him as. Thoreau compared him with some of the greatest men who ever lived, but Brown is nowhere near the men they were. Dragging people out of their homes and slaughtering them is not exactly considered heroic. Even if he was acting on what he thought was right, that doesn’t make it right. What if John Doe thinks that walking into a public place and setting off a bomb is the right thing to do, does that make him a hero? Is John Brown a terrorist, no, but is he heroic figure to be compared with the greats of all time, not exactly.
1. The Northerners and Southerners had different views on slavery for the most part. Normally the Northerners were anti-slavery and the Southerners were pro-slavery. The main reason was because the Northerners did not have as much need for slaves and the Southerners who owned the large plantations did. These Southerners were getting free labor once they balanced out the price of buying the slave.
2. With the way that the United States was founded the Civil War was inevitable, although the people involved in some of the radical actions taken did directly contribute to the coming of the Civil War by acting as a catalyst. When one person started taking radical actions other people attempted to retaliate. Actions such as the “Sack of Lawrence” started a feud that just kept spreading. Three days after the “Sack of Lawrence” John Brown launched his execution of proslavery settlers on the Pottawatomie creek. Neither side wanted to be the losing side so they did not want to let the other side have the last resistance. John Brown, President Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney, and John C. Calhoun were all catalyst in the coming of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was also a catalyst, but he knew that if nothing was done then the country would soon split, therefore his actions were not whether slavery was right or wrong, but if the Union should be a “house divided” or not.
3. There is a very likely possibility that John Brown was just as Thoreau described him. He was looked at as a hero and a martyr in the North (Clotel 503). John Brown really did believe that he was sent by God and “divinely appointed” to stop slavery (Clotel 506). That is the reason he did took the actions that he did and that is why he was willing to die for his cause. A person would not die for a cause that they knew was false, instead they would just admit they were wrong and move on with their life.
The difference is how John Brown is viewed today. He is no longer constantly viewed as a hero and a martyr. Instead he is looked at as a fanatic radical who took extensive actions to attempt to stop the spread of slavery in the new American territories. Calling John Brown a terrorist is a little extreme, but he is defiantly no longer looked at as the hero the North once thought of him.
~ Jennifer Claybrooks
The Northerners were more based in manufacturing, communication, and passivism. They wanted to keep things the way they were, unless they saw a possible way to stop slavery. The Southerners were based in plantation work, farming, and aggression. They wanted more land to grow their crops and keep their slaves on. The Northerners wanted slavery to end, but not give blacks citizenship. Southerners fought tooth and nail to keep slavery alive.
I think the politicians of the time did influence the coming of the C.W., but I also think the war was inevitable anyway. No matter what the politicians said, the South was bound and determined to keep and spread slavery, not let it be stopped. I think that, even if they had come up with a better solution earlier, it still would have involved force and fighting if not war.
I don't think John Brown was an "angel of light" per se, but I don't think he was a terrorist. I think he was a father tired of seeing his sons in danger. I think he was a citizen tired of seeing his nation tearing in two. He was fed up with all the violence the Southerners had incited and realized that the only way to counter that violence was to return it.
1. The northern belief was against slavery. They were more interested in industrialism and farming. A lot of political and social views were to expand west to increase the farm land and to be able to industrialize. The south on the other hand had cotton plantations and was in favor of slavery. Southern views were to expand west to be able to expand slavery. Due to the different viewpoints about moving west, different things happened, for example the Kansas-Nebraska Act and "Bleeding Kansas."
2. I believe the actions of the individuals mentioned may have helped trigger the war to break out earlier, but the war itself was inevitable. It had already taken place in the minds of the people. This was shown by the actions of John Brown and Buchanon.
3. In the 1850s and 60s John Brown may have been more rightly viewed as a hero in the north. With all of the hatred and the things that southerners were doing to northerners, ("Bleeding Kansas"), Bronw's actions may have seemed justified. But in present day his actions may be viewed as being too harsh and they may even seem terrorist-like. The reason for this would be because there is no civil hatred goning on now between the north and the south.
Post a Comment
<< Home