Summary:
History is formed from analyzing evidence from the past and making a connection. Many historians have different personal perspectives on history, and by using the historical method they can all draw conclusions as to what happened and advocate a theory. We find that history is much more than what happened in the past from reading, "The Strange Death of Silas Deane."
There is a common mistake that people make when concerning history. They make the mistake of assuming that history is what happened in the past, but history is much more than what happened in the past. History is formed from analyzing evidence from the past and making a connection. Many historians have different personal perspectives on history, and by using the historical method they can all draw conclusions as to what happened and advocate a theory. We find that history is much more than what happened in the past from reading, "The Strange Death of Silas Deane." This is a good example of applying the historical methods and producing a new theory based on reliable evidence. The author classified the important facts into groups of importance. After looking carefully into Dean's letters and personal relationships which had been overlooked before, he found an important connection with a man named Bancroft. The author used the historical method to find enough evidence and provide a new motive and theory as to what really happened to Mr. Silas Deane. As we found out threw this reading history is shaped threw different perspectives, and I do think maybe my research project may take a different angle if someone else had done it. But I don't think it would change too much because I was taking my information from the most credible sources and there are very few of them out there.
Both the American Indians responding to the Indian removal programs and African Americans resisting slavery both showed active participation towards achieving their goals. Many of the Native tribes of the North and South east tried to conform to the white society by integrating into their culture. The Cherokee even had such products of "white civilization" as a constitution, written language, and black slaves. The Cherokee worked for their independence threw the Supreme Court but were eventually overruled. Others had a different plan by fighting. The Sauk and Fox under chief Black Hawk fought for territory in what is know as the Black Hawk war. The Seminoles and Cherokee also put up a resistance but were defeated. The African Americans who advocated change included Frederick Douglass, a former fugitive slave from Maryland; and Sojourner Truth, a freed slave from New York. These Northerners spoke out about the abolition of slavery and African American civil rights. Other people had different plans like Harriet Tub man who was a key leader in the creation of the Underground Railroad which was an informal system that helped slaves escape to the Northern States and Canada. It's important to note these African American people who challenged the system because ultimately their efforts and struggles created a movement, ideal and inspiration for a Nation.
Numerous factors contributed to major developments in American history and in contemporary America. A few events that had significant impact were the American Revolution and Civil War. These two events shaped the America we live in today. The American Revolution won Americas Independence and recognition as a country, while the Civil war won freedom for African Americans. Many causes led to the Revolution beginning with the British, who did not accept them as equals which showed in their laws enacted upon the colonists. Briton enacted these laws in an attempt to centralize its colonial empire and make more money from the American trade. The laws included Navigation Act of 1663 and 1673, Stamp Act, and Boston Massacre and Boston Tea party. These laws angered the colonists and advocated revolution. The Civil war also had multiple causalities starting with the recently acquired territory from the war with Mexico. The issue of slavery arose and the concern for an unequal amount of free and slave states led to the Kansas Nebraska act, fugitive slave act and Bleeding Kansas.
Ellis points out that the improbable nature of the American Revolution has become perceived as "inevitable" today. The revolution could not have occurred if we had not found allies with France. It was also improbable that the group of colonies decided to draft a constitution and declare war against the greatest power in the world at the time. It only seems inevitable now because we can't imagine America being any different than it is today. Ellis also points out the significance of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton and their role in the founding generation. Chapters 2 and 6 we really get a feel as to who these people are. In "The Dinner" we learn about Thomas Jefferson who seems to be the brains behind the declaration of independence, although Ellis depicts him as not knowing much about the present issues of the time. We also learn he is a man of the people who believed in the power of the state, small farming and people's liberties. James Madison is also noted a lot in this chapter as one of the most famous of the founding fathers and is called "The Father of the Constitution." The man was small and shy, but he was brilliant and able to persuade politicians to side with him. "The Dinner" describes the founding fathers as having differences of opinion, while sharing a common bond of honor amongst each other but as we find out in "The Duel."
Primary sources reveal distinct perspectives of individuals living during the same time periods in American History. The "Different Mirror," "Jackson's Frontier and Turners," and primary sources from the American Revolution give different perspectives on the American Revolution and 19th century. The "Different Mirror gives us a Mexican perspective on their way of life and their view of Americans on their soil. We get the feel that we were the ones trespassing on their lands. In Jackson's Frontier and Turners we learn how the frontier has shaped the culture and lifestyles of the people living on the frontier. In the reserve article of primary sources of American Revolution we get a feel of how the Americans laid in just claims on the natives and swindled them from their lands. In the primary sources we get a sense that the nation is expanding and in need of more lands and opportunities. In Speckled Snake's response to Jackson, Speckled Snake explains that when the white men arrived on his lands he gave them land and kindled fire to make them comfortable. He fought to protect them when they were vulnerable, and now that the white men have grown strong they strive to remove the Cherokee from their land. We get a sense that the United States did not respect the Natives or view them as equals. They viewed them as inferior and incapable to coexist within the United States. In Tecumseh's article he talks about how the united states declare ownership from being first. Tecumseh argues that no people own the land, but if it was some one's to own it should be the red men's because they were there first with out a doubt.
Historical developments in different regions of the US vary and to prove this ill discuss the significant importance of the events that occurred. Prior to the Civil War the west had begun to take off. Frederick Jackson Turner had a theory about the frontier. His theory was not the result of any new facts just the same facts and put into different light. Turner said that "Up to and including 1880, the country had a frontier of settlement, but at present the unsettled area has been so broken into by isolated bodies of settlement that there can hardly be said to be a frontier line." Turner challenged the historical theories of his time. He felt that if historians studied the social, cultural, and economic history of the frontier, they would discover that the physical and cultural conditions of the frontier had shaped American character and indeed they had. The west had attracted a rugged and patriotic people to the region looking for new lands and opportunities to get rich. The view of slavery in the area was a heated one and opponents from the north and the south forces marshaled strength and exerted total pressure to determine the decision in Kansas in their own favor. The result was a bleeding Kansas which led both sides toward division.
The different views concerning the results of the American Revolution, by Gordon Wood and Carl Degler and Abraham Lincoln by Paludan and Bradford provide good examples of how historians views differ between each other. Carl N. Degler argues that upper-middle-class colonists led a conservative American Revolution that left untouched the prewar economic and social class structure of an upwardly mobile people.
While S. Wood argues that the American Revolution was a far-reaching, radical event that produced a unique democratic society in which ordinary people could make money, pursue happiness, and be self-governing. Woods evidence is that by getting rid of the tariffs and taxes that England was opposing on us Americans could once again make a profit to live on while Degler argues that it was unchanged. In the Abraham Lincoln article the two authors Paludan and Bradford had very different views of Abraham Lincoln as a president. Paludan believes Lincoln was America's greatest president because he was able to mobilize public opinion and support in the north in order to maintain the union and free the slaves despite a civil war. Bradford on the other hand criticizes Paludan by arguing president Lincoln perverted the republican goals created by the founding fathers and destroyed the democratic majority which was essential to the vitality of the union. He also suggests he abused executive authority and was uncommitted to African Americans cause. Paludan sees that in order for Lincoln to save the union he had to free the slaves. He points out that he had to appoint key generals allocate recourses for the military and economy while keeping his party in office which was dedicated to the cause. With out Lincolns political expertise the union would not have had the capacity to focus its will and its recourses toward defeating the Confederacy nor would they have had the army to do so. Lincoln was able to recruit 180 thousand Africans into the military. Lincoln also maintained good relations with the other world super and made sure they didn't side with the south. Lincoln also used the necessary powers to promote change in civil rights, education, and equal rights. On the other hand Bradford believes Lincoln to be a tyrant and only achieved greatness threw death. He believed that Lincoln should have been impeached for his perversion of the constitution and his illegitimate distribution of currency and recourses to his fellow elite. He points out that Lincoln doesn't personally care about the Africans and their civil rights nor does he care for his troops, he only wants their support in order to keep office. Bradford believes that Lincoln created a corruption that lasted into the ages and his religious justification for the war was inappropriate. I agree with Paludon and Wood totally and see Lincoln as one of America's finest presidents.
Indeed Textbooks and secondary sources present historical issues and events in distinct manners. To prove this ill analyze "Takaki's Mexican American war with Tindall and Shi and the Fugitive Slave act video with Tindall and Shi. In Takakis article he points out that the Mexicans in the region openly accepted the Americans when they first arrived. As the Americans kept coming they Mexicans felt a sense of invasion when the Americans defied the slave laws. He said they also acted in bad fasion towards them because they believe they were culturally superior. When Mexico didn't recognize Texas independence war arrived at the Alamo. Takkaki says that the American "rebels" fired first and they savagely slaughtered Santa Ana's men at San Jacinto. On the other hand T and S say that the Mexicans welcomed them in order to stabilize their border. They also recognize Texas as a state and views them as victims which gave cause for war. T and S also glorify their heroes and label Santa Ana as a Dictator. The video also presents a different view. It creates a sense of terror within the northern African American communities. We get a feel that they were scared to leave their homes and walk the streets from fear of capture. We get a sense from the movie that this act was terribly wrong and in-just. T and S barley cover the subject, but we do get a sense that they were against it also by adding "This filthy enactment was made in the 19th century, by people who could read and write," Ralph Waldo Emerson. But then we get a sense that it really didn't even matter because fewer than 200 slaves were returned to bondage.
T and S really don't have much to say about Jefferson Davis other than he was the Confederate President. But they do talk about his relation ship with General Lee. Boritt, Gabor has somewhat of a comparison with T and S because Boritt talks about Davis's relationship with his generals. But was Boritt points out that the book doesn't is that how personalities, grudges, and differences of purpose dominated the fortunes of these military leaders and ultimatly the outcome of the war. The book says that davis was indecisive suborn and hotempered, while Cooper's Jefferson Davis, American contradicts this. Cooper asserts that Davis was kind and gentle in private but skilled and assertive in his public life. Cooper also shows us how Davis's initial reluctance to support secession turned into an absolute commitment and passion to the Confederacy. This compares to T and S's depiction of him as being stubborn and man who held strong to his beliefs even when he knew he was wrong. Hapline's. "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Jefferson Davis" presents Davis as an intelligent man who is caring towards others. Davis' views on and about the war have not changed much, however Hanchett wants to show that Davis is interested in the nation as a whole. While in the book we only learn that Davis is concerned with South.
The age of "Jacksonian Democracy," was said to be a time of great economic growth and opportunity for the common man. The Whigs depicted Jackson as "the leader of a vast democratic movement that welled up in the west and mobilized a farmer-labor alliance to sweep the "monster" bank into the dustbin of history." Tindil and Shi say "one view of Jackson makes him out to be essentially a frontier opportunist for whom democracy was good talk with which to win the favor of the people." This makes him sound like a showman, in which he attracts voters support towards his party. Tindil and Shi depict him as man of republican virtue with visions of the old republic in which government played limited roles and free competition regulated the economy. We get the Idea here that he is a stand out republican but on page 420 we see a cartoon of Jackson in which "public confidence in the stability and harmony of this administration is toppling." So Jackson defiantly had his opponents and many of them included native Americans. Jackson was know as a brutal and violent Indian fighter in his days as a general and his days as a politician were no different. Jackson federal troops had massacred nearly 900 creeks at the battle of horseshoe bend and his zeal towards the Indians carried on into his political career. Jackson's attitude towards Indians was a typical western one, that the natives were barbarians and better off out of the way. He advocated the Indian Removal policies which drove natives from their homes, which we learned about from the Trail of Tears. The diverse perspectives of Jackson is a good example why It is important for historians to keep challenging and establishing new perspectives of events and individuals because the new insight can add valuable information and distinct perspectives that helps you better understand them.
Annotated Bibliography
(Americ: History and Life)
Collins, Bruce. "The Making of Jefferson Davis." Journal of American Studies. (1984):
437-442
(JSTOR)
Cooper Jr., William J. "A reassessment of Jefferson Davis as War Leader: The Case
From Atlanta to Nashville." Journal of Southern History (May 1970): 189-204.
(SCSU MnPals)
Davis, Varina. Jefferson Davis, ex-president of the Confederate States of America. New
York: Belfod Company, 1890.
(SCSU MnPals)
Hattaway, Herman and Beringer, Richard. Jefferson Davis, Confederate President. Lawrence: University Press
Of Kansas, 2002.
(JSTOR)
Hanchett, William. "Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Jefferson Davis: Charles G.
Hapline's Prison Life. "Journal of American History (Sept. 1969): 280-289.
(Academic Search Premier)
Rable, George C. A Confederate Republic: A Revolution Against Politics. Chapel Hill
(WorldCat)
Strode, Hudson. Jefferson Davis. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955.
(JSTOR)
Vadiver, Frank E. "Jefferson Davis-Leader without Legend." The Journal of Southern
History (Feb. 1977): 3-18
This is the complete article, containing 2,778 words
(approx. 9 pages at 300 words per page).
