{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54969696","dateCreated":"1339524063","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Dennis.Levin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Dennis.Levin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54969696"},"dateDigested":1532092604,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reading Week 9","description":"A social class we haven't really discussed are female landowners. After Mr. Shelby's death his assets were given to his wife, Mrs. Shelby, who thus went from being reliant on her husband to having her own estate.
\n(p410)
\n
\nSo what rights did landowning women have? And to what extent was this issue debated in politics at the time?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54975736","body":"@Dennis.Levin:
\nI search Property Rights of Women on Google and what I found was this:
\nhttp:\/\/www.whenguide.com\/when-did-women-get-the-right-to-own-property.html<\/a>
\n
\nThis indicated that women, before The Married Women\u2019s Property Act, had very few ownership rights. And this was inherited from the rules of England, that after women got married, their ownership and rights would be transferred to her husband.
\n
\nAnother URL: http:\/\/www.ehow.com\/about_4571155_colonial-womens-rights.html<\/a>
\nThis mentioned the rights of widows.
\n\u201cA widow was given a dowager\u2019s right to 1\/3 of her husband\u2019s property. She could also take over her husband\u2019s business after his death. However, widows could not act as guardians to their children\u201d
\n
\nNonetheless, I don\u2019t know what period of Colonial time they mentioned. But they did mention the American Colonial period began in 1607 and lasted until 1783. So I think these property rights were passed before the 19th century.
\n
\nI don\u2019t know about widow\u2019s right but about property rights of married women in general, I think it was quite influential because from this link: http:\/\/www.whenguide.com\/when-did-women-get-the-right-to-own-property.html<\/a> in the \u201cMarried Women\u2019s Property Act\u201d section, they said that
\n- Married Women\u2019s Property Act was one of the landmark acts for women in the U.S and it provided for more privileges than ever before. One of the most significant in the history of women\u2019s property rights.
\n
\nAlso the last paragraph: \u201cEventually the laws spread throughout the whole country. In no uncertain terms did it encourage women across the country to demand equal rights. The history of women\u2019s property rights gave them the strength to seek equal protection and privileges.\u201d","dateCreated":"1339544710","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54975986","body":"There was a very interesting part in chapter 41.
\n
\nAfter George and two slaves buried Uncle Tom, the two slaves begged George to buy them and what surprised me was George\u2019s refusal; because I thought he, a very gentle and generous man, would help these poor people get out of this dying place.
\n
\nAnd when George said: \u201coh, witness, that, from this hour, I will do what one man can to drive out this curse of slavery from my land!\u201d
\n
\nAnd I was thinking how he could do that if he could not even buy those two slaves.
\n
\nHowever, what turned out to be astonishing was that George ultimately freed all his slaves.
\n
\n\u201cTo the surprise of all, he appeared among them with a bundle of papers in his hand, containing certificate of freedom to everyone on the place, which he read successively, and presented, amid the sobs and tears and shouts of all present.\u201d
\n
\nIt was so touching and made me question: were keeping slaves and treating them humanely the right things to do?
\n
\nNow I start to think that treating slaves humanely and fairly was ok but could not help eliminate the slavery system. As long as there were needs, it still could not be ended. So there must be some strong and straightforward action like George\u2019s.
\n
\nIn my opinion, people who disagreed with the practice of slavery yet still owned slaves themselves could never succeed in ending it.
\nHaving those two same ideas was contradictory. Thoughts and ideas have no power until they are turned into actions.","dateCreated":"1339545763","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54979394","body":"Women were always looked down upon. We couldn't vote til the 1920's. People would always say the things men do, women couldn't.
\n
\nLandowning women didn't have a lot of privileges like landowning men.
\n
\nSometimes I think being a white woman is like being a slave as well. They didn't get to do what the men were able to do.
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.boards.ie\/vbulletin\/showthread.php?t=2056655848&page=8<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339561564","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"mltong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mltong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54993142","body":"I feel like the whole- slave owners disagreeing with owning slaves, but they own slaves themselves, has been a large topic in this book and has created a lot of discussion. It actually leads me to think about why slave owners wouldn't just take some sort of action in order stop slavery if they felt the way they did. What would've happened to them if they actually voiced out their opinions and stood against slavery?","dateCreated":"1339620882","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"AlexisTep","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AlexisTep","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1257553849\/AlexisTep-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54996892","body":"@ AlexisTep: That's what i have thought about. In my opinion, it's because the social norms. Slaves - at the time, somehow was a symbol for upper classes so that if they had intended to do something to help slaves, they would have been identified as lower class. Otherwise,Slaves were just items in upper classes' eyes so if good owners had released slaves, slaves would have been captured and sold again.","dateCreated":"1339634538","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55000908","body":"Tom's inability to betray the cruel Legree may raise some questions. How good can one person actually be? Or should I consider Tom to merely be a Christ-like symbol crucified on the cross of slavery? I know Tom indeed is a symbolic character, but his character has many layers that teach a different lesson like Tom refuses to escape from his brutal master because of his inability to be disloyal or false to any man. Thus, he is a lesson against the hypocrisy of Christians who turn their backs upon the plight of the slaves. I think Tom never abondon his people, and also desperate to leave the world that has caused him so much pain.","dateCreated":"1339650577","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"hyelim0907","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hyelim0907","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55003386","body":"Women have always been below men and that has been changing recently, but even today people still say that women can't do the same things as men.
\n@Dennis.Levin that is a really interesting question. It is surprising that women could not act as gaurdians.","dateCreated":"1339669641","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"SimoneMcCausland","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SimoneMcCausland","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55023808","body":"women in the 19th century can not make any will about the property. The only case they can have the freehold land and the complete of the property disposal is windowhood.
\n"The property rights of women during most of the nineteenth century were dependent upon their marital status. Once women married, their property rights were governed by English common law, which required that the property women took into a marriage, or acquired subsequently, be legally absorbed by their husbands. Furthermore, married women could not make wills or dispose of any property without their husbands' consent. Marital separation, whether initiated by the husband or wife, usually left the women economically destitute, as the law offered them no rights to marital property. Once married, the only legal avenue through which women could reclaim property was widowhood."
\nhttp:\/\/www.123helpme.com\/view.asp?id=18566<\/a>
\n
\nBut in Ms. Shelby's case, she has a son. So it should be George who inheritated all the property from his father, right?","dateCreated":"1339781959","smartDate":"Jun 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jiali999777","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jiali999777","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55023900","body":"Women in the 19 th century almost has no rights compared to that of the men.
\n"Women were pushed to the sidelines as dependents of men, without the power to bring suit, make contracts, own property, or vote. During the era of the "cult of domesticity," a woman was seen merely as a way of enhancing the social status of her husband. "
\nhttp:\/\/www.ushistory.org\/us\/26c.asp<\/a>
\n
\nAnd I find out thatthe in the 19th century, "suffrage was limited to only a small group of land-owning men. Over the course of the 19th century, it expanded to include non-land owning men, men who resided in New York, and African-American men. Though women made up a significant portion of the population during that time, they were not allowed to vote in New York until 1917 and nationally until 1920. After securing the right to vote, women exerted their political power and became leaders in both national parties. However, women are still under-represented in the political process and the struggle for political empowerment continues."
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.hallofgovernors.ny.gov\/wh\/Suffrage<\/a>
\n
\nI have the same question as THU_NGOC-MINH_LE , why did George refused to buy the slaves in order to help them escape from the torture?","dateCreated":"1339782506","smartDate":"Jun 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jiali999777","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jiali999777","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"54948162","dateCreated":"1339444189","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54948162"},"dateDigested":1532092606,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"FILM WEEK 8","description":"POST GUYS :D:D:D","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54956892","body":"A focus within this film was the creation of the ku klux klan, a white supremacist and nationalist terrorist group. The speaker in this film made a comment stating that the KKK killed more people than the terrorists in 911. He delicately made this statement as if it were offensive or shocking. It was this discussion that led me to begin analyzing the reasons behind white supremacy. After the emancipation of blacks, the agricultural south was extremely disappointed in its sudden lack of labor and higher costs. They were greedy and narcissistic and saw nothing in black people but a tool to increase their productivity. In fear of their status and power dropping, anxious, agricultural confederates congregated together to create a group that threatened violence against anyone promoting the idea of black freedom.","dateCreated":"1339470637","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"BenjaminWilloughby","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/BenjaminWilloughby","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54975382","body":"I think the talk of Eric Foner and Joshua Brown is so useful and interesting. According to Eric Foner, there are some points of the situation of the United States right before the Civil War: 4 millions African American were held in , no black person could be the citizen of the United States, citizenship was for only white Americans. Forever Free is a phrase had been used in America for a while, so what does "Forever Freedom" mean to the American. It's not only about the oppotunities to commerce, attend to the industry, agriculture,...it's also about the equality of the citizens, citizens should have the equal protections of law from the government.
\n1866, The Congress published the first significant law in American: the Civil rights law.That law is the origin concept of Civil rights: any person born in the United States is the citizen (birthright citizen ship) and all citizens receive the equal certain rights, black or what, it doesn't matter( right the sign contract, right to vote,...). It put the citizenship in an equal protections of law.
\nHe also discuss about the change of polictical issues when A.Lincoln was the president at that time.
\nHe provided the idea of Christian Terrolism-The Ku Klux Klan. They are good Christians because they think themselves as Church going upright people. The Klan wanted to discrupt the Republican Government, eliminate local leaders,...They treat black people as tools to benefit from.","dateCreated":"1339543274","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Phi.Duong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Phi.Duong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54978954","body":"This film talks about the book \u201cforever free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction\u201d. I noticed that Eric Foner mentioned the Civil Rights which were very crucial ideas in today\u2019s America. He included two most important points: 1. any person born in United States is a citizen regardless race, national origin, etc. 2. Each person enjoys equality before the law and cannot have different law for write people and black people. Now most Americans already accept this idea because they react equally in society. In history, this idea took a long time to popularize and defeated other discrimination. Some people were really against this concept and most of them were from south which they thought they lost tools for agricultural production. Another thing he mentioned is about Ku Klux Klan. KKK were far-right organizations which advocated white supremacy, white nationalism and terrorism, and even considered themselves as good Christians. In the film, Eric said that they murdered, robbed, and even killed lots of Americans. As he said: they wanted to restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. Of course they could not success. I think this is the tide of history that always in favor of justifiable actions and idea.","dateCreated":"1339558577","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Coocie","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Coocie","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54979834","body":"The movie \u201c10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America: The Battle of Antietam 1862\u201d is
\na very interesting and amazing one. This is a major battle during the American civil war in
\nUnion Soil. The movie starts with a fighting scene between army from the north and the south;
\nthe soldiers lined up and kept shooting at the enemies. This is a very painful scene, numerous
\nsoldiers died during the battle.
\n
\nPersonally, I have questions about this movie. First of all, why did McClellan let his men line up
\nand keep movie forward without any protection. I think this is ridiculous when Lee\u2018s army were
\nready to fire and they prepared carefully. As a result, there were so many soldiers died for no
\nreason. I am sure a lot of them could be alive if McClellan had a better strategy. Secondly, I do
\nnot understand why after McClellan defeated Lee but he let Lee come back to the south. In this
\nsituation, McClellan could use cavalry to chase as well as kill the rest, this may end the civil war
\nright away, and no one had to die anymore.","dateCreated":"1339564297","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54997368","body":"The main claim of this video is the Reconstruction began after Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation which freed nearly every black slave in the United States. However, the issue was what the slaves could have done at that time. They were given lands usually owned by their former owners and just work again. After Lincoln's death the congress took things into hand.
\nThe Fourteenth Amendment was enforced in 1868 in which it is stated that any person born in America is an American citizen. Black people gained their citizenship and equality. The burden of protecting African American people at that time was on the federal government. Moreover, black people started to have the rights to vote, but not everyone liked this idea. This brought a radical change in the political system.
\nOn contrary, the economical level started to drop as the land had to be shared among a larger number of people. In addition, there was an emergence of terrorism, not from abroad but in the country. A group Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was formed as to oppose the idea of equality of black people.
\nAnd I have to agree with @ Benjamin that \u201cA focus within this film was the creation of the ku klux klan, a white supremacist and nationalist terrorist group\u201d","dateCreated":"1339635517","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55000082","body":"In this C-Span Documentary, Eric Foner focused on White Supremacy and reconstruction during the Lincoln Era. Reconstruction occurred around mid 1860s to late 1870s. A great deal of reconstruction is the focus on the recovery of the Southern states after the Civil War under the Lincoln administration. It was claimed that Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson attempted to bring the South " back to normal."
\n
\nIn addition, the discussion of rights of freedman at the time was a large part. Even though slaves were free, were they to have the same right as a middle class white man? There were things called as " Reconstruction Legislation."
\n
\nReconstruction policies were implemented when a Confederate state came under the control of the Union Army. ollowing Lincoln's assassination in April 1865, president Andrew Johnson tried to follow Lincoln's policies and appointed new governors in the summer of 1865. Johnson quickly declared that the war goals of national unity and the ending of slavery had been achieved, so that reconstruction was completed. Republicans in Congress refused to accept Johnson's terms, rejected the new members of Congress elected by the South, and in 1865\u201366 broke with the president.
\n
\nThrough this, the Fourteenth came about, claiming equality to all Americans, though many still felt that was not necessarily true as there were groups such as the KKK.","dateCreated":"1339645781","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"lisaanguyenn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lisaanguyenn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55001476","body":"Eric Foner, one of the authors of the book, Forever Free, claims that the \u201cReconstruction\u201d (the period immediately following after the American Civil War) is \u201cthe most cruel moment in American History\u201d. He also claims that \u201cit is least well-know and often misunderstood era of the American past.\u201d
\n Surprisingly, from the survey, there were only 20% of American senior high school students and 29% of American college student who actually know about the reconstruction. Why is that? Why the reconstruction is so important to America?
\n Foner claims that \u201cthe cilvil right acts puts citizenship on the non-racial basis for the first time in American history.\u201d From my understanding, by that time when citizenship was limited for only white American people, 4 millions African American were held in as slaves, or some other racism events that had occurred in that time are important to for people to know in order to understand how society used to be, and it might lead to the critical thinking about why people were having such a racist thought or what were the motive that created such perspective into people' minds.","dateCreated":"1339656010","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"arrada.d","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/arrada.d","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55011934","body":"I cannot agree more with @Coocie about what he\/she said (sorry about this gender confusion). Civil Rights are \u201ccrucial\u201d part of the nowaday American society. Although Civil Right is the topic that is already introduced and discussed publicly many times, it still needs to be echoed and spearded out more frequently and popularly. As Eric Foner indicated, each person, regarless race, gender, background deserves to enjoy justice and equality in life. It took us, the human beings, a very long time to get to where we are right now, where we all can live happily without any discrimination. Thanks to Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Emancipation Proclamation and the Fourteenth Amendment, minority people like black people could gain their freedom and rights. Still, there were some groups of people appeared with their old conservative minds like the Ku Klux Klan. Those people, as Eric Foner said, were \u201cthe domestic terrorism.\u201d Although they failed at last, those people and their negative thoughts are still the danger for our society. They are the reason why we should always spread out the messages about Civil Rights and if possibly, fight for that.","dateCreated":"1339708739","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"phat064","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/phat064","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55012010","body":"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2006\/01\/29\/books\/review\/29goodman.html<\/a>
\n
\nEric Forner wrote "Forever Free" to combat what he calls our "sheer ignorance" of the 15 years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the withdrawal of the last federal troops from the South in 1877. From the talk of Eric Foner and Joshua Brown, I know more about what Forner wants to impart in his book without reading the whole book.
\n
\nLike what Coocie commented, the two most crucial ideas that Eric Forner mentioned in his talk as well as his books are:
\n1. any person born in United States is a citizen regardless race, national origin, etc.
\n2. Each person enjoys equality before the law and cannot have different law for write people and black people.
\n What Forner does is to clarify and emphasis the freedom of black sub-culture as well as their rights \u201cto gain access to education, land, and employment.\u201d He presents the period as a time of determination, especially on the part of recently emancipated black Americans, to put into effect the principles of equal rights and citizenship for all.
\nIn brief, the \u201cAmerican dream\u201d, that Eric Forner and other American nowadays, is primarily derived in the freedom of black American and the equal opportunity to thrive in this society.","dateCreated":"1339709027","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"yaly.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/yaly.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55012914","body":"Eric did not focus on the old assumptions which are based on white sources or racism; but he chose to focus on the period of equality. He would like to show the effects of equal rights to all citizens no matter where they come home or what skin color they have. As we all can see, during the civil war, African American had to be slaves; Eric Forner shows us all the new opportunities or rights that African American got after the war ended such as the right to vote, going to school, gaining access to land, or employment. In addition, the birth of the Ku Klux Klan was retaliation after the war.
\nIn conclusion, \u201cforever free\u201d is a very beneficial book. It gives us an idea of American\u2018s life after the civil war. Moreover, it brings us hope and belief of a brighter future.","dateCreated":"1339713843","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55015994","body":"f this omission, he charges, problems with race remain that have never been fully addressed. Foner charges that the legacy of the Civil War developed into \u201ca fascination with the valor of combat,\u201d a war of \u201cnoble tragedy pitting brother against brother.\u201d Black Americans are relegated to a minor role. This characterization dominates the history, memorialization and discussion of the Civil War and post-Civil War period. Foner bemoans the fact that \u201cAt the dawn of the twenty-first century, what is remarkable is both how much America\u2019s racial situation has changed, and how much it remains the same.\u201d And as Foner explains, twenty-nine states deny the right to vote to those on probation and those who have ever served in prison for a felony, disenfranchising an estimated one-seventh of the black male population.
\nFoner implores us to reexamine Reconstruction and its effects, to help challenge the dominant narratives that successfully keep traditionally oppressed groups from receiving equal opportunity. He asks us to cease effacing the stories of black achievement during Reconstruction, and to recognize the ideological components of memory. Only then can we make good on the promises that were made to blacks so long ago that they too could be part of the American dream.","dateCreated":"1339727559","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"RongWang1006","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RongWang1006","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55024286","body":"Reconstruction was a period after the Civil War, beginning approximately in 1865 and ending in 1877 when the last Federal troops left the Southern states (and therefore ending any imposition of power). It is the way the United States attempted to envision themselves in wake of the Civil War and more specifically, the abolition of slavery. Foner argues that the negative view that surrounds the Reconstruction period today originates from the time of the Reconstruction period itself by the opponents of Reconstruction process and was consequently perpetuated in history books and films (eg. Gone with the Wind) today. This disallows many Americans from realizing and making the connection between this negative image of Reconstruction and the reasons for the Jim Crow system used in the South in the following years. He argues that the failure and the corruption that existed during the reconstructive years was used as justification for consequently taking away the rights of African Americans, despite the fact that former slaves were made promises of equality and citizenship by the federal government after the Civil War. Foner therefore argues that Reconstruction was used as justification for the political ideology in the Southern states during the 1960s.
\n
\nThis is where I fully agree with what RongWang1006 has stated. Foner, in his talk, analyzes what has become of these promises of democracy to the once enslaved African Americans and if, as RongWang1006 has stated, "we (have made) good on the promises that were made to blacks so long ago." Foner claims that in order to move forward and be alleviated of the "reverberations from the Reconstruction period today", we have to stop believing the misinformation that that era was all about giving power to "ignorant black men" and explore it again as a genuine effort to promote democracy in the South.
\n
\nNevertheless, Foner also points to three critical amendments to the Constitution that have markedly changed the face of American society today: the 13th, 14th and 15th. The 13th effectively abolished slavery; the 14th guaranteed birthright citizenship and equal rights for all Americans; and the 15th barred states from racial discrimination in voting rights. These were positive consequences of the post-Civil War period.","dateCreated":"1339784042","smartDate":"Jun 15, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Natanielle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Natanielle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":2}]},{"id":"54877360","dateCreated":"1339088548","smartDate":"Jun 7, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54877360"},"dateDigested":1532092607,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Film Week 7","description":"go go","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54879244","body":"For week 7, the class viewed 10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America: The Battle of Antietam 1862. The Battle of Antietam took placed during the middle of the American Civil War and lasted from September 16th to 18th. The Army of the Potomac, under the command of George McClellan, mounted a series of powerful assaults against Robert E. Lee\u2019s forces near Sharpsburg, Maryland
\n
\nIn the film, the fact that the battle was a fight where men literally stood shoulder to shoulder in rows, ready to fire and risk their lives was greatly emphasized in the documentary. The historians in the film truly focused and demonstrated how there was a very simplistic approach between the two armies and that there was not much of an intricate strategy. The approach in the Battle of Antietam was described as " waves" of the ocean, coming straight forward, all at once.
\n
\nIn addition to the approaches that were taken, the film covered the decisions that were made by the generals and how it did affect the outcome of the battle and its consequences on America today. At a crucial moment, A.P. Hill\u2019s division arrived from Harpers Ferry, and counterattacked, driving back Burnside and saving the day for the Army of Northern Virginia. Despite being outnumbered two-to-one, Lee committed his entire force at the Battle of Antietam, while McClellan sent in less than three-quarters of his Federal force. McClellan\u2019s piecemeal approach to the battle failed to fully leverage his superior numbers and allowed Lee to shift forces from threat to threat.
\n
\nThe battle was seen as the " victory" that Lincoln needed to deliver the Emancipation Proclamation.","dateCreated":"1339093496","smartDate":"Jun 7, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"lisaanguyenn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lisaanguyenn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54899206","body":"The Battle of Antietam started on September 17, 1862 and ended on September 19, 1862. It was the battle between the South and North. The cause of this battle was to achieve victory for the President Abraham Lincoln to proclaim the Emancipation Proclamation, which was to free the slaves in ten states then in rebellion, at least that is what A. Lincoln said. However,the battle occured because the Southern army won already two battles and Lincoln could not afford to lose any more major battles which happened in North.
\nThe leader of the North amry (Union) was George B. McClellan. McClellan was very cautious man. In every battle decisive moment what seemed to be risky where he could lose a lot of soldiers he would retreat. He never chased his enemies. He wanted to achieve victory with a minimum loss on both sides. On the other hand, Robert E. Lee, who was the leader of the Southern army (Confederacy), did not really care about that much.
\nThe Union had eighty-seven thousand soldier, in contrast, the Confederacy had only forty-five thousand. Thanks to the numerical advantage of the Union army the Conferacy was forced to retreat many many times. McClellan did not pursue the wounded enemies vigorously. From the military point of view it was basically a draw from both sides. But Lincoln and the Union claimed to be victorious. That gave A. Lincoln the confidence to announce the Emancipation Proclamation.
\nThe Emancipation Proclamation freeded around 3.1 milion slaves. However, the loss of lives for the two-day battle was enormous. It was the bloodiest two-day battle in American history. There were almost twenty-three thousand casualities on both sides.","dateCreated":"1339169192","smartDate":"Jun 8, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54902826","body":"This week film semiar is about The Battle of Antietnam (1862). This is the battle among states in the United States.
\nBeginning early on the morning of this day in 1862, Confederate and Union troops in the Civil War clash near Maryland's Antietam Creek in the bloodiest one-day battle in American history, with more than 6,000 Union and Confederate soldiers killed or mortally wounded. Shaw had been in the thick of the fighting and his brigade had suffered 646 men killed, wounded, and missing.
\nThe Battle of Antietam marked the culmination of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's first invasion of the Northern states. Guiding his Army of Northern Virginia across the Potomac River in the early September 1862, the great general daringly divided his men, sending half of them, under the command of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, to capture the Union garrison at Harper's Ferry.
\nOn the morning of September 18, both sides gathered their wounded and buried their dead. That night, Lee turned his forces back to Virginia. His retreat gave President Lincoln the moment he had been waiting for to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, a historic document that turned the Union effort in the Civil War into a fight for the abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln released The Emancipation Proclamation, six days after the battle had ended. None of the men who sacrificed their lives on the field that fateful day knew why the war started. But their sacrifices saved the United States from the British and French who would have allowed the Southern states to leave the Union. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Antietam, the American nation would have been divided forever
\nOver 3 millions of salves are freed, but this battle caused huge destruction for lives in states: with over 2,108 dead, 9,540 wounded and 753 missing from a total of 12,401 Union men. The Confederates suffered casualties of 1,546, approximately, 7,752 were wounded and 1,018 missing from a total 10,318 men.","dateCreated":"1339176153","smartDate":"Jun 8, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Phi.Duong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Phi.Duong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54911748","body":"The Battle of Antietam was a significant event that redefined the political, cultural and social structures of the United States in the nineteenth century and from then after. Its impact relied on its terrifying consequences such as the death of thousands of American men in the hands of other American men between the two sides of the battle, the Confederates and the Union; and other important national issues that awaited to be solved to finally reach the idea of an unified and free nation.
\nBefore and after the Battle of Antietam there were several other events and confrontations that made up the Civil War. By the 17th September 1862 the nation was surrounded by uncertainty towards the future with the Union side losing the war. The Confederates have seized a big part of the territory controlled by the Union and they were reaching north by Maryland in order to seize Washington DC. With this they expected the final victory. Additionally, they expected that by seizing Washington DC they would receive help from other nations like Britain and France (especially Britain whose cotton supply depended on the southern territories of the United States) so that they could settle down their own independent nation. However, a conflict of interests towards slavery maintained the Confederates lacking of help from other nations; whereas the Union under the command of Abraham Lincoln awaited for abolishing slavery in the country, but this could only happen after the war. The Battle of Antietam didn't mean the victory for any side in the conflict, despite it was a despicable event that mainly showed the cruelty of war, and worse, the war between \u201cbrothers of blood.\u201d
\nThe documentary portrays magnificently the horror of this battle by showing real photographies took during the battle and after it. The bunch of real photographies are a veridic report of the historical facts, and the film relies on them to recreate the context of the Civil war. However, the documentary as a source fails at submerging the audience into a more complete approach to the history behind the war; thus if a person who didn't have enough contextual information watched the documentary, he\/she could hardly understand what the Civil war REALLY meant to the United States, and in our example, what the Battle of Antietam meant to the history of this country.","dateCreated":"1339225223","smartDate":"Jun 9, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"arrada.d","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/arrada.d","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54921726","body":"The film \u201cBattle of Antietam 1862\u201d described a horrible bloody battle throughout the wars in America history. This battle\u2019s protagonists are Robert E. Lee's which led southern army (Confederacy) and General McClellan (Union) which led Northern army. The reason why people call this battle a bloody Antietam is that 12,000 soldiers lay dead or wounded within five hours, and over 22,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or missing. This video repeatedly stressed that they stood shoulder to shoulder and devoted to this fight. However, because of this structure, thousands of people lay dead one after another. It just cannot visualize. But at last, northern army got their victory.
\n
\nThe president Abraham Lincoln was very pleased the result of this battle, because he got chance to issue his Emancipation Proclamation \u2013 to free slavery which was the purpose of this battle. Because of Confederacy\u2019s failure and the Emancipation Proclamation, the South recognition of Britain and France had no opportunity. To issue this Emancipation Proclamation is also a way for Lincoln to save the Union and maintain the country\u2019s unity.
\n
\nBut in this battle for the freedom of slavery, slavery didn\u2019t do anything for their freedom. It seems like very strange. Lincoln issued this proclamation in order to safeguard national unity. But did he really want to free slavery?","dateCreated":"1339303919","smartDate":"Jun 9, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Coocie","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Coocie","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54922560","body":"As mentioned by arrada.d, without any contextual knowledge on the Battle of Antietam it becomes difficult to understand the rationale behind it. The battle took place in the midst of the American Civil War and was the most consequential battle in it.
\nFirstly, the documentary portrays the Confederate Army as seemingly better organized than the Union Army despite Mclellan being praised for being 'highly organized'. The small Confederate Army might have contributed to this fact- the smaller the group of people, the easier to organize them. In fact, Mclellan's hesitation comes across as dubious as it was not clearly explained why he was reticent. His actions greatly influenced the outcome of the Battle of Antietam. If he had acted upon his knowledge of the whereabouts of Lee's divisions, Union troops would not have had to partake in the messy cornfield battle, or at least the blooshed that day could have been curbed.
\nWhat stands out from the Battle of Antietam is not only the massive number of casualties, but the direct consequence of the battle itself. The documentary shared the fact of the United States failing to exist if "not for the French Revolution". This claim can be interpreted in two ways: it allowed the US to make the Louisiana Purchase that expanded the boundaries of the colonists (which in turn led to a succession of events,such as westward migration, that inspired the US to occupy the whole stretch of land till it reached the Pacific Ocean thus forming the geographic United States today) and secondly, it is possible that news of the lower classes successfully overturning the French monarchy inspired the disgruntled colonists to take action as well, thus sparking the American Revolution. Bearing this in mind, the support of foreign powers on the Confederate side would greatly tip the scales on their side. Winning the Battle of Antietam was crucial for them to garner this support, and Lincoln knew the Union (despite having much more manpower) would not stand a chance against a Confederation. He drafted the Emancipation Proclamation as a radical effort to sway the South to unite with the Union. The Proclamation itself turned out to be quite useless in freeing the slaves, but it did encourage the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which achieved so.
\nIn retrospect, the freeing of slaves came as an afterthought to the purpose of the Civil War, but I would deem it a good deal of fate for the US would not be what is is today if the slaves had not been emancipated, made possible by the Civil War. It is a bit far-fetched to declare that the Battie of Antietam caused this, but nonetheless this battle did cause a string of decisions and events and laid the foundation for the 13th Amendment.","dateCreated":"1339317647","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Natanielle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Natanielle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54928976","body":"
\nThe Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, climaxed the first of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's two attempts to carry the war into the North. And when the fighting ended, the course of the American Civil War had been greatly altered. The year 1862 began with high hopes in Washington that the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia, would be captured and the war brought to a successful conclusion. A large, well-equipped force, the Army of the Potomac, had been organized and in the spring set out for the Union enclave at Fort Monroe, Virginia. Commanded by Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, the Army of the Potomac then marched up the Virginia peninsula to lay siege to Richmond; other smaller commands remained in northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley to maintain security for the Federal capital.
\n As an extension of the change in the public perception of war, the overall strategy of the North began to evolve toward the concept of "total war". While this process was not complete after Antietam, the trend was clear: most people would eventually recognize that the Union could only be restored following the complete destruction of the South's ability to wage war and survive independently. It would no longer be possible to go back to the way things were, or peacefully co-exist with a separate South. Lastly, but most importantly, the small victory that Lincoln could claim for the battle of Antietam was enough for him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Although the battle was tactically inconclusive, it had unique significance as enough of a victory to give President Abraham Lincoln the confidence to announce his Emancipation Proclamation, which discouraged the British and French governments from potential plans for recognition of the Confederacy.
\nThe main important thing about the Battle of Antietam was that the North was able to stop Lee's first invasion of the North, although at great cost. Lee, outnumbered nearly three to one, held his lines after the battle, and then returned to Virginia. It was the bloodiest day in American history.","dateCreated":"1339365056","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"RongWang1006","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RongWang1006","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54966344","body":"This documentary was about the brutal Battle of Antietam in 1862. Due to the loss of several battles on the union's side, President Abraham Lincoln could not afford to lose anymore. Another motivating factor for the north to fight this battle was to pass the Emancipation Proclamation which would free slaves throughout the American territories. However, the south was greatly apposed to the abolition of slavery because they had a whole class of people to prophet off of. What makes this battle so brutal is the fact that rows of Union men marched shoulder to shoulder with eachother, while the south was furiously firing at them. Witnesses report seeing a countless number of dead men at the scene of the battle once the fighting was over, and this is one of the most gruesome battles fought during the civil war.
\nIt turned out that the north would be the happy victors of this battle, and would be able to pass the law to abolish slavery. Another thing that this battle did to benefit the north was to discourage France and Britain from siding with the confederate army.
\nThis battle was what caused many Americans at this time to doubt whether war was the best way to solve disputes. Horrific photographs of the battle and its' end results would document this event in a way that no person had ever experienced before, and the visual evidence provided would deeply reconstruct many American's own opinions on war itself.","dateCreated":"1339517415","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"clayhutchins","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/clayhutchins","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54979842","body":"The movie \u201c10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America: The Battle of Antietam 1862\u201d is
\na very interesting and amazing one. This is a major battle during the American civil war in
\nUnion Soil. The movie starts with a fighting scene between army from the north and the south;
\nthe soldiers lined up and kept shooting at the enemies. This is a very painful scene, numerous
\nsoldiers died during the battle.
\n
\nPersonally, I have questions about this movie. First of all, why did McClellan let his men line up
\nand keep movie forward without any protection. I think this is ridiculous when Lee\u2018s army were
\nready to fire and they prepared carefully. As a result, there were so many soldiers died for no
\nreason. I am sure a lot of them could be alive if McClellan had a better strategy. Secondly, I do
\nnot understand why after McClellan defeated Lee but he let Lee come back to the south. In this
\nsituation, McClellan could use cavalry to chase as well as kill the rest, this may end the civil war
\nright away, and no one had to die anymore.","dateCreated":"1339564364","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55011374","body":"As the title said it all, the battle of Antietam in 1862 was one of the incidents that unexpectedly changed the history of America. The battle happened in the early stage of the American Civil War. Unlike most of the other battles which were usually taken place in the Confederate territory, this one happened in the Union soil. Interestingly one of the rare battles happened in the Union soil was one of the most major and the bloodiest battles. As @Phi.Duong indicated, \u201cthis battle caused huge destruction for lives in states: with over 2,108 dead, 9,540 wounded and 753 missing from a total of 12,401 Union men. The Confederates suffered casualties of 1,546, approximately, 7,752 were wounded and 1,018 missing from a total 10,318 men.\u201d The North claimed the victory at the end. Abraham Lincoln had his first victory after the two consecutive battles he lost to the Confederate. He then went on and proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation which freed more than 3.1 millions slaves in the entire nation.
\nI found this documentary interesting and credible because it provided many primary pictures from that contemporary time. It would be hard for me to imagine how violent and how devastating this battle was if it was not all those pictures.","dateCreated":"1339706802","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"phat064","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/phat064","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55011666","body":"http:\/\/www.civilwar.org\/battlefields\/antietam.html<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/civilwar\/classroom\/pdf\/lesson_antietam.pdf<\/a>
\nI strongly advocate @arrada.d\u2019s claim that \u201cthe Battle of Antietam was a significant event that redefined the political, cultural and social structures of the United States in the nineteenth century and from then after.\u201d However, I felt very bad when I watched this presentation; this is the bloodiest war in American history. Through observing some figures related to this war, you can see how harsh it was. 23,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or missing after twelve hours of savage combat on September 17, 1862. At the end of the battle, 2,108 Union soldiers were confirmed dead, and another 10,293 were missing.
\n
\nThe only attainment of this battle was the Emancipation Proclamation, which is issued by the president Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War using his war powers. This proclamation was aimed to free slavery, according to @Coocie\u2019s claim. Besides, this Emancipation Proclamation is also a way for Lincoln to \u201csave the Union and maintain the country\u2019s unity.\u201d If there wasn\u2019t this important proclamation, the United States would have been separated into two different countries, United States (Union) and CSA (Confederacy).","dateCreated":"1339707544","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"yaly.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/yaly.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"54837824","dateCreated":"1338962854","smartDate":"Jun 5, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Dennis.Levin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Dennis.Levin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54837824"},"dateDigested":1532092608,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reading Week 8","description":"I'll pick up where we left off last week; slave disobedience.
\n
\n"Couldn't we get somewhere away from here?"
\n"Nowhere, but into our graves."
\nP370
\n
\nThis sounds to me like the slaves were, in a way, indoctrinated to pair resistance and escape with death (keeping it mind that the book was published after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), and in turn makes me wonder if part of this was due to social factors. As we discussed last week slave resistance wasn't uncommon and I would guess that a high percentage of all escapes failed, thus creating more stories of failed attempts than of successful ones, which in turn would add to the reason of why the majority of slaves stayed and obeyed their owners.
\n
\nThoughts?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54932678","body":"@deandrapeterson: I believe tradition was something that they could not ignore, if they are used to treating or taught that they are more superiot than they have no shame in the way they treat their slaves.","dateCreated":"1339381290","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Han.K.Hoang","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Han.K.Hoang","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54932970","body":"I believe that for the slaves there is nothing for the slaves out there if they manage to escape but freedom. And they have to travel to Canada to get the freedom they wanted, and some of the slaves would have to travel many many miles to do it. And there is a high chance they would get caught so it is not that hard for the slaves to be discourage, it is not that possible for a slave would travel to many miles and not have much supply for them. They could die from hunger and\/or dehydration.","dateCreated":"1339382228","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Hoang.Ha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Hoang.Ha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54934218","body":"I believe one of the reasons stories of successful attempts didn't make their way back to slaves is because they were, in fact, successful. What I mean by this is that an unsuccessful attempt would result in either the death of the slave or his\/her return to their master. If a slave did make a successful attempt, that would probably be the last that anyone on that plantation would hear from him\/her.
\n
\nI believe the masters also realized it was in their best interests to propagate stories regarding unsuccessful attempts. If you can convince the slaves that it's not worth even attempting to escape, then you've minimized the possibility that one of them tries to escape.","dateCreated":"1339387865","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"rustbl","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/rustbl","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54935180","body":"@deandrapeterson:
\nI would say a parallel could be drawn to today's society, with global warming and whatnot; people still, even though (hopefully) they know it's bad, drive that quarter of a mile to the grocery store because it's convenient, just like it was convenient to have free labor back then.
\n
\nFar fetched? Maybe.","dateCreated":"1339391903","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Dennis.Levin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Dennis.Levin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54939752","body":"In summary of the last two weeks' reading sections, there are mainly two reasons why the slaves did not escape :
\n1) slaves are afraid of the risk of being caught and the later cruel punishment by their owners.
\n2) slaves have nice owners, comfortable enviroment, gentle treatment. The enslaved people already feel somewhat freedom, thus they are not motivated to fight for it.","dateCreated":"1339423357","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jiali999777","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jiali999777","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54940058","body":"@mimijaffe
\nIt is true that some slave owners during that time had already realized that slave holding is wrong, but they did nothing for the changing the reality. There are primarily two reasons that the owners continuted to hold slaves:
\n1) slaves are free labor. Once a planter bought a slave, the owner did not need to pay the slave. Thus slaveholding would minimize the cost of agriculturing.
\n2)the owners had deep racism and discrimination against certain ethnicity group of people. Thus the white owners did not care about the human rights at all beacause they thought it did not apply to the black africans.
\n3) Some owners wanted to protect the slaves from the outside torture and harassment; so planters chose to resctrict the poor slaves to cloud cuckoo land rather than give the freedom to slaves directly.","dateCreated":"1339424519","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jiali999777","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jiali999777","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54941348","body":"In summary of the last two weeks' reading sections, there are mainly two reasons why the slaves did not escape:
\n1) slaves are afraid of the risk of being caught and the later cruel punishment by their owners.
\n
\nI think it is more the structure of the institution that prevents slaves from taking the risk, that there are psychological components that prevent slaves from taking the risk.
\nIt\u2019s all about risk vs. reward; should a slave stay where nothing will change and it is very probable that they will die at the hands of their \u201cmaster\u201d OR do they risk everything on the chance that things might change, and hopefully for the better. And if they do die trying to escape, is it not a better a death than by the hands of a \u201cmaster\u201d? At least their death now can mean something, freedom.
\nIf one thinks about it in these terms, there is only one good choice, but why did not more risk this chance?
\nTheir master psychologically beats them down into thinking this is not a viable option, like Legree does, he uses the threat of punishment to prevent them from even thinking about escaping. I also think the human nature plays a part, thinking or talking about change is easy, but working towards actual change is hard.","dateCreated":"1339428173","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"A.Klem","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/A.Klem","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54951684","body":"As they travel, Legree leers at Emmeline, promising that she will have \u201cfine times\u201d with him. Legree lives all alone on the plantation, with only slaves to keep him company. He keeps two black overseers, whom he treats with some familiarity, yet he attempts to make them brutal toward the under-slaves. He also has one slave woman, Cassy, living with him in his quarters. He has bought Emmeline to replace her. The plantation proves a horrific place, where even the slaves treat each other cruelly. Tom\u2019s religious belief falters, but then he sees a vision of Eva, which renews his faith and his strength. He works diligently and tries to help the other slaves.","dateCreated":"1339451189","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vanle3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vanle3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54954686","body":"@A.Klem: regarding slaves not escaping, I'm reminded of a great quote that is attributed to Harriet Tubman:
\n
\n"I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."
\n
\n- "Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience" (2003) by Henry Louis Gates and Kwame Anthony Appiah
\n
\nThis speaks the degree a lot of slaves were born, lived, and died under the system accepting is plain as the air they breathed and so never thought of life as free.","dateCreated":"1339462693","smartDate":"Jun 11, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"princeofhappiness","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/princeofhappiness","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54993064","body":"@A. Klem I agree with your last sentence. Thinking about changing things is easy, but actually attempting to do so is difficult. There's a popular saying: "It's easier said than done.
\n
\n@ I agree with your two reasons that you've posted. I found a good website that shares about some slaves that have witnessed others trying to escape, or them escaping themselves:
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk\/USASrunaways.htm<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339620615","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"AlexisTep","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AlexisTep","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1257553849\/AlexisTep-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54996732","body":"@Dennis.Levin: I think mostly it's because unsuccessful escape would result in death or harshest punishment so that it made slaves during the time think that escaping was a risk of death.
\nAs you can see from this source: "Runaways also knew that successful escapes were rare. Slaveowners used bloodhounds to trace their slaves. Problems of finding food and shelter in a hostile environment and the absence of maps were also other factors in understanding why most slaves failed in their bids for freedom. Moses Grandy explained the problems that runaways faced: "They hide themselves during the day in the woods and swamps; at night they travel, crossing rivers by swimming, or by boats they may chance to meet with, and passing over hills and meadows which they do not know; in these dangerous journeys they are guided by the north-star, for they only know that the land of freedom is in the north. They subsist on such wild fruit as they can gather, and as they are often very long on their way, they reach the free states almost like skeletons."
\nhttp:\/\/www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk\/USASrunaways.htm<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339633791","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55003290","body":"Slaves did not risk attempting to escape because they were afraid. The risk was too great, and if they had good owners, then it is easier not to try. I also looked at http:\/\/www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk\/USASrunaways.htm<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339668930","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"SimoneMcCausland","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SimoneMcCausland","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":8}]},{"id":"54752956","dateCreated":"1338623858","smartDate":"Jun 2, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54752956"},"dateDigested":1532092609,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"FILM WEEK 6","description":"GO GO","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54778628","body":"The California Gold Rush, initiated when gold was found at Sutter's Mill in January 1848 and thousands of fortune seekers began migrating west. A gold discovery in California prompted people from all over the world to partake in an arduous journey and descend upon the newly acquired territory. The Gold Rush would lead to the building of the transcontinental railroad and assert the U.S. as a world economic power.
\nBecause of the thousands that came west to California and Nevada searching for gold, small towns sprang up near the mining operations. Settlements were growing with each new discovery of veins of gold in the Sierras. Gold was the catalyst that started the migration to the west. By 1850, California alone had 96,000 people in population. The gold rush lasted for approximately ten years, until the areas began to show signs of depletion of gold ore. Because of the high interest shown in the 1849 Gold Rush, people migrated to California and Nevada in larger numbers than would have happened otherwise.
\nThe California gold rush of 1849 brought large numbers of American citizens and new immigrants from Europe to California. The presence of gold -- the worldwide standard currency in that time -- made California tremendously valuable to the United States. California was not a US territory at that time, as it had quite recently revolted from Mexico and set up a military junta, quickly followed by a constitutional government. California was also valuable to the US because it solidified the US claim to the entire middle of the North American continent. California, with its rapid growth and gold exports, was able to demand concessions from the United States Congress including immediate statehood, expanded borders, and limited rights for Mexican and Spanish land grant holders.","dateCreated":"1338779408","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"RongWang1006","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RongWang1006","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54804510","body":"In the documentary Ten Days That Unexpectedly Changed America, we look into the lives of the people who traveled west to California for the pursuit of wealth. When James Marshall discovered gold during his construction of a saw mill, he began the craze that would soon cause people from across the U.S. and even from other parts of the world to make the treacherous journey to California in hopes of obtaining some of the newly discovered wealth. While not many succeeded in becoming desirably rich, The California Gold Rush was still successful given that it \u201cpropelled the creation of the state of California overnight.\u201d Some of those who made the journey to California for the Gold Rush ended up settling in California thus creating a diverse population in California. Due to the amount of Chinese and Mexican travelers with shared hopes of financial advancement, California became very diverse in culture and helped shape the culture we see today.
\n
\nThe downfalls to the Gold fad were the amount of deaths created. When the discovery of gold was become more and more scarce, gold seekers expanded their search to the woods, terrorizing the Native Americans who delayed their search for wealth. On top of that the journey across America was a challenge that was not always successful. Many suffered from disease and death throughout their journey. Those who survived the journey from East to West arrived only to be disappointed by the lack of gold that was to be discovered.","dateCreated":"1338863913","smartDate":"Jun 4, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"mrd0903","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mrd0903","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54805676","body":"This week's Ten Day That Unexpectedly Change America documentary was the California Gold Rush. The California Gold Rush took place from 1848 to 1855. Those who seek gold were also called the " forty-niners" in reference to 1849.
\n
\nThis sudden news of gold excited many people and caused families to migrate West. I think that the film did a really good job portraying the California Gold Rush as one of the first historical event that was very life changing to many American families. For the first time, American men had the opportunity to actually control their own faith and work for their wealth with their own two hands. Searching for gold was tedious and laborious and it what you found and worked for was yours to keep.
\n
\nIn addition, I think that the film also mention how this truly changed the American mentality and state of mind, and how those on the West coast differ to those on the East. The Gold Rush suddenly brought on ideals that if something positive was possible, you could succeed and it was a matter of whether you were willing to work for it or not. On the other hand that is not to say that the California Gold Rush did not bring as much gold as many has anticipated, but it truly created excitement and changed the outlook of life for many people living during this time period.
\n
\nBecause of the gold rush, there were many economic changes to the West coast as well. Such as the development of major cities and the construction of railroads and ports around California.","dateCreated":"1338868477","smartDate":"Jun 4, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"lisaanguyenn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lisaanguyenn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54862792","body":"This week's film was from Ten Day's That Unexpectedly Change America : The Gold Rush
\n
\nThe Gold Rush was certainly one of the most important events that influenced the growth of the early United States. Next to the Luisiana Purchase that made the events of the Gold Rush possible.
\n
\nIt pulled many people West in search of gold, some even leaving their businesses back home to pursue it. Many believing that even if they got their hands on the tiniest bit that they would be able to turn their life around.
\n
\nOf course the issue was that the gold was extremely hard to find and any amount that you found would not be the amount you were hoping to find. If you ask me I don't think it's worth it to work harder than you probably ever will in your life, just find a little amount of gold.
\n
\nOf course the issue was that many people were moving West and it was beginning to crowd up.
\nSo California had to expand and grow to support the growing amount of people. The economic changes that came about not only changed the look of California's major cities and towns, the construction of railroads and locomotives began making the journey west much more easier , and changed the regulations of gold mining as well.
\n
\nGold soon lost most of the wealth that it was worth because the rich and developed citizens began to lower the amount of money that gold miners were paid.","dateCreated":"1339032058","smartDate":"Jun 6, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jbeeler0421","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jbeeler0421","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54866236","body":"\u201cCalifornia Gold Rush\u201d presented a vivid scene of the crazy gold rush in California. The start point was the man named James Marshall discovered gold in a stream. This news quickly spread across the United Stated and thousands of people choose to migrate to California. In the meanwhile, the wave of migrants brought rapid economic growth.
\n
\nHowever, it was not easy to live in California and mine gold, especially for women. Some married women might lose their husband because of accidents, disease, and other causes. The single women and widows might become prostitutes, businesswomen or panning with men. The social climate was bad and brutal because it was a lawless place. People used gold not only for food and supplies, but also used for entertainment such as alcohol, gambling, and prostitutes. Moreover, the racial discrimination was also very serious since people came from different nations and had different race. I was very surprised that Chinese people also came to California because it was a long journey from China to America. The migrants\u2019 life was never smooth. The American always wanted to drive out of others. But the result of this a variety of races was to form a multi-culture society as today\u2019s California. Because of this gold rush, the economy and mining industry in California grew rapidly and also drove the other industry developed.","dateCreated":"1339045599","smartDate":"Jun 6, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Coocie","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Coocie","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54920308","body":"In the documentary, Ten Days That Unexpectedly Changed America: California gold rush, it said that half way through the journey, 1500 people died.
\nThe Journey was unsafe. It took 6 months by boat going around South America with sea sickness, rotten food and rancid water. Going by boat through Panama was the quickest route but also had the risk of getting malaria and cholera. Going overland the California trail is a 2000 mile walk crowed with wagons, little food and water, and the sweltering heat. It is no wonder many people died, the trip was long and there were many diseases being pass around.
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.historyonthenet.com\/American_West\/gold_rush.htm<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339291282","smartDate":"Jun 9, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KATHYDUONG","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KATHYDUONG","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54928048","body":"Despite all of the positive aspects of the California Gold Rush -not only from a domestic standpoint, but from a mass global emigration one as well- many downsides were experienced by Native Americans who relied on the natural resources of California. Much of these resources were polluted or destroyed all together by the mass mining production. The other was diseases caused by exposure to the mining production","dateCreated":"1339359700","smartDate":"Jun 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54966814","body":"This week, we watched a film that had to do with western expansion motivated by the gold rush. Gold is a material humankind has been obsessing over for centuries, and the discovery of gold in the west would prove to be a great opportunity for Americans to have during this period of time. Since there was no regulation for finding and collecting gold, many American would venture west in order to obtain it.
\nWhat was hard about moving west was obtaining resources such as food and water, mainly because there was little about this strange land that white colonists knew about. There were also no roads, and white society was scarce in the west. Many people would die on their way to gold, but those who made it would soon find themselves doing strenuous labor in order to gain their fortune.
\nSo, as much as the gold rush sounds like it would be glamorous and bountiful, there were many other conflicting factors that would go into making it difficult to go west to find gold.","dateCreated":"1339518368","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"clayhutchins","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/clayhutchins","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54966816","body":"This week, we watched a film that had to do with western expansion motivated by the gold rush. Gold is a material humankind has been obsessing over for centuries, and the discovery of gold in the west would prove to be a great opportunity for Americans to have during this period of time. Since there was no regulation for finding and collecting gold, many American would venture west in order to obtain it.
\nWhat was hard about moving west was obtaining resources such as food and water, mainly because there was little about this strange land that white colonists knew about. There were also no roads, and white society was scarce in the west. Many people would die on their way to gold, but those who made it would soon find themselves doing strenuous labor in order to gain their fortune.
\nSo, as much as the gold rush sounds like it would be glamorous and bountiful, there were many other conflicting factors that would go into making it difficult to go west to find gold.","dateCreated":"1339518370","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"clayhutchins","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/clayhutchins","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54979998","body":"One of the movie from "10 days that unexpectedly changed America" called "California Gold Rush" is a very interesting film to me personally. James found gold at Sutter's Mill in California. This event brought thousands of people going to California to find gold to become richer. From this, San Francisco grew up from a small town with 200 residents to 36000 residents in 1852.
\n
\nFrom the movie, there is an interesting point about business. As we can see, the people who were looking for gold did not get rich, some of them even went home with less money than before; on the other hand, people who did not look for gold, but provide others looking for gold tools, clothes and services such as banking got rich; for example Levis Jeans or Well Fargo.","dateCreated":"1339565478","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55010748","body":"The discovery of gold by James Marshall in 1848 made a history for the state of California. Since then, people from all over the nation made their way west to this deserted state. This shows us how poor the America was, is, and going to be in natural resources. People were willing to travel hundreds of mile and to gamble their lives for resources, especially gold. However, as we learned from Lewis and Clarck expedition, the journey west was not easy. It was not only the difficulties in weather, geography, but also in food and provision. Besides, the interaction with Indian tribes along the way could be the advantages or the disadvantages for the travelers. More than that, the competition among all the \u201cgold-seekers\u201d made their ways to California even tenfold longer. Many people were killed and left behind along the road. All the money and all the effort which were spent on the journey were expected to be paid off by gold, or a lot of gold when they arrived in California. Unfortunately, the expectation was not met. The state of California did not have that much gold for all of them. Few of the investors found the gold and became rich. Many of the others ended up empty-handed. The Gold Rush, at the end of the day, was not as great oppurtunity as people imagined. It, however, made a profound change in the connection and the relationship between the East and West, or the East and California. Since then, many railroads were built. The trade and commerce between the two parts of the country, which never happened before, happened more frequently.","dateCreated":"1339704778","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"phat064","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/phat064","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55011210","body":"http:\/\/ceres.ca.gov\/ceres\/calweb\/geology\/goldrush.html<\/a>
\nAccording to a historian, H.W. Brands, \u201cwhat the gold rush did was to give people permission to take risks, to gamble on life, in a way that they hadn't been willing to gamble before.\u201d The primary motivation for this desperate job was \u201cthe hope of securing a more prosperous future.\u201d People decided to sacrifice and give up their current lives in their hometown in order to search for the concept of \u201cwealth\u201d followed upon the rumor of gold resource in California. In other words, they were lured and intoxicated by the gold. Moreover, Richard White, Historian said that, \u201cthe most common metaphor about the Gold Rush is gold fever.\u201d They had a tendency \u201cto go thousands of miles, to risk their lives, to risk their families who they're leaving behind.\u201d Thus, they couldn\u2019t figure out the unexpected consequences and determine the right way to change their lives. When these miners encountered failure in finding gold, they had no choice but continued moving on. In addition to this, the living condition in the mining camps was really bad and poor.
\nAs @Phi.Duong mentioned, \u201cthis Gold Rush has an extremely huge effect on the economy of state of California; it was being populated faster than ever; it became an attractive place for commerce, trading, economical service; furthermore, more and more People move to California to seeking for jobs and immigrations.\u201d At this stage, we can see how well and how fast California developed due to the Gold Rush phenomenon. Also, California became known as a place of \u201cenormous abundance\u201d which is derived from the first large-scale media even in the US, the California Gold Rush.
\nThis development was well described by a writer, JoAnn Levy. \u201cBy the end of 1853, we had 12 daily newspapers in San Francisco. This gives you a sense of what it was. Nine insurance companies, the consulates of 27 foreign governments, brick buildings six stories high where there used to be sand dunes. That was the transformation of San Francisco. That was what gold accomplished.\u201d Those achievements were absolutely amazing for a new-grown state.
\nIn brief, this episode is really helpful and well-made for me to learn more about American history, particularly how California became a great state 31st state like today.","dateCreated":"1339706254","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"yaly.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/yaly.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":7}]},{"id":"54603284","dateCreated":"1338177906","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54603284"},"dateDigested":1532092611,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reading Week 7","description":"Even though slavery was a blight in American history, there were still many good slave-owners \u2013 That was what I thought until I read the conversation between a stranger and a gentle after hearing Legree boasted about his method to organize his slaves.
\n
\n\u201cBut, in my opinion, it is your considerate, humane men that are responsible for all the brutality and outrage wrought by these wretches; because, if it were not for your sanction and influence, the whole system could not keep foothold for an hour. If there were NO PLANTERS except such as that one, the whole thing would go down like a millstone. It is your respectability and humanity that licenses and protects his brutality.\u201d
\n
\nI don\u2019t know the way I interpreted it was right. But in my opinion, what that gentleman meant was not until the whole slavery system was brought down,
\nthis would still happen. The situations in which slaves were treated humanely belonged to the minority and should not have been considered the good side of slavery system. If people strongly showed that they disagreed with this brutal system, or in other words, did not give it an official permission, such a horrible system would have never been existed. Even though some slave-owners were good, they STILL OWNED SLAVES. And it was a contradiction to abolitionist thoughts. Not until all of them freed their slaves, gave up their benefits would slavery end.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54629140","body":"@deandrapeterson:
\n
\nI agree with you about how Harriet used male in portraying bad characters to lift up the role of women in anti-slavery movement.
\n
\nAnd actually during the nineteenth century there were many activists who were male such as Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison","dateCreated":"1338272483","smartDate":"May 28, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54645182","body":"I'm thinking she was also trying to argue equality and feminism in a way by portraying the white men in the book as powerful and decisive.","dateCreated":"1338314406","smartDate":"May 29, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Dennis.Levin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Dennis.Levin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54707344","body":"I think throughout the book Stowe keeps making parallels between the black slaves and the women to show that both are oppressed, and then she kind of compares and contrasts their situations. this keeps showing up again and again because it is the main theme of the book. I remember a while ago we were supposed to think of why this book became so popular (since it obviously isnt a very interesting story), and it's because the theme in this story is so revolutionary because it wasn't something that was often talked about in those times.","dateCreated":"1338478820","smartDate":"May 31, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"mimijaffe","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mimijaffe","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54718502","body":"An important argument is that a master's death does not equal freedom for a slave. It is ironic that the papers for Tom's freedom where not written and that St. Clare's words mean nothing. Thus, slaves really truly were nothing more than property. The themes of religion and love are important means for showing that faith does not break earthly chains.
\nMarie St. Clare is the first example offers of a woman who can be cruel. Her characterization as "unfeeling, tyrannical" add more realism to the novel, which up to this point revered women as moral angels. Indeed, Marie lacks any of regards for the bonds of womanhood and motherhood. For example, she sends her young quadroon girl to the whipping house even though they are run by "the lowest of men" who expose and sexual assault their victims.
\nAlso, the chaining of Tom and the other slaves is appropriately used to show one of the inherent wrongs of slavery. Moreover, what I realized that in those chapters are the slaves should not be treated like mere pieces of furniture because "a man can feel." The scene in which Legree bellows the rules of his plantation is also important, as it shows he is a manical dictator who thrives upon brutality. His "great heavy fist" crashing down upon Tom's hands is a metaphor for his nature. The fact that he sees his slaves as merely objects to be broken is evident of the word "crack" in Legree's theat: "I never see the nigger, yet, I couldn't bring down with one crack."","dateCreated":"1338502189","smartDate":"May 31, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"hyelim0907","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hyelim0907","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54758642","body":"@hyelim0907:
\nYour comment got me thinking about slave resistance. The book does not really talk a lot about this topic. We've seen some cunningness and resistance by running away, but what other methods of resistance occurred during the era?
\n
\n"Slaves resisted their treatment in innumerable ways. They slowed down their work pace, disabled machinery, feigned sickness, destroyed crops. They argued and fought with their masters and overseers. Many stole livestock, other food, or valuables. Some learned to read and write, a practice forbidden by law. Some burned forests and buildings. Others killed their masters outright -- some by using weapons, others by putting poison in their food. Some slaves comitted suicide or mutilated themselves to ruin their property value. Subtly or overtly, enslaved African Americans found ways to sabotage the system in which they lived."
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/aia\/part4\/4p2956.html<\/a>","dateCreated":"1338665184","smartDate":"Jun 2, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Dennis.Levin","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Dennis.Levin","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54774858","body":"@ Thu_ Ngoc_ Minh_ Le: I think maybe Harriet use men intentionally as bad characters. He just wanted to imply the rights of women at the time: women's status within a patriarchal society remained the same. Politically, they were powerless. Job opportunities were severely limited. Because of the social expectations that tied female dependence on men, single women and widows were the most vulnerable.","dateCreated":"1338764927","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54775266","body":"@ Dennis. Lenvin: I searched more information about methods that slaves used to resist their owners, and mostly running was their choices.I don't understand why, was that an easiest way?
\n"Thousands of slaves ran away. Some left the plantation for days or weeks at a time and lived in hiding. Others formed maroon communities in mountains, forests or swamps. Many escaped to the North. There were also numerous instances of slave revolts throughout the history of the institution. (For one white interpretation of slave resistance, see Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race) Even when slaves acted in a subservient manner, they were often practicing a type of resistance. By fooling the master or overseer with their behavior, they resisted additional ill treatment.
\nEnslaved African Americans also resisted by forming community within the plantation setting. This was a tremendous undertaking for people whose lives were ruled by domination and forced labor. Slaves married, had children, and worked hard to keep their families together. In their quarters they were able to let down the masks they had to wear for whites. There, black men, women, and children developed an underground culture through which they affirmed their humanity. They gathered in the evenings to tell stories, sing, and make secret plans. House servants would come down from the "big house" and give news of the master and mistress, or keep people laughing with their imitations of the whites."","dateCreated":"1338766416","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54778210","body":"@trangplvo: I think running away wasthe slaves only option, it is not like they can fight or kill their onwers. Nor would they have any legal options, they are still slavesjust property to the whites, nothing more. Even if they did kill their owner they would had been executed which I guess is also an option as well.","dateCreated":"1338777422","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Han.K.Hoang","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Han.K.Hoang","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54778286","body":"@Han.K.Hoang: I agree with you, slaves have more rights then property and they had no rights until after the civil war but even at that time they had very few. There was only the soption of running away to a new land where they can be free and no longer forced into hellish labor and abuse.","dateCreated":"1338777726","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Hoang.Ha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Hoang.Ha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54780498","body":"I think it's hard for us in the 21st century to understand the thought processes that occurred in slave owner's minds. Obviously, there are slave owners that might be considered "moral", even though by today's standards anyone who owned another person would be considered very immoral. 200 years ago, black persons were thought of as sub-human, so why should they be treated the same as a human?
\n
\nIf all slave owners were mean and nasty, I believe that slaves would have fought back and rebelled much more often than occurred. By being decent "owners", and treating the slaves with kindness, the risk vs. reward of attempting escape probably wasn't worth it.","dateCreated":"1338787292","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"rustbl","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/rustbl","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54823730","body":"Cassy is a mulatto, a woman who is one-half black. She grew up in luxury, the daughter of a rich white man, and became the mistress of a lawyer. She had several children and was happy, but then the lawyer fell in love with anotherwoman and sold her and her children to a new master. That master sold her children and then sold her to a third man, by whom she had a child. When the baby was a few weeks old, she poisoned it in order to prevent herself the pain of having her children taken from her again. She continued to be passed from man to man until she came to Legree.","dateCreated":"1338926915","smartDate":"Jun 5, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vanle3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vanle3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55003168","body":"I agree with both interpretations. It is very contradictory to abolitionist thought, even though they were "good" slave owners.
\nNot all slave owners were horrible. THe nicer the slave owner, the greater the risk was, and the reward was less.","dateCreated":"1339667952","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"SimoneMcCausland","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SimoneMcCausland","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":9}]},{"id":"54512658","dateCreated":"1337822437","smartDate":"May 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KATHYDUONG","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KATHYDUONG","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54512658"},"dateDigested":1532092612,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"FILM WEEK 5","description":"God in America: A new Eden","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54598830","body":"In the Film, during the 1770s century, young country United States had undergone a lot of religious changes involving evangelical Baptists as well as Enlightenment roles -Thomas Jefferson.
\nFirst of all, people thought that Thomas Jefferson was non-religious but in fact, he desired and believed in Religious Freedom for the New Nation. And what Mr. President Jefferson established has totally changed the history of Religion in American. These new freedoms had a significant impact on the country. Moreover, with a push of Jeremiah Moore (a Baptist preacher) who had been sent to jail because of preaching without license and who sent a petition containing ten thousands of names to the Virginia Assembly and also had declared Jefferson as their advocate. Moore believed in religious liberty, free to worship without fear persecution what Jefferson also wanted. Nevertheless, what Jefferson has created had nothing in common with what the Baptist believed in. Jefferson created his own gospel, keeping the only thing that he believed as relevant and cutting the rest (took out all narrative and miracles). What Jefferson had done was incredible: \u201cevery individual should be free to worship as they choose\u201d! And in 1786 Jefferson\u2019s Bill had finally passed. However, there was also a great deal of consequences. When people did not have to go to church anymore, neither read the bible nor believe in god also led to the damn of Nation.","dateCreated":"1338155727","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54599226","body":"sources : http:\/\/www.adherents.com\/people\/pj\/Thomas_Jefferson.html<\/a>","dateCreated":"1338157894","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54601776","body":"In God in America \u201cThe New Eden\u201d is explored the idea of American religious affiliation and its meaning within the boundaries of freedom in the growing United States. There is shown the process through which religion was discussed from the different religious perspectives of Christianity that open up their paths in the American history (Anglican Church, Methodist Church, Roman Catholic Church, etc.)
\n
\nIn the United States of the eighteenth century the ruling class was compromised to the Anglican Protestant Church, which required licenses for priests to preach \u201clegally.\u201d At the euphoria of a new religious view growing called the Baptist Evangelical church, people who preached for this new religious view were persecuted for not following the status quo of the American religious affiliation. Some of the Baptist preachers were arrested for not having the license to preach \u201clegally.\u201d One of these individuals was Jeremiah Moore, who after leaving the jail brought a petition to the Virginia Assembly in 1770 signed by 10,000 people claiming for a reform on the religion issue. Thomas Jefferson, who as said in the film believed the nation \u201cmust be founded with religious freedom\u201d for that \u201cit was a God given right,\u201d helped his fellows Baptists supporting a reformation that allowed citizens the right to choose their own religion. Finally, the reformation was approved changing from then on the curse of the American history, and also providing Baptists with the liberty to convert a big majority of the American population to their religious view.
\n
\nIn my opinion, the change also brought the belief of the republic as a state separated from the power of the church. However, this notion had flawed by when Roman Catholics migrated to America and encountered the nation under the power of the Evangelical Protestantism. As the documentary tells by the 1830s massive migrations of people came from Europe looking for a better future in America. A vast majority of the new arrivers were Catholic from mostly Ireland and other Catholic nations. The Evangelical Protestants saw Roman Catholics as the enemy, and thus they tried to subjugate them with violence and rejection. To me this demonstrates how the original idea of religious freedom was cracking up as the dominant Evangelical Protestantism controlled the state and the religion of the nation. Evidence of this \u201cfailing\u201d religious freedom were the public schools from this time, which were Evangelically-affiliated providing education through the teaching of that religious perspective.
\n
\nLastly, the fighting of the Roman Catholics against their subjugation relied on people such as the bishop John Hughes. Hughes with the help of the growing Catholic population promoted the change for a new reform that would abolish public schools affiliated to a particular religion. Hughes reached this goal, which meant another step on the issue of the religious liberty in America. It also proved that \u201creligious liberty\u201d was a goal that still needed to become true.","dateCreated":"1338171069","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"arrada.d","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/arrada.d","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54604186","body":" It is not surprising that religious liberty was considered one of the four fundamental freedoms in America during World War II when this Norman Rockwell painting was done. Why was the U.S. Unique in the world in supporting religious liberty through its constitution when many other places, notably Nazi Germany, did not? How did faith communities, religious minorities, and the Enlightenment philosophies of the Founders guide the nation to support freedom of conscience, arguably America\u2019s first liberty?
\n It was talking about how the New World challenged and changed the various faiths that the first European settlers brought with them. This installment looks at the origins of America's experiment in religious liberty, examining how the unlikely alliance between evangelical Baptists and enlightenment figures. During the 19th century, the forces of modernity challenged traditional faith and drove a wedge between liberal and conservative believers as some embraced change while others adhered to Old World customs. The final installment brings the series into the present day, exploring the religious and political aspirations of conservative evangelicals' moral crusade over divisive social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. During the post-World War II era, when rising evangelist Billy Graham tried to inspire a religious revival that fused faith with patriotism in a Cold War battle against "Godless communism."
\n The God in America- How Religious Liberty shaped America shows the New World challenged and changed the faiths the first European settlers brought with them. In New Mexico, the spiritual rituals of the Pueblo Indians collided with the Catholic faith of Franciscan missionaries, ending in a bloody revolt. In New England, Puritan leader John Winthrop faced off against religious dissenters from within his own ranks. And a new message of spiritual rebirth from evangelical preachers like George Whitefield swept through the American colonies, upending traditional religious authority and kindling a rebellious spirit that converged with the political upheaval of the American Revolution.","dateCreated":"1338183829","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"RongWang1006","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/RongWang1006","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54604878","body":"God in America is a documentary that is informative in its telling of how "religious liberty helped shaped America's identity." Personally, I was able to draw parallels between Thomas Jefferson and the Bishop John Hughes. Thomas Jefferson fronted the cause of the Baptists, and would "enshrine religious liberty as an American value" when he drafted the Declaration of Independence a few weeks later. In the same spirit, Bishop John Hughes also fronted the cause of the Catholics in New York, only to receive flak for his purpose. "Protestanism was associated with progress of the modern world...with Catholic numbers growing, so was Protestant hostility." This is just one of the multiple examples in American history of double standards being applied to suit the convenience of the majority, which is understandable in the forming and building of a new nation. Nonetheless, without these trials and tribulations faced by the American colonists at the time there wouldn't exist the First Amendment, that which has played a big role in shaping the relatively liberal values the States have today.
\nIn previous decades, the first Great Awakening had American intellectuals absorbing the idea of separating power "among executive, legislative, judicial branches of government." The Age of Enlightenment that was going on in Europe encouraged new ways of thinking, including that of the monarch not holding any more divine right as the next person, which was pretty radical during that time. Americans adopted this thinking and put it into practice.
\n Over the years, however, this was turned into citizens paying taxes to their parish in colonial America. "Converting to a different religion was dangerous in colonial Virginia. America's oldest and most prosperous colony was run by a powerful ruling class and at its heart was its religion- the Anglican church." This statement from the documentary aptly describes how religion was used as reason to exploit the masses and separate the elite from the common American man. Under such governance it is easy to understand why Methodism thus became a popular denomination that many of the lower income groups turned to, it being a "religion of the heart" and not of the elite as the Anglican denomination was known for. Amidst the background of presidential elections that would put the country's citizens under pressure to make decisions (decisions that would ultimately lead to how their country should be governed), the second religious revival that swept America allowed for the creation of different groups of believers that formed the new America and made the once directionless colonists have newfound purpose. The Cane Ridge Revivals and others like it would certainly rekindle many strong emotions in the American peasants who would then actively take part in ensuring the continuation of their beliefs. Such 'preachers above in the stand' 'everything announced with trumpets blowing''people screaming' 'slaves co-mingling with their masters' 'rolling on ground, people fainting, weeping' may be stereotypes we see played over and over again in the media today, but it is not impossible to assume such stereotypes actually originated from these revival meetings.
\nGod in America is a documentary that is informative in its telling of how "religious liberty helped shaped America's identity." Personally, I was able to draw parallels between Thomas Jefferson and the Bishop John Hughes. Thomas Jefferson fronted the cause of the Baptists, and would "enshrine religious liberty as an American value" when he drafted the Declaration of Independence a few weeks later. In the same spirit, Bishop John Hughes also fronted the cause of the Catholics in New York, only to receive flak for his purpose. "Protestanism was associated with progress of the modern world...with Catholic numbers growing, so was Protestant hostility." This is just one of the multiple examples in American history of double standards being applied to suit the convenience of the majority, which is understandable in the forming and building of a new nation. Nonetheless, without these trials and tribulations faced by the American colonists at the time there wouldn't exist the First Amendment, that which has played a big role in shaping the relatively liberal values the States have today.
\nIn previous decades, the first Great Awakening had American intellectuals absorbing the idea of separating power "among executive, legislative, judicial branches of government." The Age of Enlightenment that was going on in Europe encouraged new ways of thinking, including that of the monarch not holding any more divine right as the next person, which was pretty radical during that time. Americans adopted this thinking and put it into practice.
\n Over the years, however, this was turned into citizens paying taxes to their parish in colonial America. "Converting to a different religion was dangerous in colonial Virginia. America's oldest and most prosperous colony was run by a powerful ruling class and at its heart was its religion- the Anglican church." This statement from the documentary aptly describes how religion was used as reason to exploit the masses and separate the elite from the common American man. Under such governance it is easy to understand why Methodism thus became a popular denomination that many of the lower income groups turned to, it being a "religion of the heart" and not of the elite as the Anglican denomination was known for. Amidst the background of presidential elections that would put the country's citizens under pressure to make decisions (decisions that would ultimately lead to how their country should be governed), the second religious revival that swept America allowed for the creation of different groups of believers that formed the new America and made the once directionless colonists have newfound purpose. The Cane Ridge Revivals and others like it would certainly rekindle many strong emotions in the American peasants who would then actively take part in ensuring the continuation of their beliefs. Such 'preachers above in the stand' 'everything announced with trumpets blowing''people screaming' 'slaves co-mingling with their masters' 'rolling on ground, people fainting, weeping' may be stereotypes we see played over and over again in the media today, but it is not impossible to assume such stereotypes actually originated from these revival meetings.","dateCreated":"1338187475","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Natanielle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Natanielle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54605032","body":"I have to agree with @Arrada that after Roman Catholics migrated to America, it was a real threat for the Evangelical Catholics! In my opinion, the Evangelical Catholics just reacted just right because they actually were the ones who settled in America first. It is just in the human instinct to keep his territory. And It\u2019s was excellent from her that she also mentioned about John Hughes who I totally forgot to talk about. Hughes really played a significant role in growing Catholic population! What impressed me the most about him was the way he dealt with public schools who forced Evangelical teachings onto Roman Catholics. He was successful in stopping this issue and made it a little easier to achieve religious liberty.","dateCreated":"1338188297","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54630996","body":"http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/godinamerica\/study-guide\/two.html<\/a>
\nGod in America \u2013 A New Eden explores the origins of Christian religion in America and examines how the New World changed the faiths that the settlers brought with them. A New Eden explores how an unlikely alliance between evangelical Baptists and enlightenment figures like Thomas Jefferson served as the foundation of American religious liberty. The purpose of this episode is to impart what called the religious liberty in the America to the audiences by presenting the revolution of religions. In addition to that, this episode also explores the bitter conflict between Protestants and Catholics over public education in 19th-century New York, especially the role of John Hughes, who forcefully engaged with issues of church and state in response to widespread anti-Catholicism.
\nThe novel religious liberty had a considerable impact on the US, creating a vibrant religious marketplace where new religions started to take root and new Protestant denominations began to overtake the old. Nonetheless, the idea of what freedom meant to be to the Americans was largely contested, and its meaning ignited political conflicts between Irish Catholic immigrants and the Protestant establishment in New York over the reading of the Bible in public schools. In brief, \u201creligious liberty have become the founding principle will shape the American identity.\u201d
\nPreviously, it was common knowledge that God potentially determined human beings\u2019 fate before we were even born. It means that God was the one who decided whether you go to heaven or hell, or where your soul should be sent to in order to purify yourself before going to heaven. Personally, I don\u2019t think this would be appropriate interpretation of the religious freedom. Conversely, it becomes up to us, we have \u201cthe choice.\u201d Indeed, we are the ones who hold the key of our own destiny, of our own lives. What we did in the past, what we are doing in the present, and what we will do in order to shape our future are the most important ways to thrive in the society. It is no surprising that people have their rights to pursue the freedom of religion without being under control of any governmental systems. As @NDuc92 mentioned, what Jefferson had done by keeping the only thing that he believed as relevant and cutting the rest (took out all narrative and miracles) was incredible: \u201cevery individual should be free to worship as they choose!\u201d Thomas Jefferson successfully proposed the Bill of Rights at the Federal Hall in New York on September 25th, 1987. Then, the 1st amendment was ratified and became a part of the constitution in 1791.
\nhttp:\/\/www.archives.gov\/exhibits\/charters\/<\/a>","dateCreated":"1338281476","smartDate":"May 29, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"yaly.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/yaly.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54715814","body":"This film explores the foundation for what eventually created the Evangelical movement we know today and the general morality that exists within the American way of thought. I point to what yaly.nguyen said, "an unlikely alliance between evangelical Baptists and enlightenment figures like Thomas Jefferson served as the foundation of American religious liberty. The bitter conflict between Protestants and Catholics over public education in 19th-century New York, especially the role of John Hughes, who forcefully engaged with issues of church and state in response to widespread anti-Catholicism." A theme we still see today","dateCreated":"1338494268","smartDate":"May 31, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"demantai91","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/demantai91","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54718610","body":"As we know, when the Bristish came, they brought to America Chiristian thought and beliefs. Christian became one of the religions in the United States.
\nThe first claim was made in the film "A new Eden" is that Thomas Jefferson believed that a new republic must be founded with religious freedom and we can make our religious choices. He draft a bill for religious freedom in 1779. In January 1789, his bill finally passed in Virginia.
\nSecondly, the film points out what does the Religious Liberty mean. In 1789, Government published the congress of US religious freedom.
\n1800s, people was heading to the west. About 2 decades later, Christian became wide spread in the United States, start with Kentuckey. Religion took a place in American heart. People believe in God, they have faiths in their choices of religions. People have their own religious rights. American looked like the kingdom of God. Churches were built rapidly in every states.
\nCatholic nearly a half of US immigration. after 2 or 3 decades, Catholic almost double the population in Boston, Philadelphia. Government afraid that they woulg lose young generation if the Catholic was becoming a huge part of society: citizen, education (teachers), church,...Therefore, anti-Catholicism appeared.","dateCreated":"1338502564","smartDate":"May 31, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Phi.Duong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Phi.Duong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54981198","body":"
\nThis film takes the account of Jeremiah Moore, who was one of the priests who had been arrested during the revival period in America for preaching illegally. Many priests from the new branches of Christianity that were appearing all over America were being arrested for preaching illegally during this period. Thomas Jefferson, who had joined the Baptist movement, created a bill that would allow people to practice different religions. The bill was eventually passes and put into the first amendment. Religious revivals sprang up all around the frontier. People packed their belongings into carts and headed toward the frontier. People longed for religious direction, but there weren\u2019t any churches to help people choose which direction they wanted to take. An example of a religious revival was the Cane Ridge revival. As many as 20,000 people gathered at Cane Ridge, there were preachers preaching, people crying and singing, rolling on the ground and falling to their knees. Seeing this really shocked people and news of the revivals spread around the country and so did the revivals themselves.","dateCreated":"1339573870","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"ScarletL","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ScarletL","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55009986","body":"God in America: A New Eden shows the importance of religion and religious freedom in people\u2019s lives. As Thomas Jefferson believed, \u201cGod created us in such a way that we can make our religious choices. Who is the state to tell us something God chose not to tell us?\u201d In the time when people were still struggling contructing their own identities, Thomas Jefferson appeared with his strong faiths and beliefs. He was a light to the darkness of this comtemporary era when practicing religion was compelled and choosing your own religious philosophy was illegal. This made me think a lot about the meaning of \u201cfreedom.\u201d I have heard so much about America as a liberal country. Having a chance to study in the US, I cannot deny what I have heard is wrong. America nowadays is indeed a country of freedom. However, just few hundreds years ago, Americans could not even practice their own beliefs. Preaching without licenses, at that time, was a crime. God in America: A New Eden let me know that freedom was not easy to come. Freedom is something every single person has to fight for in order to have it. Thanks to Jefferson and his people, eventually in 1786, a bill about religious freedom was passed. It put an end to the cramped era and placed freedom in hands of Americans.","dateCreated":"1339701300","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"phat064","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/phat064","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55012688","body":"God in America: the new Eden is a movie about religions identity in the United States. It reveals the roots of American religion. This movie examines how religion shapes America and how it influences liberty and individualism.
\nAt the beginning of the movie, there is a question: \u201cwhat does it mean to be American?\u201d .From this point, we can see how important religion is to American at that time. For Thomas Jefferson, the new republic must be founded with religious freedom; also, he believes that is the God \u2013given right. He would like all American people to be able to choose their own religion. There was a Baptist named Jeremiah Moore was preaching in Virginia, and he got a lot of people supporting him. Unfortunately, this was very dangerous to him. Jeremiah Moore was thrown into jail because of preaching without license. Based on this point, we can understand the situation of American people. They did not have freedom at all. Everything were controlled by the government, even belief.
\nIn conclusion, the movie God in America: the new Eden is a very interesting one. It shows us a big movement of the United States, how religious freedom was formed, and how it affects people \u2018s life.","dateCreated":"1339712405","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":4}]},{"id":"54344748","dateCreated":"1337473389","smartDate":"May 19, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54344748"},"dateDigested":1532092613,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reading Week 6","description":"In Chapter 29, from what Marie talked to Ophelia when Ophelia mentioned freeing Uncle Tom as Augustine promised before he died, I figured out that Marie stereotyped the personality of slaves. She assumed that all of them were lazy and badly-behaved and should be taught, educated and taken care of by the masters from observing the negroes living around here. Also she thought that uncle Tom was no exception and how he behaved at that moment would change once he was set free.
\nRelating to the previous chapters, some wondered why a slave wanted to be free since they were treated so nicely by their masters but still had the idea of freedom. Well now, here comes the problem. Their lives would still probably 90% put in danger once their master was changed. In this chapter, we can see the problems occurred when Augustine died before he could sign the document to free his servants and the slaves were sold to many different masters whoever had enough money to buy them. And imagine how bad their life could be. So staying with their masters was sometimes a good idea but it was not always the case.
\nThe slaves from this situation, after all had no power once their generous masters died. Between having freedom and staying, I think we can tell which one was better.
\nAlso I noticed that the people who were angry with the slavery system (such as Augustine and Ophelia) already had the idea of setting their slaves free. Yet they still hesitated to do that because of worrying about the obstacles the freeslaves had to face after they were free.
\nSince slaves knew nothing but serving their masters, what could they do after they were freed? Building a life? How? So many questions came up and needed to be answered. And those who were anti-slavery were still trying to figure out the solutions before they could do that to ensure their servants\u2019 lives. They grew to be more organized in planning ways to set their servants free.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54364026","body":"@Dennis.Levin
\nIt is true that if there is no slavery, America will not be as successful as it is today. But it still may survive without slavery. American may just be a thrild world country still hugging the eastern sea board, surrounded by hostile European colonies on all sides.
\n
\n
\nhttp:\/\/answers.yahoo.com\/question\/index?qid=20080227061216AA58gPg<\/a>","dateCreated":"1337545470","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jiali999777","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jiali999777","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54372158","body":"@Dennis.Levin:
\nI thinkdon't think that America would behere today without slavery, without the slaves I don't think some of the biggest event in history would happen. It is because of african americans wanting there rights than the strings of rights for others would not have of had happen. I mean since without slavery, african americans would not have been able to come to the united states and the rights for nonwhite people woudl not of had been what it was. Without slavery, our civil was would not have happen, and it was because of slavery that America was able to become successful, it would take a lot of people to just take care of a single tabacoo farm and not make that mush money.","dateCreated":"1337565617","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Han.K.Hoang","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Han.K.Hoang","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54372380","body":"@Dennis.Levin:
\nI don't think that the nation would even be here or even turn out the way it has without slavery. Slavery have been a huge impact and apart of US History. US would have been able to survive without the slave trade and labor but slavery is what shaped the US and its history since it is the beginning point of how people deal with racism and the start of changes towards society. Like it there was not slave trade or labor, culture would not have been created and some history would not have existed.","dateCreated":"1337566229","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Hoang.Ha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Hoang.Ha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54376824","body":"@Han.K.Hoang that's true. you have a good point there. i dont think America would be where it's at now without slavery. slavery has played such a big role in u.s. history. abraham lincoln was famous cause he freed the slaves and was assassinated. imagine what if there wasn't any slavery? what would abraham be known for? would he still have been assassinated for something else?
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.notablebiographies.com\/Ki-Lo\/Lincoln-Abraham.html<\/a>","dateCreated":"1337578811","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"mltong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mltong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54377080","body":"@mimi
\n
\nIn regards to your comment about the conversation between Alfred and St. Clare, I believe most decent human beings would have recognized that owning a slave was probably wrong, but when they're making you money one would probably be more likely to not pay attention to your conscience. Many people do things, knowing they are "wrong" but continue to do them because they still benefit you in some way. I also liked your insight on how the author portrays the women as intelligent, but still subservient to the men. It's like I kept waiting for Mrs. Shelby to stand up to her husband and say something but she never did.","dateCreated":"1337579546","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"rustbl","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/rustbl","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54377660","body":"@Hoang.Ha I completely agree with you. Though the idea of slavery not existing sounds great to us now, I believe that if slavery did not exist we definitely would not be where we are today. Slavery IS a part of history and a lot links\/connects to it. It has played a large role in shaping our nation, like you've said.
\nWhich brings me to a question:
\nWhen thinking about the idea of slavery not existing, what are some historical things we are able to analyze that does not somehow branch off of slavery or connect to slavery in some way?","dateCreated":"1337581704","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"AlexisTep","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AlexisTep","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1257553849\/AlexisTep-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54396490","body":"If slavery had not happened, the civil war more than likely would not have happened (no guarantee because as humans we do fight). Without it, women's rights and the battle for their equality may have happened very differently because women seemed to feel more empowered through their strong abolitionist feelings as we can see through most of Stowe's female characters (Marie excluded).","dateCreated":"1337615497","smartDate":"May 21, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"deandrapeterson","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/deandrapeterson","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54505774","body":"In Chapter 29, I see the effects of St. Clare's failure to carry out Eva's wishes and free his slaves, for by his death they have passed into the hands of his wife, Marie, who now has complete control over their lives. St. Clare, as he told his cousin Ophelia, had made no will, at least none that decided the fate of the human beings he "owned" \u2014 and probably none at all. Now Tom and the rest are at Marie's mercy. We see that St. Clare's "kindness" to his slaves \u2014 his indulgence of Adolph's thievery, his refusal to allow Marie to have them whipped \u2014 has had an effect opposite what he intended, for Rosa's quick temper (her habit of speaking unguardedly, like a free woman) has allowed Marie to do what she has no doubt always wished to do, for Rosa is a pretty woman and Marie has faded.","dateCreated":"1337808361","smartDate":"May 23, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"hyelim0907","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hyelim0907","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54604766","body":"In Chapter 28, Miss Ophelia foreshadows Augstine's impending death when she hounds him on signing Topsy over to her legally. For if something were to happen to Augustine, while Topsy was still under his charge, Miss Ophelia would be left legally powerless to do anything. On page 304 (from my edition); "Why, I gave her to you," said Augustine. "But not legally;--I want her to be mine legally," said Miss Ophelia. ... "I want to \u00a0make sure of it," said Miss Ophelia. "You may die, or fail, and then Topsy be hustled off to auction, spite of all I can do."
\nIt's just sad to think that as a slave your treated like an actual human being and in an instant the "institution" kicks back in and it's back to "your not a human being your a slave, a piece of property." What's even more sad is thinking that when this nation did start to see African American's as actual people, we deemed that each African American male individual was essentially only 3\/5 human. (3\/5 Compromise)","dateCreated":"1338186824","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"A.Klem","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/A.Klem","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54774708","body":"While reading this chapter, i thought how important role slaves played during this century.
\nAs you can seen through chapter 1 to this chapter, Slave had an important impact on many aspects of life and many people's lives during the time. Even people who claimed they were kind owners, they still owned one or two slaves ( Arthur Shelby, Augustine St.claire). Although i think slavery is really immorality, i have to admit it built America's economy. One of the biggest exports out of America (specifically the south) was cotton. And who pick that cotton? Slaves. As the demands for more cotton, tobacco, etc so slaves increased. Unforunately this led to White Americans believing in their own superiority and led to hate and discrminating against a group of people soley based on their skin color. This led to another event known as the Civil Rights movement, which changed the course of history in America","dateCreated":"1338764402","smartDate":"Jun 3, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54823710","body":"slave is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant! slavery is throughout the whole chapter and As they travel, Legree leers at Emmeline, promising that she will have \u201cfine times\u201d with him. Legree lives all alone on the plantation, with only slaves to keep him company. He keeps two black overseers, whom he treats with some familiarity, yet he attempts to make them brutal toward the under-slaves. He also has one slave woman, Cassy, living with him in his quarters. He has bought Emmeline to replace her. The plantation proves a horrific place, where even the slaves treat each other cruelly. Tom\u2019s religious belief falters, but then he sees a vision of Eva, which renews his faith and his strength. He works diligently and tries to help the other slaves.","dateCreated":"1338926845","smartDate":"Jun 5, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vanle3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vanle3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55003102","body":"America would not be the way it is today without slavery. We will never know what it would have been like. I believe that without slaves the American economy would have crashed. If all the world's economies at the time abalished slavery, then maybe we could have survived, but that is ubrealistic.
\ntrangplvo- i think you make a very good point. slaves played a huge role during this century. WE all agree that slavery is horrible, but without it America would be a very different country.","dateCreated":"1339667384","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"SimoneMcCausland","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SimoneMcCausland","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":8}]},{"id":"54344700","dateCreated":"1337473068","smartDate":"May 19, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54344700"},"dateDigested":1532092614,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Film Week 4","description":"GO GO !!","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54365372","body":"During the 19th century when America were Democratic-Republican country or so called Jeffersonian Republican has underwent a lot of important changes and one of the significant change was the \u201cExpansion to the West\u201d. After president Jefferson has brought Louisiana for 15million dollar, the Western migration has become central to the American way of life. But before that he made a plan for a journey to explore the North American by sending the Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to discover the unknown West. The main purpose of the expedition was to record all details such as natural resources, geography of the west to accurate the map but the most important were to create a good relationship with the Natives and attempt to take over the fur trade business! And the achievements were great! Lewis and Clark have made a pretty good relation with different tribes and enable the Unites to claim their land! Especially, they have established a very well relationship the Native tribes Mandan and with help Sacajawea who possess the knowledge of the west and language skill who played a significant key role in the success of the expedition! Nevertheless, not all tribes have agreed to negotiate peaceful that later on has resulted War the Natives. Over two years, Lewis and Clark have finally reached the Pacific Ocean and have made great discoveries through the Missouri River- documented hundreds of new animal species, rivers, and landscapes.","dateCreated":"1337548938","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"NDuc92","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NDuc92","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54367248","body":"With no doubt, Lewis and Clark expedition is very great. They became the first transcontinental expedition to the pacific coast. From the video, the perilous and difficult journey was very shocking to me. I was also surprised by the number of survivors. I think this can be a miracle at that time. The reason may because they found the right people and formed a united team. Everyone had one or more specific jobs for the expedition and they had the advantage of intense preparation include the preparation of the interaction with other kinds of people and tribes. I think this is the key to success in this dangerous trip.
\n
\nDuring this expedition, they found more than 200 plants and animals and drew about 140 maps and also met at least 72 native tribes. Because of these achievements, the trip became more difficult because they had to record them wherever they went. Their relationship with native tribes also indicated their wonderful diplomacy not only for their trip but also for the whole American. Without Native Americas\u2019 help, they may not traverse the America. In addition, I think it was very difficult to make maps because they couldn\u2019t overlook the whole ground and also hard to find the direction. Even though, they still got the first-hand information of the West America, and enriched people\u2019s knowledge of the West.","dateCreated":"1337553780","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Coocie","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Coocie","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54373496","body":" Jefferson chose Meriwether Lewis to head the expedition. Lewis was born in Ivy,Virginia. As leader of the journey he chose William Clark younger brother of George Rogers Clark to be the co-leader. Clark was born in Caroline County, Virginia. Both Lewis and Clark were in the United States Army and were both experienced frontiersman. They boated down the Ohio and up the Mississippi to the mouth of the Missouri. They spent the year there preparing for the journey.
\n
\nLewis and Clark took 40 young men,several who had military experience. The expedition was getting ready in December of 1803. They built three river boats, held rifle practice, and became skilled in ways of frontier hardships. On the boats they stored only 100 barrels of goods, a supply of guns, drugs (medicines) medical instruments, and 21 bales of goods for trade with the Indians.
\n
\nThe Lewis and Clark expedition started and ended in St. Louis, Missouri. On May 14, 1804 they started up the Missouri River on the "Corps of Discovery." Six soldiers and 10 French boatman would travel partway up the river. They had to avoid sandbars and floating trees. Trappers would raft pass them with lots of fur. They persuaded a Frenchman ,Pierre Dorion, to go north with them and to help contact the Sioux Indians. Near Sioux City, Iowa, the expedition suffered their first and last death there. Charles Floyd died of appendicitis. On down the river they past cities such as Columbia, Jefferson City, Kansas City, and my home town St. Joseph. About 5 months later they built a block house, Fort Mandan, which was near the present sight of Bismark, North Dakota. They spent the winter there. In the spring of 1805, about 15 members came back to St. Louis to report on the journey and the data.
\n
\nIn May of 1805 Lewis and Clark had reached Montana. The land was filled with animals like elk, deer, antelope, and grizzly bears as well. A boat accident almost ruined the expedition. A gust of wind came up and tipped the dugout over. The boat contained all of the papers, books, medicines, and scientific instruments. Fortunately the boat didn't sink. Sacagawea almost lost her life by saving most of the equipment. In October they reached the land of the Mandnan, in North Dakota. Soon they met their new tour guide a French fur trader. Sacagawea agreed to be a translator when they met up with Shoshone Indians. They lead the party through the Rocky Mountains on hoses. It would be a hard journey with out horses to ride on. Sacagawea gave birth to a baby boy that winter. On June 13 the men gazed on the Great Falls of the Missouri River, near present day Great Falls, Montana. By this time the men were looking forward to see the Shoshone Indians. They needed supplies, Horses and guides to lead them across the mountains.
\n
\nLewis wrote a letter to his mother about the river and how beautiful it was. The party found the Shoshone tribe on the banks of the Salmon River. The indians were frightened at first but they became friendly. The indians recognized Sacagawea and were glad to see her. Her brother, Cameahwait was rejoiced to see her. The indians traded with them supplies, horses, and guides. The expedition crossed the Rockies through the Lemhi and Lolo passes into the valley of the Clearwater River. They met the friendly Nez Perce Indians that gave the travelers food and shelter. The travelers built dugout canoes and headed west toward the Snake River. The Snake River is one of the ten largest rivers in the U.S. There is a waterfall called Shoshone Falls were the river plunges into over 212 feet.
\n
\nOn November 7, 1805 they had reached the Pacific Ocean or they thought they had. They were at the mouth of the Columbia River. Clark wrote in his diary:"Ocian in view! O! the joy. Before the winter they built Fort Clatsop on the Columbia River. In March 1806, after 4 months of bad weather they set back to St. Louis. Near the valley of the Bitterroot River they split up into two parties. Clark's party headed south to the Missouri River and Lewis' party went north across the Rocky Mountains through which is now the Lewis and Clark pass. The following August they met up again. On September 23 the entire party arrived back in St. Louis.
\n
\nThe Lewis and Clark expedition took some 7,690 miles. It took 28 months (2 years and 4 months) for the whole expedition. The Lewis and Clark journey opened up a new frontier for fur trade with the indians but also a route to the west. Lewis later became governor of Louisiana Territory.
\nAfter a long journey, they had approximately 140 maps and met many native tribes. This was the first official expedition to cross the continent to the Pacific Ocean. The returning Lewis and Clark reach the first white settlement on the Missouri.
\nThey got such an incredible achievement.","dateCreated":"1337568876","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Phi.Duong","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Phi.Duong","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54375836","body":"Viewing Lewis and Clark: Great Journey West, it can be seen that the producers of this film, National Geographic, believed that this was a momentous and beneficial American expedition.
\n
\nUnlike many other past historical interactions among American and Native Americans, the Lewis and Clark Expedition was portrayed as a nonviolent and in many ways, friendly journey West. Those that participated in the expedition, were called " The Core of Discovery" according to a History Channel Documentary.
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.history.com\/videos\/lewis--clark-expedition-charts-new-territory#lewis--clark-expedition-charts-new-territory<\/a>
\n
\nI think what provided this expedition with such a positive and proud feeling was that Lewis and Clark were not sent out to dominate the West and rid of it of Natives. Lewis and Clark were sent by Thomas Jefferson to map their expansion West. To learn about the ways of the rivers, and discovery new plants and animals. They were sent out to be explorers, not oppressors. They paved the way for Westward expansion, which ultimately led way to the Gold Rush which dramatically changed America.
\n
\nThey were looked up to as heroes, for journeying into uncharted waters and coming back with great success. To many historians, Lewis and Clark made it by great luck. If it was not for Sacajawea, or other events playing out the same way as they did, the Lewis and Clark expedition may have never occurred or turned out the same way it did, and America would have been much different than it was today.","dateCreated":"1337575223","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"lisaanguyenn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lisaanguyenn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54376962","body":"While viewing this film on Lewis and Clark there was a claim made that the entire expedition were in the hands of Native Americans. I decided to follow up on it. I found out that the Native American helped Lewis and Clark in determining river routes and basic survival. I think one of the most helpful group of Native Americans are the Nez Perce Indians. They helped Lewis and Clark find good timber for making canoes, and the captains traded goods for horses, which Lewis and Clark temporarily left in the Indians care. Also, the Nez Perce camps granted timely refuge for the expedition. We must not forget Sacagawea, who had rescued several items that had fallen out of a capsized boat that held Lewis' and Clarks' journal. She helped them translate and trade with other tribes. Also, she helped them get horses when they were in desperate need of them from her brother, the chief of the Shoshone. As you can see if it weren't for the Native Americans the expedition wouldn't have been possible.
\n
\nsources: http:\/\/www.legendsofamerica.com\/na-sacagawea.html<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/lewisandclark\/native\/nez.html<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.usgs.gov\/features\/lewisandclark\/NativeAmerican.html<\/a>","dateCreated":"1337579246","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"KATHYDUONG","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/KATHYDUONG","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54412724","body":" Everyone has already given many overviews, information, and numbers about Lewis and Clark\u2019s westward expedition, especially @Phi.Duong and @RongWang1006. Therefore, I don\u2019t have to add up any more details about this considerable journey.
\nThis particular historical presentation is aimed to inform the audiences and individuals a detailed knowledge about what happened to drive America to a better direction in order to expand its territory.
\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/lewisandclark\/inside\/saca.html<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu\/index.html<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.archives.gov\/education\/lessons\/lewis-clark\/<\/a>
\n
\n I strongly agree with @lisannguyenn \u201cExpedition was portrayed as a nonviolent and in many ways, friendly journey West.\u201d In spite of previous tension between Native Americans and new settlers, this peaceful and friendly journey does astound me in regards to its primary purpose. During the trip, they were successfully establishing the good relationship with Native American tribes. What Clark, Lewis, and the crew did and achieved dramatically and positively changed America.
\nMost significantly, Sacagawea is the core element of the expedition. Her courage and knowledge of native plants, languages, and terrain all contributed to the success of the expedition. She served as an interpreter, and was the only person on the trip who could speak Shoshone. Sacagawea also offered the party a measure of protection. In brief, without her, the likelihood of this westward expansion would have not succeeded and fulfilled.
\n
\nhttp:\/\/womenshistory.about.com\/od\/sacagawea\/a\/sacagawea.htm<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/montanakids.com\/history_and_prehistory\/lewis_and_clark\/sacagawea.htm<\/a>","dateCreated":"1337635005","smartDate":"May 21, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"yaly.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/yaly.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54519516","body":"As many people already mentioned, Lewis and Clark\u2019s great journey west paved the way for the successful formation of nowadays United State of America\u2019s territory. Not only helped with the expansion of the country, the journey contributed an enormous part to the human knowledge when they discovered many different species and Indian tribes. To be specific, as @RongWang1006 indicated, Lewis and Clark found \u201c300 species unknown to science, nearly 50 Indian tribes, the Rockies,\u201d and \u201cprepared approximately 140 maps.\u201d It is undeniable about the success of the expedition. I enjoyed watching their journey.
\nI found there was an interesting difference between the flags Lewis and Clark used during their journey. As shown when Lewis and Clark found a giant herd of buffalo, the flag hung on the boat was exactly the same as any other flags at that time, except for the circular arrangement of 13 stars. I did research online and found out that flag was called Betsy Ross flag. In June 1776 when the need for a new American flag arose, George Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross asked Betsy Ross for help. Mrs. Ross then designed and made the Betsy Ross flag. It was considered to be the first design of US flag, but not accepted by some flag historians and revisionists. We can easily find the Betsy Ross flags on the contemporary battlefield paintings by John Trumbull and Charles Wilson Peale.","dateCreated":"1337846327","smartDate":"May 24, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"phat064","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/phat064","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54554290","body":"
\nThe film emphasizes on the characters of Lewis and Clark in the American expedition to the west. As told in the film, the president Thomas Jefferson encouraged this expedition targeting to span the American territory to \u201cunexplored\u201d lands as far as where the Pacific Ocean marked the limit. Finally, the expedition took place over seventeen months, which not only meant several different struggles for the travelers but many new \u201cdiscoveries\u201d to their eyes (their White American perspective of the world) in fields such as botany, zoology, geography, and whatsoever. Afterwards, getting back home, Lewis and Clark were idolized by their country to remain in the memory of the United States, which recalls their journey as we see in this film.
\n
\n There are many interesting facts about the film and the real story to discuss on. First of all, as we may expect of a film produced to tell a prideful story of a nation, in this case the US, we encounter an adaptation of the history over nationalistic thoughts and objectives. Therefore, we see Lewis and Clark portrayed as the main characters AND heroes of the story, idolized as the history claims they were. In the film is said that the relation between these two men was almost perfect and clean, that they didn\u2019t have any conflict or discussion even when the circumstances of their journey were distressing. Just like this, the film shows elements that idealize the relationship between Clark and Lewis that may not be totally accurate given the tough characteristics of a journey as theirs. It seems that the film has the duty of showing the positive side of both men, instead of showing possible struggles when the situation seemed to be hopeless.
\n
\n Another interesting point to analyze from both the film and the original story is the role of the Natives tribes and individuals along the \u201cexpansion to the West.\u201d In the documentary, for example, there is a scene in which soldiers tell a native tribe that they come to claim \u201ctheir land.\u201d The scene emphasizes on the European Americans thought that they have the right to chase the native tribes away when they think that they own their land. However, it is relevant of this film that many of the relations established between the American explores and Natives are friendly, and respectful. Tribes of Natives would lead the Lewis and Clark and their group towards the \u201cdiscovery\u201d of new lands that are more familiar to the Natives than to them. Eventually, the Natives\u2019 benevolence would facilitate the exploration of Lewis and Clark in its most complete sense. Ironically, the scene of the group of American soldiers coming to take the land from the Natives\u2019 hands would be the reflection of the latter reality, in which we see the group of Indians once being the helpers of the expedition betrayed by the American ambition and dominance.","dateCreated":"1337928901","smartDate":"May 24, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"arrada.d","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/arrada.d","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54563766","body":"Watching Lewis and Clark's journey I had to think to myself why would they volunteer for something like this. To go all the way to the Pacific in unexplored, uncharted territory and come back with their findings?
\n
\nI know that they were excited beyond belief to have a chance at being the first in the west and that they discovered many things such as the 200 different species of animals found by Lewis and the 140 maps charted by Clark, but these men also must have known that even a single step off of their truth path might possibly lead to their end, as demonstrated by the encounter with the grizzly bear with Clark and his men. I am sure that they were fully aware of this and this possibly may have lead to that despite when they stopped to stay with the Indian tribes they discovered they always kept moving and never stopping.
\n
\nThe hardship of their journey as we all know came in the winter, as we say in the movie their food was low, there was not enough warm clothing to go around, most of them succumbed to frost bite, and as we saw they were forced to be buried in snow while sleeping in buffalo skin sleeping bags (or another variation of a sleeping bag) now I dont know about you guys but I wouldnt want to be buried in snow with nothing separating me from it but a large buffalo skin.","dateCreated":"1337960517","smartDate":"May 25, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Jbeeler0421","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Jbeeler0421","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54598522","body":"Made it all the way to the pacific alive. Vote on location of winter encampment quarters- slave and woman allowed to vote. Settled in for 4 mths. Almost 50 tribes had helped them.
\nAs mentioned by so many others before me, the expedition of Lewis and Clark was vital in the process of the Americans migrating westward. Their accomplishments of drawing up "approximately 140 maps" and documenting "over 122 species of animals and approximately 178 plants", as observed by RongWang1006, enabled the burgeoning colonist population to venture to new lands.
\nI agree with lisaannguyen's point that the documentary tended to romanticize Lewis and Clark's journey: "portrayed as a nonviolent and in many ways, friendly journey West." This is singled out by arrada.d as well when she says that "In the film is said that ... they didn't have any conflict or discussion even when the circumstances of their journey were distressing. Just like this, the film shows elements that idealize the relationship...that may not be totally accurate given the tough characteristics of a journey as theirs." The narrator in the film did mention that the relationship between these two men were "almost perfect and clean" but it also mentioned that "it was recorded that there were no significant disputes between the two friends when it came to major decisions", the operative word here being "significant." I am sure they did have conflict, but they must have been minor and trivial, not carrying much importance to be included in the official records of the journey.
\nIt also seems that Lewis and Clark were average men who were chosen for the expedition and were consequently idolized as heroes by the American layman. However, this seems suspect as it appears more believable, to me that is, that the practice of choosing the elite to be then celebrated as heroes (should they be successful) was possibly done here as well. Lewis was Jefferson's "chief aide and skilled soldier", a "studious and solitary man trained under Jefferson to observe and record science every new thing that he saw". Meanwhile, William Clark was "an expert mapmaker" and a "proven leader." I know it would be a horribly unwise decision to choose illiterate men to helm an expedition of that magnitude, but I found the documentary misleading when it chose to portray the men this way. As researched by Phi.Duong, Lewis and Clark "boated down the Ohio and up the Mississippi to the mouth of the Missouri. They spent the year there preparing for the journey." These men were the elite of their time, and reminds me of George Washington's arrival being celebrated by the people after Shay's rebellion though he seemed more of a figurehead to me because it was Knox who instigated him.
\nThe documentary also made a couple of claims that it didn't follow up on, claims which seem important in the whole framework of the expedition. For example, the standoff between the expedition group and the "most powerful" Native group who "controlled the traffic of goods", the Teton Sioux, was not properly explained. The Teton Sioux "had superior numbers to annihilate the expedition", their first real threat. Yet, the standoff was described as being resolved when "Chief Black Buffalo waved his men off." This does not seem informative enough of an incident that "could've ended (the expedition) on today's South Dakota pier." The documentary also stated that Lewis thought it was the first time the West would be explored by "civilized beings" when it had already stated at the beginning that Russia had colonized the pacific northwest and Spain, the west and parts of the South. This was personally quite confusing to me.
\nAs an afterthought, it is quite sad that the massive amounts of help and aid provided by "almost 50 tribes" the expedition met along the way was not taken into consideration during the Jacksonian era a few decades later when they were displacing the natives from their lands (ref: Trail of Tears). Not only was there the presence of Sacagawea, but also of that "old lady who (pleaded) for the lives of the strangers", not to mention the supply and imparting of knowledge to the expedition during the winter months.","dateCreated":"1338154538","smartDate":"May 27, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Natanielle","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Natanielle","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54980492","body":"This was such an incredible journey!! That 's all I can say!!
\n
\nFor a period of 2 years and 4 months and 10 days, Lewis and Clark had traveled total 8000 miles!
\n
\nMeriwether Lewis and William Clark started an amazing expedition across the Louisiana territory. They are considered as American heroes who faced a lot of dangerous situations, harsh conditions, or unexplored areas to expand the country.
\n
\nAlong the way, they had found my new species as new plants, or Indians tribes.
\n
\nI think this journey had brought America a lot of benefits. Thomas Jefferson purchased Louisiana for only $15 millions, 820000 squares miles. I reall","dateCreated":"1339568520","smartDate":"Jun 12, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vu.nguyen","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vu.nguyen","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54980896","body":"Meriwether Lewis and William Clark set out on a 8000 mile journey across America to the west coast that lasted two years and a little over four months, discovering more than 200 plants and animals and drawing around 140 maps and meeting around 72 native tribes. They endured extreme conditions, harsh terrain and areas that had never been seen by any other Europeans before. The story of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark\u2019s expedition is extremely well known, but I really liked this version because it made Sacagawea seem like the heroin of the whole expedition. Sacagawea help lead the path and communicate with other tribes for the group. She really kept the entire expedition alive and I really enjoyed how they emphasized that in the film.","dateCreated":"1339572056","smartDate":"Jun 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"ScarletL","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ScarletL","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":3}]},{"id":"54020442","dateCreated":"1336695081","smartDate":"May 10, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"deandrapeterson","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/deandrapeterson","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/hist136.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/54020442"},"dateDigested":1532092615,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Reading Week 5","description":"Did anyone else find St Clare and his brother, Alfred's, conversation interesting? St Clare seems to hold a more abolitionist point of view (although he is a slave owner) and Alfred clearly the opposite. Their conversation on Haiti pointed that out:
\n"O, come, Augustine! as if we hadn't had enough of that abominable, contemptible Hayti! The Haytiens were not Anglo Saxons; if they had been there would have been another story. The Anglo Saxon
\nis the dominant race of the world, and is to be so." (331)
\nAlfred has a very defined condescending view of blacks (as does Marie and somewhat Ophelia) while Augustine treats them more humanely. When Alfred tells St Clare he should do something like \u201celevate his own slaves\u201d (332) St Clare retorts that because of society, this wouldn't get the slaves anywhere.
\n
\nIn this situation, what type of person does St Clare fit in to being? He isn't 100 percent abolitionist, but he's not for slavery either. He doesn't hold a complete disdain for slavery, yet if it would make a difference to him, he'd be against it.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"54106200","body":"I forgot to add the think so here.
\nhttp:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/aia\/part4\/4p2956.html<\/a>","dateCreated":"1336966143","smartDate":"May 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"Hoang.Ha","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Hoang.Ha","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54107752","body":"@Dennis.Levin: Yes. I used to think of that also. If they were set free, then there might be situations such as being caught by other slave-catchers then being sold to slave-owners and so forth.
\nHowever, if that was the case, then why did slaves like Uncle Tom wanted to be free so bad? Did he not fear that he might be caught and sold to a horrible slave-owner? And also, what about the documents their slave-owner signed, showing that they were no longer slaves? Did they mean nothing?","dateCreated":"1336970936","smartDate":"May 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54108748","body":"@THU_NGOC-MINH_LE Those are all questions I wonder too. Did the slaves not fear of getting caught and sold to another slave owner? I feel like they don't really think about what could possibly happen to them IF they were freed and that the idea of being freed gets the best of them, so they don't really think about the negatives.","dateCreated":"1336975106","smartDate":"May 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"AlexisTep","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/AlexisTep","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1257553849\/AlexisTep-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54108782","body":"In chapter 21, the conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Shelby about whether they should buy Uncle Tom and set him free again showed the superiority of men over women. Women\u2019s position in the past was much lower than that nowadays. Even though Mr. Shelby did not agree with selling their estates (farms), she found another way to help the slaves by sacrifice herself (teaching).
\nIn fact, women were the one who contributed a lot to anti-slavery movement
\nhttp:\/\/cghs.dadeschools.net\/slavery\/anti-slavery_movement\/women.htm<\/a>
\nAlso, before the 18th century, very few white men question the morality of slavery and the Quakers were among these few.
\nThis really makes me question:
\n- Is slavery, in fact, whether it is right or wrong, just an idea of people? And education, background and influences from people around do have a big impact on one\u2019s perspective for slavery. An example of this is Eva. Supposed she lived in a family that both her parents (Marie and Augustine) held the idea that slavery was right, could she have the empathy for her servants? Another example is Eva\u2019s cousin, Henrique. Opposite with St. Clare, his brother, Alfred did not agree with anti-slavery idea. Consequently, his son, Henrique also did not treat slaves the way Eva did.
\nI searched the sites about the Quakers and it turned out that their beliefs supported anti-slavery movement.
\n\u201cThus, we believe that every human life is sacred and should be treated with equal respect and dignity, and that all conflicts should be settled in a peaceful manner. Quakers believe that cooperation rather than competition should be the dominant theme in human interactions.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/www.fsow.org\/quaker-identity\/<\/a>
\nSo I think they are another example of how those elements impact the way one can behave.
\nAnd people should do things that make EVERYONE\u2019S LIFE happy, not just their own.
\nOnce people (in the past) chose to benefits themselves first rather than others, they would fall into situation like supporting slavery system.","dateCreated":"1336975278","smartDate":"May 13, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1338202252\/THU_NGOC-MINH_LE-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54148562","body":"I found some mentions in the conversations between St. Claire and Ophelia comparing slave masters to English capitalists: slavery to wage slavery. I think there is much to say about how people even in the industrialized North were trying to come to terms with the new industrialized order. David Graeber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" explores very deeply the links between debt, slavery, and this thing called "The Market."","dateCreated":"1337052383","smartDate":"May 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"princeofhappiness","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/princeofhappiness","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54233340","body":"while I read chapter 17-21, I realized that people treated slaves like some products and they sell them and get back hem like there is no salves right as human being, also people who are masters they think about how they have to teach " traning" and it is kind of system of making good slaves. I DO NOT wat to say that the way people treat slaves was like they are treating them an animal. I just suspect that how slaves can find the happiness at that time, and where is the tright for them?","dateCreated":"1337219383","smartDate":"May 16, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"hyelim0907","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/hyelim0907","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54249432","body":"over reading chapte 17-21, I can tell that Eliza is religious person and she tried to encourage George to believe in God because his struggling in God. She wants George believe that God always stay in their side for making him feeling better . However, Mrs. Clare is very different from Eliza while she told everyone that believe in God isn't right, God just works for Bible and not in this real life. Slavery is just an individual's sense of worth. however, Pruce is making people shock by telling how a master can treat his slave. Throughout these chapters, the superiority and influence of women is a theme of it.","dateCreated":"1337265359","smartDate":"May 17, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"vanle3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/vanle3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54327446","body":"Yet another thing I've found that makes an interesting link between this book and what we've been covering this week is in chapter 20, p. 286, last paragraph, St. Claire says "...My mother used to tell me of a millennium that was coming, when Christ would reign, and all men should be free and happy."
\n
\nMaking that connection between Millenialism and "...all men should be free and happy..." makes me think that one powerful motivation for the Evangelical movement in the North being the basis for the Abolitionist movement has me thinking that their work towards abolishing slavery would bring the U.S. closer to being the Kingdom of God.","dateCreated":"1337398371","smartDate":"May 18, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"princeofhappiness","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/princeofhappiness","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54375018","body":"I as well found Augustine and Alfred's conversation to be quite intriguing;
\nAlfred says "The Haytiens were not Anglo Saxons; If they had been, there would have been another story. The Anglo Saxon is the dominant race of the world, and is to be so."\u00a0
\nSo I started reading about the Revolution in Haiti (1791), and I found that French white elites actually persuaded mulattos (half black-white) to fight with them against black slaves.\u00a0Reading that, the French elites took advantage of mulattos in that they are half black-white and are looking to belong somewhere, with one race.\u00a0
\nI also find it quite funny that Alfred is not only against African Americans, but he is also slighting his fellow white men, i.e. Frenchmen. Implying that they are weak because they are not of Anglo Saxon descent.","dateCreated":"1337572769","smartDate":"May 20, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"A.Klem","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/A.Klem","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"54391480","body":"after reading the chapter 17-21, I found out two view points that have stroke me a lot: women's position and a value of slaves at the time.
\nI noticed that slaves at the time were just a products that elites could do everything to them. Even if slaves'masters released them, they wouldn't have chances to get their normal lives back. They would be captured again and again because that how society was during that time.They didn't have stands in society ( which belonged to people who was considered in an elite class), where they can bring their voices up. ( we can see this points through the conversation between St Clare, his brother and Alfred's)
\nI agree with THU_MINH_NGOC_LE about the view point, which is women's position was lower than man at the past but they have also contributed a lot in emancipation of all slaves.Their voices were lower than men but they did other things to help slave. By the way, we have talked about the affect nurture and nature on people's thoughts before So i do think that when each people is a different individual but during the time when we are growing up, family and people around you can affect your thoughts a lot in many aspects of life. This is true in a case of Alfred and his son or Eve.","dateCreated":"1337609922","smartDate":"May 21, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"trangplvo","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/trangplvo","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55002976","body":"Women's position in society was low and below men. This is evident in the book. Though women's voices were below men, they were still heard and had a great influence.
\nhttp:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/history\/british\/abolition\/abolition_women_article_01.shtml<\/a>","dateCreated":"1339666447","smartDate":"Jun 14, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"SimoneMcCausland","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/SimoneMcCausland","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"55043092","body":"@vanle3 Slaves are valued impressively. As you may know, most owners don\u2019t have any respect toward any of them, such as the southern ones because they were always sought out to be poor and dirtier than the northern. It is highly unlikely to see slaves getting loved, but Eva gracefully shows it. She sees that having the more slaves, the more love she can give. In chapter 16, according to Eva, slaves are no different than whites.","dateCreated":"1339959377","smartDate":"Jun 17, 2012","userCreated":{"username":"jessicaoi","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jessicaoi","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":9}]}],"more":true},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}