Blog 4 History

I am skimming through a very interesting read for my Graduate Class on the United States Constitution by Pulitzer Prize author and historian Jack N. Rakove titled,Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture), New York: Bedford Books, 1998.

I want to quote a passage for you:

After 1776, however, Americans began to think about constitutions in an entirely different sense. In their new view, a constitution was a document adopted at a known moment of historical time and an expression of supreme law that would henceforth regulate what government could and could not do. (p. 3)

I have posted a few times and in a very general sense about some of the current issues and though they are “current” events they are nonetheless historic. From the election of our first African-American President, to the current Supreme Court Judge nominee, history is happening at what seems to be breathtaking speed.

Some are arguing that our government is transforming not only the economic structure but the constitutional structure of our country. I cannot say for sure where I stand at this moment.

What I can say is that President Obama campaigned as a centrist who wanted to “change” America and do so for the best. Some have argued that there has been no change. From the War in Iraq to the War on Terror, spending, ect., little has changed and campaign promises unfulfilled.  It seems Obama is an inflated version of Bush.

I don’t want to comment at this time.

Back to my point. Is looking backward to solve the issues of the current time or the future a good idea? Can the Founders really teach us anything about today and would they even want us to try? No one knows for sure.

Perhaps we should not “look back” but “back track” and see how we got here, and is the here and now really the intended or needed destination?

What I mean, well, consider this: We, the United States, have indeed been a “Progressive” nation, but not just the progressive kind that the current “Progressives” might define. Starting with the Magna Carta of 1215 has American political tradition been evolving (in its English roots at first) in a trajectory that is decidedly in favor of Limited Government? Look at the case history (Yes, Government 101, but think about it):

1215 – Magna Carta -first written instrument to limit the power of government (Monach)

1517 – Protestant Reformation – Martin Luther, nation state power, religion

1689 – Declaration of Rights – after the Glorious Revolution, limited Constitution Monarchy for England

1776 – American Revolution – No taxation without representation, challenges authority of Parliament and Monarchy

1787 – Constitutional Convention – Established a stronger central government but one that was to be “limited” in its power

Big leaps and bounds in these few references.But the trail it leaves is clear. The evolution of limited government is there, but since then what has happened? That will be for a later post.

Here’s an interesting article by someone who is/was an Obama supporter: Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign.

I have only read a few pieces by Mr. Rall, but he was obviously in my mind a far left thinker. Interesting.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading concerning early American history, specifically the Colonial and Revolutionary periods as I have already started the process of game planning my lessons and handouts, ect. for AP U.S. History.  Here’s the list of books I am reading:

Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1991.

—-, The American Revolution: A History (Modern Library Chronicles). Modern Library Chronicles, 2002.

—-, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different. Penguin Paperback, 2006.

Edmund S. Morgan,The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89 (The Chicago History of American Civilization). Third Edition. University of Chicago Press, 1992.

—-, American Slavery, American Freedom. New York: Norton, 1975.

David Northrup, The Atlantic Slave Trade (Problems in World History). Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.

Joseph J. Ellis, American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic. New York: Knopf, 2007.

John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the American Revolution. University of Oxford Press, 2000.

Carol Berkin, A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Harcourt,  2002.

Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997.

God, there are more but I will stop before I lose my train of thought! I have left out the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, and tons more that I have on my reading shelf.  Anyway, I am trying to immerse myself in as much good scholarship that I can. I am sure there is plenty else I could be looking at, but there it is.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about about the debates concerning the Founders and the Constitution. With the current mood of some parts of the nation and now with the new Supreme Court Justice nomination, I found myself contemplating where and who we should be taking our cues from? The Federalists or Anti-Federalists?  At one moment it seems clear that it is Jefferson and the Anti-Nationalists, but then in another moment it is Hamilton and Madison and the Nationalists (Federalists).

I found something that Gordon S. Wood wrote in his The Radicalism of the American Revolution, in which he argues that though the revolution was not as bloody and radical compared with say the French Revolution, it was still radical in the nature of the post-Revolution society it created.  I think he makes a strong argument that the aftermath of the revolution was radical in how it reordered American society, especially in removing paternalism and primogeniture, among other aspects. I am greatly simplifying it here.

But my point is that Wood of course discusses how Americans, generally, viewed government, and I quote:

“Few if any if the common people regarded government as a means by which economic and social power might be redistributed or the problems of their lives resolved.” (p. 87)

That took me back a bit. Though I know that Progressive historians will challenge this comment.

I think if we look at the writings of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, we will see that both feared a large uncontrollable government; one more so than the other. After all, it is a fact that the Constitution was created first and foremost to limit government by establishing what it could and could not do.

More later…

C

Posted over at my other site: SoldierStudies.org:

Fitz-John Porter, Scapegoat of Second Manassas: The Rise, Fall and Rise of the General Accused of Disobedience

The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History

A Wisconsin Yankee in Confederate Bayou Country

Give thanks to all those who fought and died for our country. It’s a great time to join with friends and family ,and have a good time. Maybe take a moment and remember all those who provided for your ability to have today and the freedoms that come with being an American.

I’m bored to death. Last week of school here in Colorado. We have our finals on Thursday, teacher workday with grades due Friday, and then it is off for the summer.  You’re probably asking why I would be bored, it’s the last days of school!? Well, I had 3 U.S. Government classes and 1 History class. Our Government classes are “Senior” level classes and the Seniors graduated last Tuesday. Soooo, I’ve been doing a lot of nothing. That’s not true, I have been working on A.P. U.S. History for next year (already lesson planning). I have two papers due this Sunday in my Graduate school work, so I have been busy in a different way.

Seeing that this Fall will be my first venture into A.P. land I have been doing some research looking for other A.P. teachers out there and came across a nice post on the USHistoryBlog. In this post, blogger Aaron Eyler asks “What Should History Teachers Teach?” He poses some interesting questions and has some very thoughtful responses. Eyler writes, that because of standards where we have to cover so much that teaching becomes an issues as we have so much to cover. He said, “This only becomes more difficult in classes such as AP History where students are responsible for taking a test in May based on 500 years of history.”

Out here in Colorado we have what are called “Essentials” for each general class (not A.P.) and as a teacher you HAVE to cover that material. We cover U.S. history from the American Revolution to the 1990s and today, if we can. It’s a fast and furious pace and it ultimately leaves 90% of the classroom completely dazed and confused and they leave with less interest in history than when they entered… if you can imagine that!

Anyway, with A.P. I will have to get through it all by May as that A.P. test will be there looming.

Perhaps those Tea Bag attendees were not a bunch of redneck racists, but actually were just concerned over what our government is becoming and that more government is maybe not the answer.  A government that started to get fat under Bush and the Republicans, and is now getting obese under the Democrats.  So this story below was just too much to pass up and not post, and is a perfect example:

“Dead People Get Stimulus Checks” and not a couple, but THOUSANDS adding up to “millions” of dollars. Well, at least even the dead folks get some cold cash.

Now we’re talking a national health care program for tens of millions of people. I have one question, with the current budget (both a Democrat and Republican creation), how on earth do we pay for health coverage for millions of people WITHOUT raising taxes, and not just on the evil rich people, but everyone? Remember back when everyone was up in arms over the billions (chump change today) being spent in Iraq? I was one of them.

I guess we can put our heads in the sand and just assume the government will take care of it and knows what it’s doing… somehow I am not filled with a lot of confidence on that.

Call me crazy.

Now, some interesting questions about our founding and the principles of limited government, which, were very important to both Federalists and Non-Federalists. Yes, the Nationalists wanted a strong central government and an executive branch (yes, an oversimplification).  But the Constitution was intended to “limit” the government. It stated what it could do and only what it could do. And of course, the Non-Federalists were very concerned about what a strong central government and a too powerful executive branch could become.

I do think it is unfortunate that many Tea Bag folks seem to talk about the Founders and the Federalist, yet they should be reading the Anti-Federalist’s papers instead.

Here’s an interesting Question, would today’s Republicans be the Anti-Federalists and the Democrats Federalists? After all, Jefferson was a Anti-Federalist and Hamilton a Federalists. If they were alive today, I would think Jefferson a Democrat and Hamilton for sure a Republican…right? Or wrong?

More on this later.

Last month members of the University of Alabama’s Kappa Alpha Order participated in a tradition that has produced some controversy. The students dressed in Confederate military uniforms and accompanied by dates dressed in traditional dresses, and attended an Old South event in Shreveport, La. The fraternity traces its roots to the Civil War and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

According to one person, “…they were being insensitive. I don’t think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing.” According to the article, students and other community members were offended by the sight of “fraternity members in rebel uniforms and white women from another sorority in hoop skirts.”

In respone, Larry Wiese, executive director of the Kappa Alpha Order issued a statement: “Old South celebration, including the parade, has been a Kappa Alpha tradition at Alabama for many years but we are sensitive to the concerns of students, faculty and the community.”

First, lets just set aside the whole Freedom of Expression rights.Therefore, it seems to me there are two ways to view this: 1) the motives of these individuals is pure racism and therefore should be stopped; 2) the motives of these students is to honor history and tradition, and whether we like it or not, the Old South did indeed exist and to disallow such events is to ignore an important aspect of history; albeit a regretable part. Therefore they are simply “reenactors.”

The photo above shows the “reenactors” on their way to the dinner or dance, whatever. I don’t know what side I agree with most.

I can see this issue both ways. A strong argument would be that: would we allow Germans to dress up like Nazi’s and celebrate National Socialism? Obviously not. So does that apply here? You could make a case obviously.

But I think there are other issues as well. I think this would be agreat debate subject in the classroom.

While doing some research concerning a paper for my American Revolution graduate class I stumbled on this article “Karl Marx and the American Civil War”, by Gerald Runkle in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jan., 1964). Runkle stated in his article that his goal(s) were:

“…to discuss Marx’s views on the American Civil War. What did he think was taking place on this side of the Atlantic? Where were his sympathies? What was the theoretical significance of the War? How accurate was Marx historically? How consistent was he ideologically?”

Marx was of course alive during the Civil War and though he never visited America, he wrote several articles for New York Daily Tribune. He also wrote over 30 articles for The Vienna Presse. I also did some searching and found some of Marx’s writing on the Civil War and it’s interesting that he was able to see the causes of the Civil War far differently than did the British and other Europeans.

Here’s an article he wrote for The Vienna Presse in October of 1861, and in it he writes that the London Press has incorrectly defined the “war between the North and South [as] a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty…The question of slavery, however, as The Saturday Review categorically declares among other things, has absolutely nothing to do with this war. ”

Marx’s class struggle ideology clearly aided him in seeing the struggle over slavery and especially the situation dealing with slavery as a cause of the Civil War, he writes:

“…the number of actual slaveholders in the South of the Union does not amount to more than three hundred thousand, a narrow oligarchy that is confronted with many millions of so-called poor whites, whose numbers have been constantly growing through concentration of landed property and whose condition is only to be compared with that of the Roman plebeians in the period of Rome’s extreme decline.”

After reviewing the trail of events leading to the Civil War, Marx comes to one conclusion:

“The whole movement was and is based, as one sees, on the slave question. Not in the sense of whether the slaves within the existing slave states should be emancipated outright or not, but whether the twenty million free men of the North should submit any longer to an oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders; whether the vast Territories of the republic should be nurseries for free states or for slavery…”

That Marx could see the Civil War so clearly at the time when so many others could not is very interesting, but perhaps should not be, especially when considering his political and social beliefs. I find his ideas interesting, but not appealing. Though in this instance they helped him see something that not a lot of people did see in 1861.

There has to be a way for me to incorporate some of this into my AP U.S. History class this coming Fall. I’ll probably use Marx’s article and then find something to compare it with.

It’s an interesting question and one I would never have considered until I read Thomas J. Fleming’s 1964 article “The Enigma of General Howe,” in American Heritage magazine.

Fleming’s argument, essentially, is that Sir William Howe was not incompetent, but instead intentionally held back at crucial moments — more than once obviously — and allowed Washington time to rebound or react when Howe could have moved in for the kill. I must say Fleming’s argument is convincing. Here’s the gist of it:

The evidence starts with the Howe family who, according to Fleming, “were Whigs, members of an opposition to George III’s harsh colonial policy.” They were already sympathetic to the Patriot’s cause and according to what I read, Fleming is correct.

Next, after the Battle of Bunker Hill which was Howe’s first fight he noted that during the bloodletting, where countryman fought countryman,  he witnessed “…a moment I never felt before.” Though he never described that moment as far as we know, Fleming makes a solid argument that it was not about facing possible defeat or death, Howe had experienced those before. It might have been the carnage he witnessed and the emotions he felt witnessing the events, and all because of the King.

Looking at the evidence this point of view places the events in a different light for me. For example, The Battle of Long Island started so brilliantly for Howe. He schooled Washington, outflanked him, and nearly routed the hapless Patriots chasing them all the way to Brooklyn Heights. Yet with the ultimate prize within Howe’s grasps he suddenly loses his nerve? Hardly, according to Fleming. Howe did not want to crush them. He sympathized with them. He hoped for peace.

Time and again, as Fleming discussed in his article, Howe has moments of brilliance and then suddenly seems incompetent? Not true.  For years I was always taught that Howe was just incompetent. Yet after reading this fine piece, I have a reasonable doubt.