Bartleby.com is a great repository of online texts, and has the short story, “The Man Without A Country” here: http://www.bartleby.com/310/6/1.html

Who was the main character inspired by? And look, Aaron Burr gets a shout-out, too!

Questions chapter 21

We will grade the first half on Monday, and terms check on Tuesday as we have done the last three chapters…

1. Why was Richmond significant? How far was it from Washington? Why is this significant in choosing the site of the first major battle?

2. What were the consequences of the 1^st Battle of Bull Run (Manassas)? How did Gen Jackson distinguish himself? What happened at the second battle there?

3. What was the name of the main Union force in the eastern theatre? Who was its commander, and what were his flaws? What was he supposed to do after taking command (make sure you name the campaign as well as explain it)?

4. How did early Confederate strategy affect McClellan? What was the price/consequences to each side?

5. What is total war? How was it to be accomplished?

6. Why was the blockade of the Confederacy implemented so slowly? What was the policy of “ultimate destination?”  What role did the Virginia and the Monitor play, and what happened to them?

7. By the time after the Battle of Antietam, how many times had the Union army changed commanders? What was the short and long-term outcome of the battle? How does the “character of the war change” after this battle?

8. What was the point of the Emancipation Proclamation, and why was it carefully worded? (See blog for the text of the Proclamation) What was the public response and the perceived significance?

9. What new recruiting practice was adopted by the Union army after the Emancipation Proclamation? What difference did this make long-term? How did the South respond to the use of blacks in either army? What did “Remember Fort Pillow!” mean (similar to the movie Glory….)?

10. How did the presence of so many slaves in the South affect the Southern war effort?

11. What were the consequences of giving command to A. E. Burnside? To Hooker? Describe the outcome of the battles with which each was associated.

12. What did Lee and Jefferson Davis hope to achieve in attacking Northern soil after Chancellorsville? Describe the battle that took place and why it contained the “high tide of the Confederacy.”

13. List all of the Union commanders in order up to Grant. How and where did he initially distinguish himself, both positively and negatively? What was his nickname?

14. How and where did the Union Army and the Union Navy work together in the Western theatre of the war? What was the practical effect?

15. Why was July 3-4, 1863 such an important day for the overall outcome of the war?

16. How did Grant and Sherman work together in the Eastern theatre? What tactics were utilized in “Shermanizing” the South as he went through Georgia?

17. What political challenges did Lincoln face during the war? How did Lincoln attempt to appeal to the broadest number of voters possible in 1864? Be specific and complete in your answer.

18. Why did the Democratic party struggle during the war? Describe the various factions. Who was Clement Vallandingham? Who was Philip Nolan? (see blog for more info). Who did they eventually choose as their candidate to run against Lincoln in 1864?

19. What does “Vote as you shot” imply? How did military events influence the election of 1864? What was the “bayonet vote?”

20. Why was the warfare in 1864 and 1865 referred to as “meat-grinder warfare?” How does the battle at Cold Harbor illustrate this term? How do Lee’s casualty rates compare to Grant’s?

21. How does the war end? Does Grant live up to his original nickname at Appomattox?

22. Why was Lincoln assassinated five days after Lee’s surrender, and how was this actually a “calamity for the South?” What was the “crucifixion thesis” of historians?

23. What issues were settled by the Civil War as “the supreme test of American democracy?”

Five days after the “victory” at Antietam, Lincoln changed the purpose of the Civil War with his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. With these few words, Lincoln changed the reason for fighting from the legalistic “preservation of the Union” to the moral and ethical imperative of “freedom and emancipation.” Frankly, many in Congress felt that Lincoln should have definitively rejected slavery much sooner, and there was the danger that Congress would act on this impulse whether Lincoln agreed or not.

As you read, consider the following questions:
1. What would have happened to slaves living in areas NOT in rebellion against the government, i.e. the Border States like Missouri, under the terms of this proclamation?
2. Why does Lincoln specifically list the areas to which this proclamation applied? Why are the areas of emancipation so tightly defined? Why were some counties (counties are called “parishes” in Louisiana) excluded?
3. Lincoln first wrote a draft of the proclamation in July of 1862. Why didn’t he issue it then? (Think– what was going on in the war at the time?)

The Emancipation Proclamation
Abraham Lincoln, September 22, 1862

By the President of the United States of America: A PROCLAMATION

Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

“That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States.”
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for supressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Link for further information:
Freedom at Antietam
The Antietam Battlefield

If you want to review for the midterm, be there.

Organizations: New England Confederation; Dominion of New England; committees of correspondence; The Association; 1/2 Continental Congress; House of Burgesses; House of Representatives; Senate; Albany Congress; Stamp Act Congress; Whig party; Federalists/Blue Light; Democratic/Republican parties; third parties/dark horse/favorite sons; Old Guard/Young Guard; New England Emigrant Aid Society

Battles/Events: XYZ Affair; Citizen genet Affair; Shays’ Rebellion; French and Indian War; Whiskey Rebellion; Bacon’s Rebellion; Battles of Saratoga/Yorktown; slave rebellions; Undeclared War w/France; Indian wars/massacres; Lewis and Clark; mosquito fleet/pirates of Tripoli; Ostend Manifesto; Mexican War; filibusters; Battle of Horseshoe Bend; War of 1812; Battle of New Orleans; Kansas-Nebraska Act; Dred Scott decision

Education/Culture/Religion: 1/2 Great Awakening; New Light Colleges; predestination; reform movements; Columbian Exchange; assimilation; “the elect”/”visible saints”; City on a Hill; Halfway Covenant; importance of labor; Log College/Princeton; Harvard College; Salem Witch Trials

Important Ideas/concepts/trends: Calvinism; Mercantilism; Protestant Work Ethic; Enlightenment; republicanism; democracy; Jacksonian Democracy; market revolution; states’ rights/federalism; Federalism/Antifederalism; loose/strict construction; manufacturing farming; Jeffersonain ideal- Empire for Liberty; Manifest Destiny; “city on a hill”– exceptionalism; sectionalism/nationalism; territorial expansion/slavery; Founding of  jamestown, Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania; Hamilton’s financial plans; weakness/strngth of Articles of Confederation; Constitutional Convention; development of parties/factions; effects of 3/5 Compromise (long and short-term); encomienda/Black Legend; slavery/indentured servitude/ rights of man; Hamilton/Jefferson struggle; Jeffersonian Democracy/Jacksonian Democracy; tensions in antebellum period; compromises 1820/1850/Crittenden; compact theory/contract theory; Oregon/Texas expansion; relations with Britan; Monroe Doctrine

PART 1!!

Know the definitions or explanations and the SIGNIFICANCE!!!

Documents covered: Declaration of Independence; Manifest Destiny documents; apologies and accounts of slavery; Washington’s Farewell Address; Seventh of March speech; Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments; Common Sense; Uncle Tom’s Cabin; A Model of Christian Charity

Important People: Nathaniel Bacon; Jonathan Edwards; Ben Franklin; Alexander Hamilton; Thomas Jefferson; Anne Hutchinson; Patrick Henry; James Madison; John Marshall; Metacom; Mississippian culture; Thomas Paine; Pilgrims/Separatists; Puritans; Daniel Shays; Tecumseh; George Washington; Roger Williams; John Peter Zenger; indentured servants; Andrew Jackson; Henry Clay; John Calhoun; William Lloyd Garrison; abolitionists; Aaron Burr; Steven Douglas; Abraham Lincoln; transcendentalists; George Fitzhugh; Daniel Webster; Susan B. Anthony; Elizabeth Blackwell; Dorothea Dix; Ann Lee; Shakers; Mormons; Federalists; Anti-federalists; Whigs, Know Nothings; Free Soilers; Republicans; James K. Polk; Roger Taney

Important Legal Terms/Treaties: Treaty of Tordesillas;Bill of Rights; Maryland Act of Toleration; Stamp Act (and reaction to it); Treaty of 1778; Great Compromise; Proclamation of 1763; 3/5 Compromise (and long-term impact); Quebec Act; Treaty of Paris of 1783; Tea Act; Declaratory Act; Electoral College system; treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo; checks and balances; judicial review; Northwest Ordinance/ Land Ordinance of 1785; Fundamental Orders; slave codes; Embargo Act; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions; Alien and Sedition Acts; Louisiana Purchase; Intolerable Acts; Mayflower Compact; full faith and credit clause; writ of habeas corpus; elastic/”necessary and proper” clause; Marbury v. Madison; Dred Scott decision and significance; South Carolina exposition; nullification; compact theory/contract theory; states’ rights; salutary neglect;

See the Upcoming Deadlines page for where to get a map if you’ve lost yours and to get the instructions on what to do.

Research: why was Lincoln making this speech? What was he intending to do?

June 16, 1858

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:



If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

 



Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

 



Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

 



The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained.

 



But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

 



This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” other-wise called “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows:




It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

 



Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “squatter sovereignty” and “sacred right of self-government.” “But,” said opposition members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.



While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a Negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the district of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The Negro’s name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”



The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly 400,000 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument.



The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.



The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to endorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!



At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind — the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.



Under the Dred Scott decision, “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make their own constitution — upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.



The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas’ “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:



First, that no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any state in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the Negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”



Second, that, “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.



Third, that whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the Negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois or in any other free state.


Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.



It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough, now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.



Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough, now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a senator’s individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough, now, the speaking out then would have damaged the “perfectly free” argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the endorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others?



We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

Get 1-13 done by Monday, and be thorough. We will follow the same format as last week (Monday go over questions, Tuesday have terms check).

Chapter 20 questions

1. What happened to most of the federal property in seceding states? What were the exceptions, and why were the exception important?

2. Describe the dilemma Lincoln faced regarding Ft. Sumter. How did the events at Ft. Sumter become symbolic to both the North and South?

3. What is significant about the fact that Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 militiamen?

4. What were the Border states, and why did they not join the Confederacy?

5. Why was it vital that the North keep these areas in the Union? How did this need influence strategy and goals?

6. What happened in Missouri during the war? What about southern Illinois to southern Ohio? In modern Oklahoma?

7. Create a chart about the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing sides?

8. Why was cotton overestimated by Southerners as a way to gain influence and support overseas?

9. What role did Britain play in the Civil War? Consider especially the blockade of the South by the Union navy (remember the Alabama and the Laird Rams)

10. What role did Canada play during the fighting?

11. Who was Maximilian?

12. Describe Lincoln’s record on civil liberties during the war (make sure you review the entire chapter)?

13. What is conscription and why was (is) it controversial? What were ways to evade conscription, and how and why did some protest this method of raising troops? What were the differences between conscription in the North versus in the South?

14. Why were Irish Americans likely to resent being drafted, from an economic standpoint (this is review of material we have discussed in class)?

15. How did the Union attempt to raise revenue to pay for the war? List and explain the various methods used, and their efficacy.

16. What was the intent of the National Banking System?

17. Why did the South have more trouble financing the war? What was the economic impact on the South?

18. Why did the North actually prosper during the war?

19. What corrupt practices occurred during the war, and why were they possible?

20. How did women contribute to the war effort on both sides?

… for your test tomorrow!

 

Just sayin’!