Nathan Barber Santa Margarita Catholic hs
Download 195.89 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Salient Points
- Substantive Assessment
Conclusion: I found John E. Aliyetti’s account of the Battle of New Market Heights to be interesting and extremely factual, the article definitely kept my interest (which I found impressive as it is sometimes hard to interest readers in the tactics of the military if one is not inclined towards the military) through particularly gory details (for example, when Corporal James seized the national colours even though he only had one arm left, and continued to lead the regiment forward), the opinion and tactics of General Butler and the interesting history of the Medal of Honour. Concerning the Medal of Honour, I was amazed that the medal had to be re-introduced, and at such a late stage in America’s history (1862), I would have thought that medals of honour would have been used by the military before then (especially because I have found America to be inclined to reward effort/good actions above and beyond any other culture I have experienced). I was horrified to learn that General Butler deliberately led the coloured troops into a dangerous mission, and knowingly put them at risk on a task which had little value. When I had finished reading the article, I actually found I entirely disagreed with John E Aliyetti, I did not think the Battle of New Market Heights proved blacks ability to combat to the whites. It certainly proved their bravery and courage to me; however I was not convinced that the battle had any effects on white American’s opinion of Blacks ability to combat. I believe this for many reasons, for one thing the very man who was supposed to be an abolitionist, a proponent of black men in the army- deliberately sent them into danger, this speaks louder than words that he was not convinced of their bravery, as he would not have needed to see them perform acts of bravery/die to convince him of their ability. I actually believe Butler was not so pure as Aliyetti portrays him, I believe Butler was racist, not only because he deliberately placed coloured troops in the line of fire to judge their reaction, he also only had white men serve as the generals and colonels, not one black man was above the rack of soldier, yet every ingle soldier was black. The hypocrisy of America; and its facade of idealistic values- is again revealed to be wearing thin. Also, this battle has been buried in the history of the nation; it is not a famous battle which most people can recall and remember the significance, thus the white people of the time period could not have been particularly impressed by it. Another point- the white people were not impressed/convinced of the coloured soldiers ability to battle because they were not even permitted too wear their medals of recognition on their uniform. I was horrified at the end of the article, and I did some research on the topic of blacks in the Union army. Apparently Lincoln only allowed blacks in the army because the number of white volunteers was declining, and they needed more troops, and at the beginning of the war blacks were turned away because they were not permitted to have guns in a previous law/act. By the end of the war, 40,000 black Americans had died, they had died for a country which had enslaved them, brutalized them, and had hesitated upon allowing them to join the war. I was appalled at the situation, and how blind white people can be. On top of this, at the end of the battle, there was no decisive victory. The confederate lines may have fallen back a little, and one fort may have been captured, but it did not cause any drastic changes. It took another six months for the area to fall, and that was only because the entire confederate army has surrendered. I believe the only real thing which was accomplished was the deaths of hundreds of innocent black Americans, desperately trying to prove themselves worthy of belonging to a country which refused to accept them, and still has difficulty today. Suki Ferris Précis # 12 APUSH
Mr. Bosley, Pd. 6 Henry Grady and the New South By: Henry Grady Thesis: The author of Henry Grady and the New South asserts that the term “New South” is actually inaccurate, Southern business leaders and journalists, such as Henry Grady and Richard Edmond, wanted to promote the idea that the south was moving toward industrialization, and had improved race relations. The author of the article finds them faulty on both, as industrialization only actually affect a mere 15% of the South’s population, (barely began building cotton mills, iron works). Also, race relations had actually worsened, due to the enactment of segregation laws, and Jim Crow laws (literacy test, property requirement), which blatantly disenfranchised blacks. Thus, there was no New South by 1900- not yet. Salient Points: By 1860’s Southerners wanted a diversified economy, change from farm to factory, promoted industrialization Southern leaders eager to rejoin Union, gain economic strength Henry Grady- editor of Atlanta Constitution- created myth of “New South” Grady wanted to change stereotype that South was full of plantations, sleepy towns, magnolia flowers Instead- promoted image south was lively, ready for investment and prosperous times Grady was invited to speak in front of the New England Society 1866, prestigious NE organization Audience of talented businessmen, Politian’s- even Sherman who had burned Atlanta to the ground in his march to the Sea Grady’s three main points- US was a united country, south’s economy was moving forward into industrialization, blacks had become a part of the “New South” Richard Edmonds- editor and then owned important agricultural journal Edmonds wanted to promote capital investment in south (wanted tax exemptions for industries in south), and expanded commercial fairs where machinery was displayed Edmonds opposed unions, did not believe blacks should work machinery in industrial work Edmonds respected in North, on board of many banks, owned a lot of land, businessman disguises as a southern gentlemen Immediately after war south turned to rebuilding rail roads and expanding them By 1880’s had laid down 40,000 miles of track- quadrupled since civil war Federal govt gave vast amounts of money to the south to rebuild buildings in towns and ports destroyed during civil war in the south Began to process cotton- before used to send raw product to Europe or Northern mills Then towns began investing in their own cotton mill, doubled amount of mills- mostly N/S Carolina Mill work performed by white and black labourers, whites handled the machines Blacks worked in the yard, menial labour, boiler stokers Mill-owners hired them in yard as a warning to strikers, that they had an extra supply of men to fill theirs Southerners justified- black slaves had monopoly on agricultural work, time for white workers to have their time- whites more qualified to work on machinery Iron manufacturing- Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond VA largest one, not many others Mid-1870’s began to tap into coal resource, by 1900 second largest producer in the whole world Also began building iron works and tapping into iron resources Birmingham Alabama- a city which expanded (exploded) solely off of its iron factory Andrew Carnegie recognized potential in south- started investing 1880 a machine patented by an 18 year old Virginian- to manufacture cigarettes 1900 southern profits from manufactured tobacco was 55 million a year Once southern businesses and industry got momentum, northern and European investors took control of the companies The radical republicans had achieved goal- new south was more linked to north than ever before The south used all northern manufactured goods, relied on north to fund their industry Race relations, however, were worse not better Congress passed three amendments to create civil rights for African Americans 13th Amendment- slavery is abolished South evaded this with black codes- stopped blacks from buying land, voting, had to work in contracts 14th- African Americans are given citizenship, if voters are denied the vote then the representation of that state would be reduced in congress 15th Amendment- rights of citizens not be denied/abridged because of race or colour- equality Redeemers in the south were in power, nicknamed the Bourbons (tried to restore monarchy in France) Redeemers determined to re-install white superiority, take all blacks out of power South Carolina- set up a system of integrated schools, all white children withdrawn Made “separate but equal” schools for whites and blacks Wade Hampton- served in confederate army, wanted blacks to vote democrat and obey planters Reign of terror and violence (KKK) disenfranchised blacks Voting restrictions- 1890, Mississippi- wrote new constitution stating blacks had no place to vote or be in office as they created a legacy of corruption Called the Mississippi plan- contained purity clause- wanted to purify government from black influence Williams v. Mississippi- Supreme court upheld Mississippi’s plan to defy Blacks right to vote Property test- had to own certain amount of land, pay taxes Impossible literacy tests designed to disenfranchised illiterate blacks as well as poor whites Grandfather Clause- no black was allowed to vote who had not had ancestors in the 1867 Segregations laws- separate accommodations for blacks and whites in schools, public transport, courts, library, cemeteries, water foundations Jim crow laws- name for all the laws which discriminated against blacks- named after a black character who was a civil war cartoon- shiftless, plantation slave worker Plessy v. Ferguson- Supreme Court ruled that facilities for blacks and whites could be separate, if they were separate but equal. Substantive Assessment: I found Henry Grady and the New South to be a very interesting article, it was well organized and had a clearly set out agenda- to explore the validity of the term “New South”. I especially appreciated the author’s humorous tone/diction (Cigarette manufacturing spread its “Cancer filled tentacle” over the country- I read in the homework that one of the reasons why cigarettes were so popular was because when the union army was marching through the South during the civil war, many of them encountered tobacco for the first time and became addicted to it, creating an enormous market for the South to satisfy. This reminds me of when the British gave the Chinese opium- in order to make the Chinese addicted to the substance, and creating an enormous, desperate market. Although the northerner’s addiction to tobacco was completely unintended by the South, it is ironic how similar the success of a product has been fuelled by addicting the general populace to a product. I believe this is similar to the fast food craze in America- the mix of sugar and salt is addicting, and has addicted many westerners to the combination- beginning a revolution in the food industry, and causing fast food companies such as MacDonald’s and Wendies and Kentucky Fried Chicken to become commonplace in every town, and city.) I also enjoyed his personal descriptions of the characters he portrayed in his article (he fully described Henry Grady, detailing how he was “young and dynamic”). I found his the logic to his argument appealing as well; the organization was flawless and easily and convincingly carried the reader from topic to topic, point to point. I especially appreciated his explanation of Section two of the 14th Amendment, I feel like I now fully understand what it means (if a southern state chose to disenfranchise blacks, then the black population apportion seats would be removed from the amount of seats that the certain state had in congress). I found it fascinating, and appalling, how southern states could so easily navigate around the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, to still be able to disenfranchise blacks. This in particular disturbed me; I don’t understand how the states could simply ignore something which is set in stone, into their constitution, the law of the land. I was particularly surprised that the northerners had no reply to such abominations such as the Jim Crow laws, which so blatantly disenfranchised blacks. I was disappointed that Northerners really only pushed for change during reconstruction, a very short period of time- only a decade.... I also found the Supreme Court to be especially shocking, backwards, and perhaps not fulfilling its purpose. Williams V Mississippi and Plessy v Ferguson were rulings to be ashamed of; I don’t see how some of the wisest and most educated men in the country could defend a morally wrong decision. Their decision I find doubly wicked because it basically gave the south the thumbs up to continue discriminating against blacks, and there is evidence that violence against blacks increased dramatically because of the ruling- southerners felt empowered (increased lynchings). It’s incredible that the Supreme Court could make such a decision, especially in the period of and after reconstruction, when congress had been trying so hard to give civil rights to African Americans; I just think it is wrong. I think that their is a flaw in the Supreme Court system- I think it is a mistake that members of the court can serve life- sentences. The Supreme Court was made up of members appointed by previous administrations, and they most certainly reflected those backward policies in their decisions. Thus, I think they’re needs to be a set term for a judge on the Supreme Court, certainly not life-long. On an entirely different tangent, what I found it fascinating about that the Jim Crow laws, is that they were not solely meant to discriminate against the black voters, it also kept the poor whites from voting (PWT), thus, not only were the redeemer’s racist, they were also elitist- and had no qualms in alienating some of their own people from the ballot box. Also, the other day I was watching a film that was set in a cotton mill (called North and South- a bonnet movie!) and it was fascinating because the British did exactly the same thing as the Americans- while the Americans had African Americans as a stored labour pool should the white workers strike, the English mill owners simply shipped some Irish families down to the Cotton mills to replace the British workers on strike. It caused the exact same effect as in America, British people have an aversion to Irish and the Southerners had an aversion to blacks, and the businessmen entirely used this to their advantage, in order to squeeze the most labour out from their workers, and not fear they would demand more wages, or higher standard of living (as this would cut down their profit). Both the British and the South loathed Unions, and the very word “strike” terrified and angered both nations, as mill owners appeared to be extremely elitist, as no businessman wanted to bargain with their workers. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 195.89 Kb. Share with your friends:
|