Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

Watching the Crash Course, John Green talks all about the European nations and the power over others. We learn the much of Africa was ruled by Europeans. Real quickly do the Europeans find themselves dying in large numbers, but not because of war. Intertwining different cultures equals new germs and new illnesses. Travel to new places spreads the germs so quickly. Today, 2020 the travel of germs was so rapid, next thing we know the entire world is basically shut down. Bringing new to different places can be risky.

I have to think because European countries were on the move and advancing how upset and angry were, they when the United States gained its independence from England. The power that European countries had was a lot. John Green states “for the most part, Europeans could almost always rely on their superior military technology to coerce local rulers into doing what the Europeans wanted. And they could replace native officials with Europeans if they had to” (9:38). The Europeans had this control. As I think about the United States, I think about the idea that the people probably had wanted to rule in a similar way as they did in Europe—Using military tactics to enforce themselves over the others. Was this another reason for the Civil War—wanting to be the best and have the power like the Europeans to rule over and think that they were the shit.

5 Comments

In Zinn’s chapter The Empire and The People, he is discussing America during the time of imperialism and expansion. In the beginning of this chapter, Zinn highlights a point he has made before about how America tends to start wars with foreign powers to relieve “rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements” within our own nation. Our nation’s history tends to portray these wars as a sense of unity among the nation but fails to show the social injustices that were ignored in doing so. There is no concrete evidence that leaders start these wars during social turmoil purposefully, but there is a definite trend. Although this is my second time noticing this argument, I still am incredibly bothered by it. It truly seems that the wealthy elite is so focused on maintaining peace within the nation and keeping their power, that they avoid social injustices that are causing unrest within society, thus keeping the institutions that are so flawed. This argument was also made about Abraham Lincoln, in that he was more focused on keeping the union, rather than attacking the racial injustices within society and using his power to fix them.

 

As the chapter goes on, Zinn discusses the motives for the Spanish-Cuban-American war. America was thirsty for new foreign markets to elevate their economic prosperity. America even abandoned the Teller Amendment that valued Cuban independence and freedom (as a nation built on these values should) and opposed American imperialism. In the end, the interests of America’s corporate business world deemed victorious, as “bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen, and others” wanted the Cuban question ‘solved’ “. So, the Teller Amendment was ignored. America intervened in Cuban to ensure its capitalist interests. Again, we see the powerful elite having all the power in how America goes about our wars. They believed if the American military controlled Cuba, Cuba would become a new market for business. These motives portray America as a nation that will go to any means to benefit just themselves. This might have made us a powerful country, but are these wars ethical?

This issue of going to any means to remain a powerful country sort of coincides with the current pandemic. We refused to shut down the nation for long enough to diminish the spread of the virus, just to focus on our economy and maintaining our power against other nations. I am thankful our economy did not go completely down under, but now we are still stuck with a dangerous virus for longer!

3 Comments

In Walt’s article, “The myth of American exceptionalism,” I found it very interesting to see the way we view our country versus the truth based on the idea of American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is what allows us to believe that our values, political system and history are unique and worthy of universal admiration. Walt tells us that this is in fact, mostly a myth. It is interesting to me that we have such a confident view that we are the greatest and best at everything, which history clearly shows we are not. Not to say we are an awful country – we aren’t, and have definitely accomplished a lot, but we definitely are not as great as we believe. Out of the five myths, the one that stuck out to me most was the fourth: the United States is responsible for most good in the world. Walt says in this section, “Bottom line: Americans take too much credit for global progress and accept too little blame for areas where U.S. policy has in fact been counterproductive.” This quote to me, was the most important line in the article. I feel like it gave the overarching theme of what he was trying to say, because most other myths could fall into this category. For example, myth number 3 says, America’s success is due to its special genius. First of all, Walt explains that it’s not, it sometimes is purely luck. And second, this myth is based on the assumption that they are always successful, which is not true. This then proves Walt’s point about how America doesn’t take credit for anything in history that has been counterproductive.

This plays into Zinn’s chapter, “The empire and the people,” because of how the US went to Cuba only for their own benefit. Zinn discusses that before William McKinley being elected as president, he had said, “we want a foreign marker for our surplus products” (299). Going into Cuba was really only so that America could benefit off of a new market. They didn’t care about their freedom or really helping Cubans rebel at all. Zinn tells us this is what he believes when he says, “American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets” (301). Zinn gives us the name “open door” for the free access to markets. America really only wanted to ensure an open door between them and Cuba, which allowed for better economy. This part of Zinn’s chapter ties back to the myths of American exceptionalism because this is America going in as if they’re doing something helpful for Cuba, when really the intentions were to help themselves.

3 Comments

In chapter 12 Zinn discusses American involvement in the affairs of other nations. He states that from 1798-1895, the US armed forces partook in 103 separate interventions in different nations. Furthermore, he describes the beginnings of the US involvement in Cuba and the Spanish-Cuban-American War. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that the US was pushing to enter into Cuba and fight the Spanish. We are a bloodthirsty nation, always waiting for the perfect time to act and our past of frequent interventions in other nations, reiterates this point. Zinn also points out that the US had many plans for Cuba, none of which included independence. Go figure! Another disappointment, but not a surprise. This stemmed from the institutionalized discrimination at time; racism against people who were in white. Zinn writes, “Roosevelt was very contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior” (300). The president at the time was known to be racist, and this drove him to engage with the Spanish in Cuba to ensure that it would not become a “black” territory. 

The additional reading touches on the idea that countries will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves, even in the smallest of ways. It also explains the idea of American Exceptionalism, something I feel we have all learned growing up. I find this “exceptionalism” to be similar to the “American Dream,” an idealized version of the United States, something the people needed to believe in. However, this is not the case at all, as American Exceptionalism, is all but a dream. The author of the article counters, the only way to actually achieve this sort of ideal exceptionalism is to view America from a different perspective, understanding that it is not the best at everything. It is only then that we can achieve exceptionalism as a nation. I then ask, in what scenario is nationalism too much as to become somewhat of a myth? Is nationalism another made up ideal to promote the interests of one country through the somewhat fake unity of people?

5 Comments

Today’s reading from PHUS showed me once again the true motives from post civil war America. I was shocked, yet still not entirely surprised by some of the tactics used in both the Spanish American war, and the conquest of the Philippines. First, as Dr. Bezio mentioned in class, an effective tactic to use when a large group of the population is frustrated, angry, upset, or has a lot of negative energy and hate is to direct it towards something else. In this case, early United States, with its’ selfish and still racist tendencies, turned their focus towards international conquest. With the industrialization of the country on the rise, there was a surplus of goods, and in order to capitalize on their excess product, the United States needed to turn to outward expansion. However, I do not agree with the methods they took, and the tactics they used. First, they looked to Cuba, who was inhabited by Spain at the time. Interestingly, president McKinley was convinced by Cabot Lodge that “bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, and clergymen (not surprisingly, all white men) wanted the Cuban question solved. Masked by the claim to deliver Cubans from the harsh rule of the Spaniards, they overtook the country, and made it seem as if Cuba still retained freedom and rights to its own liberty. However, the Platt and Teller Agreements were put in place that essentially restricted Cuba to revert back to America to make any substantial decisions within the country, and the “right to intervene” (p. 310).

Secondly, the United States used black soldiers in this war and the conquest of the Philippines. This tactic showed the true mission of American imperialism. Zinn highlights the fact that blacks were at such a crossroads when it came to fighting for the United States forces here. First, they did not want to fight for the men who wanted them enslaved, called them derogatory phrases, and shamed their existence. On the other hand, and Zinn says, blacks needed to get ahead in society, and there was a “need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else.” (p. 318) While their hearts may have lied in refusing to fight, feeling more closely connected to the Filipino people, they felt the need to fight for the United States as more important at the time. Blacks needed to start their new lives. Rich white men realized this desire, capitalized on it, and used blacks once again to further their mission of expansion and imperialism, this time, just outside of the borders of the country rather than within.

2 Comments

The United States of America typically portrays their involvement in other nation’s affairs as heroic, however Zinn highlights some of the less heroic aspects of America intervening in other countries’ problems.  A major problem is that America used race as a reason to either help or deny help to a country.  I understand the thought process behind not helping a nation that follows opposing economic systems or policies, but I find it to be shameful that race played a role in whether the United States helped a country in a time of need.  I struggle to grasp the concept that war is necessary for a nation.  There will always be sensitivity within a nation when deciding whether to go to war, but unfortunately it oftentimes doesn’t even matter what the general public think about a war.  The American Elites are the people that decide whether or not the nation will go to war, and consequently the elite members of society are the people who benefit from the war. 

 

I worry that the widespread patriotism in America could have a negative impact on the world.  It is much easier for the government to brainwash a group of people if they have pride in their country, and if it is easy to unite a country behind a war then it is more likely the government will choose to pursue the war.  My whole life I thought of American pride as a good thing, but I am beginning to question my patriotism everyday.  In this class we have broken down so many things that make loving America so difficult.  In previous posts I have questioned why the education system is so flawed, but I am beginning to see the answer to my question.  If people only learn the positive history about America, then they will naturally develop pride in their country, and therefore be willing to help the government when called upon to serve.  I am not sure this is the reason the education system left out so many details about American history, but this is definitely a side effect that benefits the American Elites that make decisions for the country. There is a very interesting dynamic between the education system and patriotism, but I need more information to confirm the connection between them.

2 Comments

Chapter 12 of Zinn’s PHUS described the hunger for expansion and imperialism that existed among many of the upper-class, military men, politicians, and businesses during the late 1800s into the 1900s. The Panic of 1893 created an incentive to expand United States markets and to show their strength to the international community. Businesses and merchants saw opportunities for growth in foreign markets and countries that made them push politicians towards intervening in foreign affairs. Zinn describes the intervention of the United States in the Cuban rebellion against the Spanish control as an example of this expansionist ideology. President McKinley realized that intervening on the war would be a way to get political and economic benefits and would help many American industries. They went portraying their support for Cuban independence, however after they defeated the Spanish, they ignored Cuban involvement and created the Platt Amendment. This would give the United States the right to intervene in Cuban government and business affairs. Businesses in the search for wealth moved into Cuba taking over the lumber, railroad, mining, and sugar industries.

The article, “The Myth of American Exceptionalism” portrays ideas that are closely connected to the events that Zinn described in his chapter. Americans have an inflated view of ourselves and we often feel superior and entitled over other countries in the world. This causes us to focus only on our positives rather than our negatives because we often think that our influence advances the greater good. I was very shocked by the actions of the United States in the Philippines and how they disregarded human rights and lives in order to advance their goals. The U.S saw the Philippines as an opportunity for them to step in and save an “unfit” country, but in order to do that they killed hundreds of thousands. They saw the end goal of more territory and a growing empire that killing and having complete control of the Filipinos was just a part of the process. Many people have the belief that the U.S behaves better than other nations because people generally don’t focus on the immoral actions that got them to that place. This is a theme that has been seen throughout this class and it is so important to realize the mistakes, injustices, and practices that have gotten the U.S to where it is today.

 

1 Comment

In Zinn’s chapter “The Empire and the People” he discusses American Imperialism. During this time period American government, action, and policy was still controlled by the wealthy elite white men, “upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen…” (298). The capitalist basis that America was structured around made the elite men greedy. This is seen in not only American imperialism but also through the monopolies that formed at the time. A quote that stood out to me about American Imperialism was, “ It is the movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of race” (299). This shows that not only was American Imperialism deeply greedy it was also racists. American’s just stole the ideology of other European powers. The ideology that the white race was superior and people of other cultures and religion should assimilate to American culture. Religion played a massive role in this ideology. When deciding whether or not to take the Phillipines President McKinley, “prayed Almighty God for light and guidance … That there was nothing left for us to do but take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…by God’s grace”(313) This again displays how we used religion and our race as justification for our ideology and wrongdoings.Americans enjoyed the economic benefits of countries like Cuba without the responsibility. I am left with a few questions. What would America look like today if it weren’t for American imperialism/expansion? Do the positives of American imperialism outweigh the negatives at all? Why did religion, specifically, get used over and over again for justification of horrific behavior?

1 Comment

I never knew how bloodthirsty and hungry for war America has been throughout history before the Zinn chapter and the Walt article and it is very concerning to me that I am just learning about it now. I also am developing a better understanding of how one of the most embedded ideals in the US is a white savior mentality and how the presence of paternalism is overwhelming. These parallels are constantly coming up in the Zinn book that it is hard to ignore. In this chapter, I was most taken back by the horrors that the US caused in the Philippines strictly because of economic self-interest. It is almost unfathomable to me that Americans and people in power continued to violate the human rights of other countries’ citizens and still had the audacity to claim that we were the civilized ones. In what world is a bloodthirsty and war-driven country civilized? I’m having trouble wrapping my brain about how these nationalistic and hypocritical ideologies even rose when all of the evidence shows otherwise. The U.S’s actions in the Philippines were despicable and the lack of care of human rights simply because they looked different and could serve an economic purpose is extremely concerning. In addition to the racism that underlies the US impact on the Philippines, it is so clear that America was just concerned about their own economic interests in these foreign countries, and disguised that by pretending they were saving these populations out of the good of their own hearts. This has shown me just how economically driven and focused the US was and still is today, and how money and political power obviously reign over human rights and respect for other peoples.

It is time for America to wake up and approach our history through another lense that isn’t so focused on how amazing and genius of a country we are. It isn’t a bad thing to address our history head-on and will lead to progress in the future that is unprecedented and that is currently being stinted by this dangerous neglect of our history. We are going to have to face our history at one point and putting it off will just result in history repeating itself yet again. The injustices that will come will become progressively worse if America can’t learn from past mistakes. We are currently in a progress trap that we desperately need to claw our way out of and it isn’t too late to save the country. In order to understand and control the present, we must understand and deal with the past, and maybe then America can have the opportunity to become the great country that it already thinks it is.

2 Comments

Stephen M. Walt breaks apart American exceptionalism by demonstrating that it is not a concept unique to the United States, that it is often based on false idealizations of history, and that it is often not as morally proper as politicians lead the public to believe. After reading the article, it is quite clear that references to exceptionalism made by politicians are made in an attempt to get reelected. Making the American people feel as though they are apart of something bigger than themselves and inspiring nationalism through these statements is an extremely effective tool to increase one’s popularity. The consequence of this type of dialogue is that the American public has an inflated and egotistical view of the United State’s importance and popularity in terms of international affairs. This form of indoctrination creates a dangerous environment where the United State’s government acts globally under the justification of being upon the moral high ground, when in fact it is for less genuine reasons, for example monetary gain. One of Walt’s five myths about American exceptionalism is that the United States uses god being on its side as a way to justify its actions. This is another way that politicians manipulate the group of people they rule over as it increases the perception that the United States can do no wrong.

It is interesting to examine Walt’s comparison of United States exceptionalism to other nations who have employed exceptionalism to commit horrible actions. The true danger of exceptionalism is that the population being influenced are likely unaware of the unrealistic view they have of their countries actions. It seems that no matter what, world superpowers are bound to use exceptionalism to control their populations and said populations are destined to be influenced  by it. This blind view of one’s country, is often responsible for the downfall of said country. While it appears United States has not yet done anything so destructive as groups such as Stalin era Russia or Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the possibility exists that through the existence of exceptionalism we as a public are blind to the destruction of our countries current actions, or that future actions of our leaders may go morally unchecked. The key to not falling victim to an idealistic view of the United States is to learn, as we do in this class, about mistakes the United States has made in the past without viewing them as a singular moment in history, but instead viewing them as apart of a larger interconnected story.

1 Comment

Zinn’s chapter “Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom” does a great job of highlighting one of the most common themes of the whole semester: how the history we are familiar with is not always the most thourough or even the most truthful history. As children in America, we often learn of Abraham Lincoln as the president to end racism and slavery in America, who acted as a progressive leader for racial equality and understood the moral wrong of slavery. This, however, as Zinn brings attention to, is an incomplete story. Lincoln contradicts himself multiple times throughout his election and presidency about his opinions on the institution of slavery, and whether or not he, as the president, even has the right to abolish slavery. Additionally, it was well known that up until the point of allowing black men in the North to fight for the Union army, Lincoln vehemently asserted that the purpose of the Civil War was not to end slavery, but for the “preservation of the Union.” Zinn also cites multiple instancs of Lincoln saying that he does not support equality of blacks and whites, and thinks that if the blacks were ever freed, they should be sent back to Africa. These quotes from Lincoln, and this perspective of the Civil War and fight to end slavery, paint a stark contrast between the narrative we are used to hearing growing up, likely because we want our history to be seen as the least harmful as it possibly can be. However, missing key details such as these gives us an incomplete story of our history, and hinder us from fully grasping the history and hardships faced by our fellow Americans. Although it can often be hard to read, I think Zinn’s chapters explaining the “other” perspectives of history are extremely important in understanding our country’s culture and current tensions, as well as shaping ourselves to become holisitc and effective leaders.

2 Comments

As someone who didn’t grow up in the United States, I have always seen Abraham Lincoln as a hero. It is shocking to learn that he actually didn’t do much and that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t all that I thought it was. Lincoln was only using the proclamation as a form to appease the Northern businessmen while not changing the power distribution of the Southern landowners. Reading that was so shocking to me because I always saw him as a man of high morality and that stood for such a respectful cause.

While I sat there and watched the part one of the video, I began to reflect on the city that I live in and have come to know. When he was talking about Robert E Lee, I couldn’t help but think about all the monuments dedicated to him, schools named after him, and memorials in his honor. I began to research how those monuments came to be, and I came across the Daughters of the Confederacy. That was honestly disappointing and heartbreaking. These white women raised money to promote the confederacy all over the south just to be racist. The saddest part about it is that just now, this summer did these monuments even begin to get taken down. Monument Avenue has lost most of them, but the Lee one still stands. It is 2020 and people are still holding on to racist ideas and beliefs, and there is nothing sadder than that.

2 Comments

Zinn’s chapter, Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom and the video The American Civil War Video Part 1, provided me with a much broader understanding of the American Civil War. Both the chapter and the video presented a more well-rounded, truthful depiction of the Civil War era, which reminded me that history within the United States is often taught with many biases and false narratives. The Civil War is one of my favorite periods within the history of the United States as I am fascinated by the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. It was very interesting to learn about Lincoln’s initial wariness in outright opposing slavery at the beginning of The Civil War to his ultimate decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation towards the end of the Civil War. Originally, Lincoln was cautious about outright opposing slavery as he was aware of the crucial role that slaves played in the operation of South’s plantation-based economy. Lincoln tried to appease the South by making it clear that his goal was to preserve the Union and not free the South’s slaves. However, as the Civil War progressed, Lincoln’s intentions of the Civil War shifted to abolish slavery and completely form a new Union. 

Before reading Zinn’s chapter and watching OverSimplified’s video, I was entirely unaware of many events that occurred during the Civil War. For example, I had no idea of the large role that slaves played in the Union army after Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation. I was surprised to learn that two hundred thousand blacks were enlisted in either the Union army or navy and that 38,000 blacks were killed. Zinn mentions that, “Without [slaves] help, the North could not have won the war as soon as [they] did, and perhaps could not have won it at all” (194). Furthermore, I was frustrated to learn of the wage gap and mistreatment of blacks within the Union army. Even though black soldiers performed the most grueling work during the war, such as digging trenches and loading ammunition, they only received $10 a month, while white soldiers received $13 a month.

1 Comment

In this week’s reading of PHUS, Zinn outlines the complicated and disgusting past of slavery during the civil war. The United States government supported slavery at the time due to the vast economic benefits derived from plantations. Despite the fact that the slave trade was abolished, 250,000 enslaved individuals were illegally transported into America before the civil war. Although this number is only a statistic, they can only show so much. A statistic can never truly portray the pain of families being torn apart or the violence that an individual experienced. I find it crazy that our own government supported plantations because of the economic benefits. This highlights how transactional our government can really be. 

Zinn also documented Abraham Lincoln and his thoughts on slavery. When running for the election, Lincoln was able to blend the interests of the very rich and the interests of the Blacks at a moment in history where their interests seemed to intersect. History books tend to glamorize Lincoln and his impact on slavery. To my surprise, Zinn described that Lincoln did not denounce the Fugitive Slave Laws. In fact, he wanted to send the enslaved individuals back to Africa because he didn’t see them as equal. The Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was a military move that Lincoln thought would spur antislavery forces. Even the leaders that were a part of monumental moments of history all seem to have ulterior motives. 

I really enjoyed watching the video that was assigned for class this week. Not only did the video outline the Civil War in great detail, but also added a funny twist to history. I found the use of comics and memes to be beneficial to my learning. The video was able to keep my attention from beginning to end.

 

3 Comments

In the video “The American Civil War Oversimplified,” we’re given a broad overview of the beginnings of the Civil War. This video spends quite a bit of time focusing on the motivations behind conflicts between the Union and Confederacy, and I was very intrigued by the simultaneous contrast and cohesion between these motives. States’ rights, regional economic needs, and moral belief in abolition are all given credit for causing the War according to different accounts, but these motives are very often tightly entwined.

It’s interesting to me that the issue of emancipation was not explicitly addressed by the Union until foreign powers began to show interest in allying with the Confederacy in order to regain their cotton imports. Despite continuous lobbying from prominent abolitionists such as Frederick Douglas, the Union had been very hesitant to state that the Civil War was motivated by a moral desire for emancipation. This leaves me to wonder what the true intentions of Union leaders were throughout the war. It’s understandable from a strategic standpoint that the North might refrain from explicitly condoning abolition for the sake of more cooperative diplomacy with the South, but it leaves some suspicion as to how this came to be seen as a moral war when it wasn’t from the start. Afterall, many Northern abolitionists hoped to abolish slavery mostly to gain an economic advantage for the industrial regions that didn’t rely on slave labor like agriculture, not necessarily for moral reasons. The video describes Abraham Lincoln as understanding the immorality of slavery, but he wasn’t known to be a full believer in racial equality, having expressed even after emancipation that though black people may be free, they were still lesser than whites. I’m not quite sure that someone lacking a true ideology of racial equality could be expected to be extremely morally passionate about abolition. Granted, the topic of slavery may have been brought up relatively late in the game because of the high risks it would have presented earlier, but its lack of constancy suggests a certain contingency in the narrative of Civil War motives, one that seems awfully responsive to economic discord.

Considering economic motives, I’d also like to make note of Zinn’s reference to class structure and its influence on the tensions regarding slavery. He reveals that lower-class whites were given slave monitoring positions to fabricate a divisiveness between the two demographics so they’d be unable to collectively mobilize against authority. Meanwhile, the middle class grew to more prominence in the age of industrialization. Had the middle class not emerged so significantly, and a stricter division been maintained between the lower and upper classes, how might motivations for the Civil war, as well as contribution to it, have turned out differently?

3 Comments

Over the course of this class, and reading Zinn’s book, A People’s History Of The United States, I have been shocked time and time again. Coming to University of Richmond and going into this class I thought I was somewhat well educated on American history, having taken it in high school, middle school, and learning about it in elementary school. However, this book and everything we have talked about have continued to make me feel like I have only been learning half the truth. It is becoming more and more clear that the education system is somewhat brainwashing society to believe that history in America is not brutal and that there is some bad, but it outweighed by the good. It is now overwhelmingly clear that this is not that case and that it is even worse that it is being covered up.

 

From a very young age we learned about slavery and how it was very bad, but I we are not really taught the full extent of it. I feel like I used to just consider it sort of a blip in history and that was so long ago, but it is so much more than that. It is taught as being an equivalent to all other countries and how there was slavery there too. It was unsettling for me to read, “There was no slavery in history, even that of the Israelites in Egypt, worse than the slavery of a black man in America” (Zinn 180). Reading this came as a surprise to me because I never fully understood that slavery here was that much different than everywhere else, however it does make sense because we are still very much dealing with the effects and repercussions of it. Racism spawned from slavery which is still a huge problem in the United States. All of this makes me wonder how much else of the history I have learned has parts left out of it. I hope that these flaws continue to be exposed so that society is able to be educated about the past so we don’t recreate it in the future.

5 Comments

After reading chapter 9, Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom and watching the The American Civil War by Oversimplified, I am again overwheled with new facts and ideas about the Civil War and this time period in American history that I was not aware of previously. For starters, slave revolts were not as common as they were in other countries. Rebellion of slaves was also rare. This was very surprising to me because as I learned in the podcast, about 13% of the population in this time were enslaved, and it only takes about 5-10% of a population to create a rebellion. I truly believe things would have been a lot different if the slave population came together as one and revolted. Nonetheless, a war began regardless of the fact it was not initiated by the slaves. 

One quote really stuck out to me from this chapter. Zinn states, “Such a national government would never accept an end to slavery by rebellion. It would end slavery only under conditions controlled by whites, and only when required by the political and economic needs of the business elites of the North,” (Zinn 187). This idea really didn’t sit well with me. The fact that the only way for our country to abolish slavery was solely up to when rich whites felt like making a difference and was not based on the hardships of the enslaved is sad to me. The Civil War was truly the only way to solve this huge division in our country. I was unaware of how deadly the war was. 600,000 soldiers died on each side. This war had a positive effect for African Americans for a short time period. I did not know that there was a time when in the South blacks could vote, be elected into state legislators, and there were racially mixed public schools. As we all know, this time did not last long, but I did not know that this time even existed at all. Overall, these resources introduced to me yet again, there is a lot more in history and during the civil war time period that I was unaware of.

 

4 Comments

One recurring theme that became blatantly obvious upon reading this chapter of Zinn, as well as the video on the Civil War, is that we should continue to be hyper critical about who we choose to glorify as historical leaders. This is not to say that Lincoln was not one of the most important leaders of our time- he was. However, to ignore his faults and many complexities is a disservice to the study of leadership. Zinn pointed out that Lincoln’s objectives were largely capitalistic, less morally bound to abolition. Moreover, recent scholars have also asserted that many of his moral decisions were guided by his abolitionist contemporaries. If we are to study effective leadership, one might argue that finding true moral leadership can’t necessarily be found when we only study such major figures like Lincoln. I think it would be a more effective practice in studying Lincoln to not only point out his shortcomings, but to fill in the gaps with other lesser-known leaders of the time. There were plenty of free Black abolitionists with grassroots methods of organizing, who I believe we could learn a lot from today. 

An abolitionist leader that I think deserves more critical historical analysis is James Weeks. As Zinn mentioned, some voting rights for free Black Americans required expensive land-ownership. James Weeks is credited with founding a sort of autonomous Black community in what is now downtown Brooklyn. His leadership often goes unnoticed, but the power he amassed by enabling free Black Americans to vote in a system that worked to suppress them is extremely commendable. Weeksville Heritage Sight still stands today, a historical testament to leadership that worked powerfully, in the shadows of men like Lincoln, to make effective grassroot strides towards freedom. We obviously can’t erase the importance of Lincoln, but where he fell short, other leaders were successful (and often less racist). 

On a slightly less specific/unrelated note, I’d like to know more about how we should attempt to sort out historical motives for leaders. Is it unfair or short sighted to say that all of Lincoln’s motives were purely capitalistic? In a world so dominated by capitalism, especially given that our historiography is rooted in it as well, where do we look to find the true motives of our leaders? 

Leave a Comment

Howard Zinn’s chapter Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom, and OverSimplified’s video of the American Civil War both offered unique and factual accounts of this time period in American History that I had never heard before. Textbooks teach the information differently based on what part of the country you live in. Textbooks in the southern states often teach kids that the Civil War was only about states’ rights. On the other hand, northern states teach kids that it was a war against slavery. As OverSimplified explained it, it was a combination of both of these factors. The issue that was being debated was slavery, but the southern states overused their power and tried to secede from the Union. Growing up in New England, I remember being taught that Abraham Lincoln was an avid abolitionist. In reality, Lincoln solely wanted to halt the expansion of slavery and had no plans of trying to end slavery when he was running for office. Howard Zinn stresses the fact that Lincoln’s personal beliefs were probably more extreme than what he promoted publically so he could sympathize with the centrists. Close reading is required to read between the lines of Lincoln’s personal letters and journals to see what he truly believed versus what he promoted. I believe he knew he would not get elected if he was a full-fledged abolitionist, so it was a strategic move to take on a more moderate stance to gain the support of a wider demographic.

One thing I noticed when comparing the two sources was how important phrasing can be in creating biases and opinions on objective data. When discussing data on whippings from a plantation, Zinn phrased the objective data in different ways that created implicit biases in the reader’s head. For example, one could state that over half of the slaves were not whipped over a two year period. This creates the illusion that the majority of the slaves were treated well. In reality, a whipping is just one punishment of many a slave could receive, and just because they are not getting whipped doesn’t mean they are treated well. Based on the same data, one could also conclude that “every four or five days, some slave was whipped” (173). This creates the image that whippings were a common affair on the plantation and part of the violent way of life in the south. Despite using the same objective data, the author can create different opinions based on what they think the reader should get out of the information.

4 Comments

I learned a lot from both Slavery Without Submission from A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, and watching The American Civil War Video. The reading addressed slavery within America as well as the Lincoln era of America. Regarding life on the plantations, I was surprised to read that female slaves committed more disorderly acts than male slaves. For some reason, I thought it would have been the opposite. One influence for my incorrect thinking is Hollywood and the movies that they produce. Most frequently, we see males slaves receiving lashes in movies. On another note, the readings also talked about slaves who escaped and gained their freedom in the North. One thing that plantation owners and other wealthy slave owners in the South dealt with were members of the Underground Railroad, especially the white members. See, the problem for the plantation owners was that the poor whites disliked them greatly. Another group who hated the wealthy plantation owners were the slaves. This common enemy helped unite the two groups of people, creating a support ground that eventually guided slaves towards the North, towards freedom, and towards a new life. Another event that I had no idea about was the journey to freedom led by a group of slaves who overthrew the crew of the Creole, a slave transport ship. The slaves ended up sailing to the British Indies. Upon arrival, they were set free and were protected by the English government which abolished slavery a few years prior. After reading, I’m still wondering how hard it was for escaped slaves to start a new life in the North? Were there groups/people who supported them? My last comment regarding the reading is about Horace Greeley and the role he played with Lincoln. Greeley pushed for the Anti-Slavery movement but what I don’t understand is why he did that even though he was a slave owner himself? I actually grew up in the town that he lived in and went to Horace Greeley High School. A few years ago my school was notified about him (Greeley) owning slaves and have been thinking about changing our school name at the request of students.

 

In addition to the reading, I also learned a great deal from The American Civil War Video. Something that I recently learned was that Jefferson included a paragraph regarding abolishing slavery in the United States; however, it was taken out because it was too controversial. By this I mean, the Founding Fathers were unsure that if they included the piece about slavery, that they would still get the support that they needed to fulfill their plan of creating a nation. The video also talked about Western Expansion and how has we moved west, the Southerns and Northerners wanted to claim each state for their party. The Southern leaders for emerging states to become Slave States whereas the Northern leaders wanted the new state to become a free state. Leaders continuously fought about this for years and years until the Civil War broke out. During the war, the Anaconda Plan set up a much needed blockade against the South, limiting their sea travels, trade, and more. The video also talked about the failed plan led by John Brown. His intention was to start a massive slave uprising starting in Virginia. From there, they would head South, freeing slaves as they traveled. At his first stop, Brown and his men were surrounded by Robert E. Lee and his army. Brown was later hung. The person who greatly aided the Anti-Slavery Movement was President Lincoln. Something that I had not previously learned was that, during the Civil War, he suppressed media that supported the South and the Confederation. In addition to that, Honest Abe also put people in jail without a trial. This is yet another example of students not learning about the entire picture, rather a small piece of that picture.

Leave a Comment