John Brown: The Ultimate Conflicting Figure

Passion is a good thing.  I believe God gives people talents and passion about certain things so they will work hard and glorify Him through their efforts.  Sometimes, though, people are misguided on how to effectively channel their passion which can end disastrously.  Perhaps no better example exists in American history than John Brown.

Brown was a RADICAL abolitionist who favored violence and slave uprisings over civil discourse and national legislation.  He was involved in Bleeding Kansas, a "pre Civil War of sorts in the Midwest", where some of his men brutally slaughtered proslavery citizens during the dead of night.  He never admitted to killing anyone personally, but he witnessed countless violent acts perpetrated by his followers.  He laid low for a while after these so-called "Pottawatomie Massacres", but popped back upon the national radar in Harpers Ferry, VA.

Harpers Ferry was a federal arsenal where weapons, ammunition and gun powder were stored.  His plan was to overtake the arsenal, disperse the inventory to slaves and instigate America's largest slave insurrection. He did overtake the arsenal, but few slaves joined in the fight and Brown was captured while his men fled.  He was hung for treason in October 1859.  Slavery was eventually abolished, but he was not alive to see it.

Brown, as you can imagine, was well loved by some and reviled by others. A free African American wrote to Brown saying, "I thank you that you have been brave enough to reach out your hands to the crushed and blighted of my race."  A newspaper in the South held the opposite view.  "The miserable old traitor and murderer belongs to the gallows (the place where a person is hung), and the gallows will have its own."

So, was he right to take radical measures to fight against an institution as evil as slavery?  Is it ever justifiable to "do wrong to do good"?  Watch this video and in the comments section thoughtfully analyze Brown's actions.  Was he to be commended because slavery was so bad, or was he a villain?

Utopias: Religious Devotion or Congregational Hiding?

Utopian movements played a significant role in the settling of America.  Such movements, typically religious in nature, stem from the desire to live a holy and secluded life free from the dictates of society.  In order to achieve this "ideal society", believers usually spent their days in self-sufficient communities in secluded areas in order to maximize their separation from "the world".

One famous Utopian movement that has survived is the Mormons.  Joseph Smith received his visions for this "religion" in New York, but was persecuted greatly.  His tribe moved to the Midwest, where Smith was killed for his beliefs.  Brigham Young took the reins and led his people into Utah.  It was here he established the community known as Deseret, which was later incorporated into America after the Mexican War. Obviously, the Mormon movement has thrived worldwide and they are still a very viable community.  In fact, the presumptive Republican nominee for this fall's General Election is a practicing Mormon.

Most Utopian movements fail because their beliefs are, well, weird.  The Mormons survived in spite of their polygamy (multiple wives) policy.  Other groups have folded because their leader, under the guise of "spiritual leadership", really just wanted to control people.  In most cases, as people began to speak out against the leader they would be ostracized or physically punished.  This treatment usually proved the rebel's point rather than quieted the uproar.

Another famous American Utopian movement was the Shakers.  These people were an offshoot of the Quaker movement and got their name for the dances they performed during their church services.  Read this article to discover a personal account of one man's stay with the Shakers.  In the comments section, discuss your thoughts on Utopian movements.  Are people to be commended for abandoning society in order to follow their strict religious beliefs?  Do you see it more of a "hiding game" where people can't deal with society so they run away under the banner of "freedom of religion"?

The Demon Drink: Alcohol Reform in America

This picture says it all.  American women were tired of their husbands being drunk all the time.  A new sense of empowerment was sweeping through the country.  Women were beginning to see their role in society as moral compasses; that is, to play doctor to the ills of society.  An unbridled consumption of alcohol was on the top of many women's lists.  

Temperance societies began to spring up in major cities across the country.  Most societies called for a more moderate approach to alcohol rather than total prohibition.  In fact, most states that passed prohibition laws quickly repealed them because the government could not tax an illegal (liquor in this case) substance.  Also, generally speaking, many of the temperance unions were religious in nature.

For this week's blog, you will listen to this podcast and examine the cartoon below from 1846.  In your comments, please include the following 3 items: 1) The most interesting point made by the professor who was interviewed in the podcast. 2) Your interpretation of this cartoon's meaning. 3) Create your own anti-liquor slogan as if you were the leader of a temperance union.

The steps in this cartoon, titled "The Drunkard's Progress", are as follows:
1) A Glass With A Friend
2) A Glass To Keep The Bold Chat
3) A Glass Too Much
4) Drunk & Riotous
5) The Summit Attained. Jolly Companions. A Confirmed Drunkard.
6) Poverty & Disease
7) Forsaken By Friends
8) Desperation & Crime
9) Death By Suicide

The Donner Party: The Unsavory Side of Westward Expansion

The Donner Party is one of the most infamous tales of the dangers of American westward expansion.  These people, in an attempt to take a shortcut, lengthened their journey and caused more harm for their people.  Read this story and answer the following questions in the comments section:
1) Would you have done the same things the Donner Party did to survive?
2) Was it wrong of them to go to such lengths to survive?

What If?

An interesting way to look back at history is to play the "What If?" game.  As the name states, you take an event you are studying, look at a decision someone made, and ask yourself "What if they had done something different?"  This type of game usually lends itself to great discussion and debate.

So I'm going to set up a "What If?" and in the comments section you are going to answer.  Feel free to reference other's comments and respectfully disagree if you do not see eye-to-eye.

Jackson Era "What If?" Scenario
Jackson's first major act as president, as you know, was to push the Indian Removal Act through Congress.  When challenged in the courts by Samuel Worcester, Chief Justice John Marshall sided with the natives.  Jackson, upon hearing the verdict, basically refused to follow it.  What if Jackson had submitted to Marshall's authority?  What if Jackson pulled back the reins on removal at that point?  Would anything really have changed?

Andrew Jackson: A Man Of The People?

Andrew Jackson, after being humiliated by Clay and J.Q. Adams in the 1824 Election, vowed to exact his revenge on the two men.  And so he did.  By spreading unbelievable lies, even by today's standards, Jackson won the personality contest against Adams in 1828 (largely because Adams had no personality).  Four years later he defeated Henry Clay in the Election of 1832 completing his vow.  The difficult campaigning cost him his dear wife Rachel, a loss from which he never fully recovered.

During his eight years in office, Jackson faced three major crises/events: Indian Removal, the South Carolina Nullification Crisis and the Veto of the National Bank.  The political cartoon below addresses one of those issues.  Which one do you think it is?  Was the author of this cartoon, who to this day is unknown, a supporter or opponent of Jackson?  In your comments explain how you came to this decision by using the elements in the cartoon.

The Monroe Doctrine: Monroe Says "Halt!" To Europe

James Monroe's presidency is often referred to as the "Era of Good Feelings", mainly because he did not preside over any international militant conflicts.  Domestically, border disputes in Florida and other places led to even more skirmishes with the natives.  In fact, Andrew Jackson invaded Florida to fight the Seminoles basically without the approval or permission of the Federal Government.  But that's a whole other story...

The other striking aspect of James Monroe's two terms in office is what is referred to as the "Monroe Doctrine". Here is the key section of this speech given in December 1823:  North and South America "are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."  Basically, Monroe (and John Q. Adams-his Secretary of State-who wrote the speech) were saying the Western Hemisphere was off limits to Europe from that point forward.  If anyone was going to control, colonize or tamper with Latin & South America, it would be US. (Get it? US? U.S.? Hahaha).  Also, to be fair, the Doctrine also claimed America would not mess with Europe or become involved in their issues.

The Doctrine was basically forgotten until Polk's administration in the 1840s when we went to war with Mexico/Spain.  European countries did leave this hemisphere alone, largely because the British Navy patrolled the ocean and not because America's army was imposing and powerful.

Take a look at these political cartoons below.  In the comment sections, describe how each cartoon demonstrates/illustrates the Monroe Doctrine.  Also, why do you think Monroe and his administration felt they had the right to declare an entire hemisphere "off limits" to the rest of the world?

The sign in the bottom-right corner says "Special Notice: All Guests Are Welcome But They Must Not Bring Their Guns."