1

Ms. Wiley’s APUSH Period 5 Packet, 1840s-1870s Name:

Page #(s) Document Name:

2-4 1) Period 5 Summary: ?s, Concepts, Themes, & Assessment Info

5 2) Timeline

6-14 3) Manifest Destiny & Mexican-American War

15-16 4) Perspectives on the Mexican-American War (1846-1848)

17 5) 1850s Text Assignment

18-21 6) Sources on Secession

22 7) Secession: Legal and Moral Questions

23-24 8) Sources on Lincoln

25-29 9) Lincoln Viewing Guide

30-31 10) Reconstruction Simulation

32-38 11) Sources on Reconstruction

39-40 12) Gone with the Wind Analysis

2

Period 5 Summary (1840s-1870s)

Key Questions for Period 5: - Was the war with Mexico (1846-’48) justifiable, politically, economically, and/or ideologically? - Was the secession of the Southern States in 1860, following Lincoln’s electoral victory, justifiable, politically, economically, and

or/ideologically? - Was the Civil War inevitable? - Would it have been better to let the Southern states go, as they wished? - How has Civil War historiography shifted over time? How is the Civil War and Reconstruction taught differently throughout the

nation? - Why do some Americans see no problem waiving the Confederate flag, and others find it so offensive? - What is the legacy of Reconstruction? Did it help or hurt the nation recover? - Did the 13th-15th Amendments actually improve the lives of African Americans in this Period? - To what extent did America move closer to the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence throughout this Period?

Key Concept 1: The U.S. became more connected with the world, pursued an expansionist foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere, and emerged as the destination for many migrants from other countries. Related Ideas/Examples: - Popular enthusiasm for U.S. expansion, bolstered by economic and security interest, resulted in the acquisition of new

territories, substantial migration westward, and new overseas initiatives. o The desire for access to resources and the hope of many settlers for economic opportunities or religious refuge led to

an increased migration to and settlement in the West. o Advocates of annexing western lands argued that Manifest Destiny and the superiority of American institutions

compelled the U.S. to expand its borders westward to the Pacific Ocean. o The U.S. added large territories in the West through victory in the Mexican-American War (1846-’48) and diplomatic

negotiations, raising questions about the status of slavery, American Indians, and Mexicans in the newly acquired lands.

o Westward migration was boosted during and after the Civil War (1861-’65) by the passage of new legislation promoting Western transportation and economic development.

o U.S. interest in expanding trade led to initiatives to create more economic and diplomatic ties with Asia in the 1850s. [This will be covered in Period 6, in the context of American imperialism.]

- In the 1840s and 1850s, Americans continued to debate questions about rights and citizenship for various groups of U.S. inhabitants.

o Substantial numbers of international migrants continued to arrive in the U.S. from Europe and Asia, mainly from Ireland and Germany, often settling in ethnic communities where they would preserve elements of their languages and customs. [Continuation from Period 4.]

o A strongly anti-Catholic nativist movement continued to develop that was aimed at limiting new immigrants’ political power and cultural influence. [Continuation from Period 4.]

o U.S. government interaction and conflict with Mexican Americans and American Indians increased in regions newly taken from American Indians and Mexico, altering these groups’ economic self-sufficiency and cultures.

Related Themes: - American and National Identity:

o Analyze how ideas about national identity changed in response to U.S. involvement in international conflicts and the growth of the United States.

o Analyze relationships among different regional, social, ethnic, and racial groups, and explain how these groups’ experiences have related to U.S. national identity.

- Migration and Settlement: o Analyze causes of internal migration and patterns of settlement in what would become the U.S., and explain how

migration has affected American life. o Explain the causes of migration to colonial North America and, later, the U.S., and analyze immigration’s effects on U.S.

society. - Geography and Environment: Explain how geographic and environmental factors shaped the development of various

communities, and analyze how competition for and debates over natural resources have affected both interactions among

3

different groups and the development of government policies.

- America in the World: o Analyze the reasons for, and results of, U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military initiatives in North America and

overseas. o Explain how cultural interaction, cooperation, competition, and conflict between empires, nations, and peoples, have

influenced political, economic, and social developments in North America. - Culture and Society: Explain how different group identities, including racial, ethnic, class, and regional identities, have emerged

and changed over time. Key Concept 2: Intensified by expansion and deepening regional divisions, debates over slavery and other economic, cultural, and political issues led the nation into a civil war. Related Ideas/Examples: - Ideological and economic differences over slavery produced an array of diverging responses from Americans in the North and

the South. [Continuation from Period 4.] o The North’s expanding manufacturing economy relied on what Northerners called “free labor” in contrast to the

Southern economy’s dependence on slave labor. Free labor meant that all workers should be “free” to labor as they see fit, competing in the market economy to improve their lot, economically and socially. Some Northerners did not object to slavery on principle but believed that slavery would undermine the free labor market by undercutting competition and maintaining large levels of inequality. As a result, a “free-soil” movement arose that portrayed the expansion of slavery as incompatible with free labor. Free-soilers, as they were called, argued that free men on free soil

comprised a morally and economically superior system to slavery. o African American and white abolitionists, although a minority in the North, mounted a highly visible campaign against

slavery, presenting moral arguments against the institution and assisting slaves’ escapes. [Continuation from Period 4.] o Defenders of slavery based their arguments on racial doctrines, the view that slavery was a positive good, and the

belief that slavery and states’ rights were protected by the Constitution. [Continuation from Period 4.] - Debates over slavery came to dominate political discussion in the 1850s, culminating in the bitter election of 1860 and the

secession of Southern states. o The Mexican Cession (1848), as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, led to heated controversies over whether to

allow slavery in the newly acquired territories. o The courts and national leaders made a variety of attempts to resolve the issue of slavery in the territories but these

ultimately failed to reduce conflict (Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, Dred Scott decision of 1857). o The Second Party System (Democrats vs. Whigs, a product of the Jackson presidency) ended when the issues of slavery

and anti-immigrant nativism weakened loyalties to the two major parties and fostered the emergence of purely sectional parties, most notably the Republican party in the North.

o Abraham Lincoln’s victory in 1860 on the Republicans’ free-soil platform (which opposed the expansion of slavery in the West) was accomplished without any Southern electoral votes. After a series of contested debates about secession, most slave states voted to secede from the Union, precipitating the Civil War.

Related Themes: - American and National Identity:

o Explain how ideas about democracy, freedom, and individualism found expression in the development of cultural values, political institutions, and American identity.

o Explain how interpretations of the Constitution and debates over rights, liberties, and definitions of citizenship have affected American values, politics, and society.

- Politics and Power: o Explain how popular movements, reform efforts, and activist groups have sought to change American society and

institutions. o Explain how and why political ideas, beliefs, institutions, party systems, and alignments have developed and changed.

- Work, Exchange, and Technology: Explain how different labor systems developed in North America and the U.S., and explain their effects on workers’ lives and U.S. society.

Key Concept 3: The Union victory in the Civil War and the contested reconstruction of the South settled the issues of slavery and secession, but left unresolved many questions about the power of the federal government and citizenship rights.

4

- The North’s greater manpower and industrial resources, along with the leadership of Lincoln and others, eventually led to the

Union military victory over the Confederacy in the devastating Civil War. o Both the Union and the Confederacy mobilized their economies and societies to wage the war even while facing

considerable home front opposition. o Lincoln and most Union supporters began the Civil War to preserve the Union, but Lincoln’s decision to issue the

Emancipation Proclamation (1863), freeing slaves in the Confederate states (but not Union states), reframed the purpose of the war and helped prevent the Confederacy from gaining full diplomatic support from European powers. Many African Americans, now allowed to fight for the North, fled southern plantations and enlisted in the Union Army, helping to undermine the Confederacy.

o Lincoln sought to reunify the country and used speeches such as the Gettysburg Address to portray the struggle against slavery as the fulfillment of America’s founding democratic ideals.

o Although the Confederacy showed military initiative early in the war, the Union ultimately succeeded due to leadership and strategy, greater resources, and the wartime destruction of the South’s infrastructure.

- Reconstruction (1865-’77) ended slavery, altered relationships between the states and the federal government, and led to debates over new definitions of citizenship, particularly regarding the rights of African Americans, women, and other minorities.

o The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, while the 14th and 15th amendments granted African American citizenship, equal protection under the laws, and voting rights. Unfortunately, these amendments were eroded by social realities and political decisions of the era.

o The women’s rights movement was both emboldened and divided over the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. Should they support the expansion of rights for African American men, hoping they would be next, or fight for their inclusion in the amendments?

o Efforts by radical and moderate Republicans to change the balance of power between Congress and the presidency and to reorder race relations in the defeated South yielded some short-term successes. Reconstruction opened up political opportunities and other leadership roles to former slaves, but it ultimately failed, due both to determined Southern resistance and the North’s waning resolve.

o Southern plantation owners continued to own the majority of the region’s land even after Reconstruction. Former slaves sought land ownership but generally fell short of self-sufficiency, as an exploitative sharecropping system limited blacks’ and poor whites’ access to land and social mobility in the South.

o Segregation, violence, Supreme Court decisions, and local political tactics progressively stripped away African American rights, but the 14th and 15th amendments eventually became the basis for court decisions upholding civil rights in the 20th century.

Related Themes: - American and National Identity:

o Explain how ideas about democracy, freedom, and individualism found expression in the development of cultural values, political institutions, and American identity.

o Explain how interpretations of the Constitution and debates over rights, liberties, and definitions of citizenship have affected American values, politics, and society.

- American in the World: Analyze the reasons for, and results of, U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military initiatives in North America and overseas.

- Politics and Power: Explain how different beliefs about the federal government’s role in U.S. social and economic life have affected political debates and policies.

- Work, Exchange, and Technology: Explain how different labor systems developed in North America and the U.S., and explain their effects on workers’ lives and U.S. society.

- Culture and Society: Explain how ideas about women’s rights and gender roles have affected society and politics. Exam Information: - National Exam (May 2018): Period 5 comprises approximately 12% of the national APUSH exam. - Ms. Wiley’s period exam will consist of approximately 40 multiple-choice questions, as well as several short-answer questions. - The Midterm Exam has just a handful of Period 5 questions. We will be sure to get these necessary items handled before the

midterm since we missed three days due to snow/gas leak.

5

Timeline Assignment

Task: Select the 20-25 most important dates from the Period. You can set-up your timeline in whatever way

you’d like (be creative!), however, be sure it’s something you can include in your binder/folder for study

purposes. In terms of content, it should be similar to our other timelines, which cover events as well as their

related context (revisit the Period 4 timeline to be sure you’re on the right track).

Submit your work by ________________________________

This assignment will count as a 20-point formative grade. You will be evaluated on historical accuracy,

pinpointing the most critical events, and organization.

6

Manifest Destiny & the Mexican-American-War

This document will describe the ideology of Manifest Destiny, and how it was applied in this Period, through events like the Mexican-American War (1846-’48), the acquisitions of Oregon (1846), and the Gadsden Purchase (1854).

Expansionist Surge of the 1840s

The 1840s (the years following Jackson’s presidency) were characterized by an expansionist surge. This surge for western land was not something new; instead it had deep roots. Since the nation’s founding in 1776, visionaries conceived its future both as a republic and as an empire, and they predicted an expansion across the continent. By the early 1800s many felt that the Pacific Ocean was the natural boundary and destiny of the U.S. Indian Removal politics of the 1830s helped move the country in that direction. But the creation of a continental republic was far from inevitable.

First, it would require a revolution in transportation, which had occurred by 1840, with industrialization of the first half of the 19th century. Yet other obstacles remained. Well-armed American Indian peoples controlled the Great Plains, Mexico (freed from Spain in 1821) controlled Texas (until 1836, when Texans declared themselves independent) and the lands west of the Rocky Mountains, and Great Britain shared the Oregon Territory with the U.S., a decision made under the Monroe administration (JQA’s diplomacy). To extend the American republic would involve American Indian wars and possibly armed conflict with Britain and with Mexico.

An ardent imperialist, President James K. Polk (1845-’49, Democrat)—whom many saw as Jackson Part II—willingly assumed those risks. Ultimately, Polk’s aggressive expansionism led to a costly and bloody war with Mexico from 1846-1848, which divided the nation along sectional lines. Then, having won an enormous amount of territory from Mexico, the nation would be consumed with the question of slavery—whether it could extend into these new lands. It would be this question that haunted the 1850s and led directly to the Civil War the following decade.

Since 1820, the year the Missouri Compromise was signed into law (brokered by Henry Clay, under the Monroe administration), the nation’s politicians avoided policies that would prompt regional strife over the slavery question, such as the annexation of the slaveholding Republic of Texas, which fought a war for independence against Mexico and won in the 1830s. Just as in 1820 with Missouri, slaveholding states wanted to annex the Republic of Texas, but the free states were opposed to annexation due to the same fears they had about the “slave power” back in 1820. But by the 1840s, many citizens embraced an ideology of expansionism, proclaiming a God-given duty to extend American republicanism to the Pacific Ocean. That ideology, which helped to bring about the eventual annexation of Texas, and later, the Mexican-American War, was then confronted with the question of what the destiny of those newly acquired territories would be. Whose version of republicanism would extend: the hierarchical slave system of the South, or the more egalitarian, reform-minded capitalist-managed society of the North and Midwest? Ultimately, the failure to find a political solution to this question would rip the nation apart.

1. What were some of the risks involved in America expanding to the Pacific, circa 1840?

2. For what reason is the Mexican-American War (1846-’48) seen as a precursor to the Civil War?

3. How was the debate over the annexation of Texas (formerly Mexican territory) in the 1830s-40s comparable to the debate over Missouri’s entry into the Union in 1820?

John Gast, an American painter, is famous for his painting American Progress, an allegorical representation of the concept of Manifest Destiny, where a female personification of the U.S. leads civilization westward with American settlers.

Consider: 1) How does the image reflect the concept of Manifest Destiny? 2) How does the visual contrast with images elicited in the American mind when thinking of other expansionist countries “on the march”? What do you suspect accounts for this contrast? (Examples: North Korea invading the South after WWII; Hitler taking Austria (with their approval!) in the lead up to WWII; Britain imperializing India throughout the 18th-20th centuries; Japanese imperializing Korea in the 20th century; Russia annexing Crimea; etc.]

7

Manifest Destiny

As expansionists developed continental ambitions, the term Manifest Destiny captured those dreams. John L. O’Sullivan, a newspaper editor, coined the phrase in 1845. See some of his more famous excerpts below, while considering what underlying beliefs were reflected in his writing regarding race, republicanism, and religion.

The Great Nation of Futurity (1839): “Our national birth (and the Declaration of Independence) was the beginning of a new history, which separates us from the past and connects us only with the future. We are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Our future history will be to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man -- the undeniable truth and goodness of God. America has been chosen for this mission among all the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving light of truth. Her high example shall put an end to the tyranny of kings, and carry the happy news of peace and good will to millions who now endure an existence hardly better than that of beasts of the field. Who, then, can doubt that our country is destined to be the great nation of the future?”

Annexation (1845): “It is time now for all opposition to annexation of Texas to stop . . . Texas is now ours. She is no longer to us a mere geographical space. She is no longer to us a mere country on the map. The time has come for everyone to stop treating Texas as an alien, and to stop thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” 4. What does John O’Sullivan think America stands for? Is he correct, given what we’ve learned from Periods 1-4? Why or why

not? What underlying beliefs are reflected in his statements?

5. What party would O’Sullivan likely support at this time? Why? (Revisit Jackson notes if necessary for development of 2nd party

system)

Life on the Roads Leading West—Primary Accounts While the continued movement of U.S. settlers into the West had disastrous effects on the Native American communities there, the experience was somewhat perilous for traders and settlers as well. Settlers endured long, arduous, and dangerous journeys, as well as epidemic diseases. Nevertheless, thousands made the trek; thankfully, many Americans kept records of the migration, helping us to understand the obstacles they faced and what motivated them to uproot their lives and head to strange lands.

Amelia Stewart Knight’s account: Amelia Stewart Knight and Joel Knight met and married in Boston in 1834. Within a few years, the Knights moved to Iowa, where they settled for 16 years. In 1853, they gathered their seven children, packed their household belongings into a covered wagon, and headed west again. Amelia’s diary of her family’s five-month journey to Oregon began with a brief note: “Started from Home.” She went on to describe the varied scenery: “the beautiful Boise River, with her green timber,” which delighted the family, as well as the “months of travel on the dry, dusty sage plains, with nothing to relieve the eye.” She told of camping by hot springs where she could brew tea without starting a fire, of cows dying along the road, and of the rich wild currants that provided a family feast. Knight wrote her last entry when she and her family reached their destination, Oregon. “My eighth child was born. After this week we picked up and ferried across the Columbia River, utilizing skiff, canoes and flatboat to get across, taking three days to complete. Here husband traded two yoke of oxen for a half section of land with one-half acre planted to potatoes and small log cabin and lean-to with no windows. This is the journey’s end.” Knight’s situation was by no means unique; probably one in five women who made the trek was pregnant. Her condition, however, did nothing to lighten her workload, as every woman and even young children shouldered important responsibilities on the trail.

Lucy Deady and Catherine Haun’s accounts: Lucy Deady traveled the Oregon Trail in 1846 at the age of 11. She wrote of the thunderstorms that caused everything to be “soaked

8

with the driving rains” and made the oxen stampede. She also recalled crossing a desert for two days and one night: “There was no water at all, so we filled every keg and dish so the cattle should have water as well as ourselves.” Fever, diarrhea, and cholera plagued people, some of whom died and were buried alongside the trail. Caravans provided protections against possible attack by Native Americans and they also helped combat the loneliness of the difficult journey, as Catherine Haun, who migrated from Iowa, explained: “We womenfolk visited from wagon to wagon or congenial friends spent an hour walking, ever westward, and talking over our home life back in ‘the states’; telling of the loved ones left behind; voicing our hopes for the future . . .

Phoebe Goodell Judson, "A Pioneer's Search for an Ideal Home": “It is the oft repeated inquiry of my friends as to what induced me to bury myself more than fifty years ago in this far-off corner of the world, that has determined me to take my pen in hand at this late day. Did I come around the Horn, cross the Isthmus, or come across the plains? Was I not afraid of the Indians, and much more they ask. So I have decided to answer them all and singly by writing a short history of our pioneer life, and to affectionately dedicate my book to the memory of the late Holden A. Jundson, my dear husband, who journeyed with me for half a century in the wilderness. This will be but a condensed narrative of events which I shall endeavor to recall out of the mists of the past, written with no attempt at literary display, containing no fiction, but simply a record of the homely, everyday incidents of a plain woman, who has now exceeded her three score years and ten, and who has roughed it in the early fifties on the extreme northwestern frontier.

The romance of frontier life beyond the confines of civilization with its varied, exciting and interesting experiences among the children of nature—both human and brute—has caused the years to fly swiftly, as on the wings of the wind. Our pioneer story begins where love stories (more is the pity) frequently terminate, for Holden Allen Judson and Phoebe Newton Goodell had been joined in the holy bonds of matrimony three years before we decided to emigrate to the vast and uncultivated wilderness of Puget Sound, which at that time was a part of Oregon. . . . Seldom were two more congenially mated to travel the rough voyage of life. Both were endowed with vigorous health, fired with ambition and a love of nature. The motive that induced us to part with pleasant associations and the dear friends of our childhood days, was to obtain from the government of the United States a grant of land that “Uncle Sam” had promised to give to the head of each family who settled in this new country. This, we hoped, would make us independent, for as yet we did not possess a home of our own—all of which meant so much to us that we were willing to encounter dangers, endure hardships and privations in order to secure a home that we might call “ours.” The many air castles that I built concerning my “ideal home” while the preparations for our long journey were being made, are still fresh in my memory. It should be built by a mountain stream that flowed to the Pacific, or by some lake, or bay, and nothing should obstruct our view of the beautiful snow-capped mountains. True, it would be built of logs, but they would be covered with vines and roses, while the path leading to it should be bordered with flowers and the air filled with their sweet perfume. Home, home, sweet home; Be it ever so humble, There’s no place like home.

The time set for our departure was March 1st, 1853. Many dear friends gathered to see us off. The tender good-byes were said with brave cheers in the voices, but many tears from the hearts. After we were seated in the stage that was to carry us forth on the first part of our journey in to the wide, wide world, little Annie put out her hands and asked Fazzer, as she called her grandpapa, to take her. He begged us to leave her with them—mother seconding his request with tearful eyes. Her sweet young life was interwoven with theirs, and well I knew the anguish that rent their hearts at the parting with their little darling. Deeply we sympathized with them in their grief, but how could we part with our only treasure? Amid the waving of handkerchiefs and the lingering God bless yous the stage rolled away—and we were embarked on our long and perilous journey.”

6. Describe some of the noteworthy insights these accounts reveal about life heading west:

9

Territorial Acquisitions of the Era

Mexican-American War (1846-’48)

Context (1821-‘36)

In 1821, Mexico declared itself free from its “mother country,” Spain. Mexico was enormous in size, stretching from Guatemala to Oregon. But there was a problem: Their northern lands, like Texas, were near empty. One way to increase the population was to welcome settlers from the U.S., who desperately wanted to expand west and bring slavery with them. A special effort was made by the Mexican government to encourage American farmers to settle in the Mexican province of Texas, offering enormous land grants at very cheap prices. For Mexico, this turned out to be a bad idea. Mexico was Catholic, anti-slavery, and wanted to keep American Texans under their control. American settlers were Protestant, pro-slavery, and largely ignored Mexican authority; Americans in Mexican Texas disregarded Mexican laws concerning religion and slavery (the latter of which was outlawed in 1829). These Americans became increasingly anti-Mexican and began agitating for greater self-government, and eventual, independence from Mexico.

It did not take long for these differences to boil into revolt. Determined to force Texans to obey the laws the Mexican government established, Santa Anna (the Mexican president, see right) marched into Texas. Stephen Austin, the leader of the American Texans, issued a call for Texans to arm themselves. Following bloody encounters at places like the Alamo (where the Texans lost), the Texans eventually defeated Santa Anna’s forces at the Battle of San Jacinto, shouting “Remember the Alamo!” for inspiration. Santa Anna was captured and forced to sign the Treaty of Valasco (1836), ending the war. But the Mexican government refused to acknowledge the forced treaty and hoped to regain Texas. Thus, they never recognized Texan independence as Texans themselves had.

7. Why did Americans start settling in Mexican Texas in the 1830s? For what reasons was there conflict between the Mexican government and the American settlers?

8. Do you see the Treaty of Valasco (1836) as a legitimate treaty recognizing Texan independence?

Post “Independence” Texas, or, the Texas Republic (1836-’46)

Most Texans wanted to be annexed by the U.S., but the country was unable to do so due to the slavery question. As early as 1837, Texas attempted to negotiate annexation. Democrats supported their request, hoping to continue Jefferson’s ideal of an agrarian republic while also spreading the institution of slavery. Whigs opposed Texas’s request, preferring industrialization and fearing the extension of “slave power,” which referred to the fact that the expansion of slavery thwarted mobility for average whites while also adding more representation for slave-friendly interests in the national government (both houses of Congress and the Electoral College).

After years of debate, the U.S. finally admitted Texas to the Union as a slave state in 1845, under President John Tyler, shortly before James K. Polk entered office. Polk, having won the White House with his unwavering support for Manifest Destiny, had his eye on places like California and New Mexico and wanted to shore up the border between Texas and Mexico, which was disputed. The U.S. took the Texan view, held since their 1836 victory, that the boundary was at the Rio Grande. Mexico, on the other hand, took the view that the border should be what it was under Mexican rule—the Nueces River.

Quick Texas Reference Timeline:

Spanish Texas, 1690-1821

Mexican Texas, 1821-1836

Republic of Texas, 1836-1845

Statehood, 1845-1860

Confederacy, 1861-1865

10

In 1845, Polk sent American troops under General Zachary Taylor into the disputed area of southern Texas, the Rio Grande, which the Mexican government claimed was their land. Polk claimed to be sending troops in the event of Mexican aggression, but to Mexicans, this was an invasion of their land. Shortly after, Polk sent John Slidell, a diplomat, to Mexico City to try to buy New Mexico and California and negotiate an agreement whereby the Rio Grande would be the southern border of Texas. While in Mexico, Slidell hinted that Mexican reluctance to negotiate might require a show of force by the military, which was already stationed under General Taylor.

The combination of American troops in land Mexico believed was its own and the attempt to buy a large part of their country angered the Mexican government. Slidell was asked to leave Mexico City. Polk saw Mexico’s treatment of Slidell as an opportunity. He felt America’s honor had been challenged, and he wanted revenge. Polk knew any attack on U.S. troops would garner support in Congress for a declaration of war. When word arrived that 11 U.S. soldiers were killed on the “Texas side” of the Rio Grande, President Polk believed he had a reason for going to war.

9. Why was Texas’s admission into the U.S. tied up for some time?

10. Polk sent Taylor and Slidell on two important missions in 1845. Where were they sent and why?

11. Evaluate Polk’s decision to send troops to the Rio Grande.

Events of War

America’s wars have often been controversial. Remember, the Revolution (1776-’83) is estimated to have had the support of only one-third of the American colonists. The War of 1812 caused some New Englanders at the Hartford Convention to threaten secession, which was responsible for the demise of the Federalist party. Entry into World War I and the continuation of fighting in places like Vietnam and Iraq, were vigorously opposed. It should come as no surprise, then, that America’s war with Mexico had both its supporters and its critics.

Though many Whigs/Northerners opposed the war, most supported the declaration of war that Polk encouraged from Congress, due to lessons learned from the War of 1812 (opposing war meant collapse for the Federalists). To Whigs/Northerners, the war was viewed as a Southern conspiracy to extend slavery into Mexico and South America. There were also questions about Polk’s justification for war; the land Polk sent U.S. soldiers to was disputed and U.S. soldiers were said to have provoked Mexican aggression, leading to the deaths of 11 soldiers. Lincoln, elected to Congress from Illinois as a Whig after war began, stated, “We charge the president with usurping the war-making power, . . . with seizing a country, . . . which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans. . . . Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew.” Transcendentalists, such as Henry David Thoreau, were opposed to the war, Thoreau so much so that he refused to pay taxes he knew would fund the war effort, and was jailed for it.

Despite notable opposition, the war with Mexico raged on. The question of what to do with the new lands acquired from Mexico, assuming the U.S. won the war, caused controversy from the start in the nation’s capital. PA Representative David Wilmot (see right) introduced legislation in the House called the “Wilmot Proviso,” in 1846, shortly after war broke out. Though an ardent racist himself, Wilmot was adamantly against the extension of slavery in lands expected to be ceded by Mexico. His Proviso boldly declared, “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist” in lands won by the war.

What drove Wilmot and some of his supporters from the North? They felt that the entire Cabinet and national agenda were dominated by Southern minds and principles. Under Polk’s leadership the tariff had been decreased, internal improvements were denied, and compromise was made in Oregon (discussed on p.7). Instead of western lands opening to slavery, Wilmot hoped the new territories would be a place where free whites could work and improve themselves, without the competition of slave labor. Though Wilmot managed to get the bill passed in the House, laws require majority support from both houses of Congress. Since the

11

Senate was evenly divided between slave and free states, that chamber never passed the bill. Though Congress had previously passed a gag rule (1836-’44) forbidding the discussion of slavery, the issue could no longer be avoided given the new circumstances.

12. Why did Whigs/Northerners end up supporting the declaration of war, even though many of them opposed it?

13. The [failed] Wilmot Proviso was introduced to the House shortly after war broke out. What does that suggest about how Americans perceived the war and what the expected outcome would be?

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)

After America’s victory in the Mexican-American War, the U.S. enlarged its territory by a third in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico ceded to the U.S. its vast northern territories—the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and half of Colorado. Mexico also agreed to the Rio Grande border. The agreement cost the U.S. $15 million. But fighting the war cost over $100 million, along with 13,000 U.S. lives, and 50,000 Mexican lives.

There was much debate in the Senate over whether the treaty went far enough. President Polk wanted U.S. diplomats to push for all of Mexico, since the U.S. had taken Mexico City. But both Southern Democrats and Northern Whigs agreed that doing so would be too problematic. Both were nervous about expanding further into Mexico. It was believed that Mexicans would “poison the U.S.” since territorial governments and rights would eventually be extended to them; Mexicans weren’t seen as being capable of republican governance. It would be racism that ensured Mexican sovereignty. Polk was upset, but reluctantly agreed to the Treaty as it stood.

14. What is meant by the statement “racism ensured Mexican sovereignty”?

15. Was Polk right? Should the U.S. have pushed for all of Mexico? Why or why not?

16. The Mexican-American War was a justifiable war both ideologically and politically. Support, modify or refute this statement. This should read like a thesis of an essay.

12

Timeline of Manifest Destiny & Context Related to Mexican-American War 1821 (p.9): 1829 (p.9): 1836 (p.9): 1830s (p.6): 1837 (p.9): 1845 (pages 7, 9, 10): 1846-’48: M-A-War (explain how it begins) 1846 (p.10): 1848 (p.11): 1850s (p.6):

13

Territorial Acquisitions of the Era, continued

Oregon Treaty (1846)

The United States and Britain had agreed to a joint occupation of Oregon in which citizens of both countries could settle. This arrangement, brokered by President John Quincy Adams in 1819 (while he was Monroe’s Secretary of State), lasted until 1846. By 1840, the British in the territory were outnumbered 6 to 1. The British were chiefly fur traders while the Americans were a more eclectic lot. When accounts of the fertile soil of the region spread rapidly to the East, thousands of American families migrated westward along the Oregon Trail. The resulting population disparity along with an overall decline in the fur trade, convinced the British government to work for a negotiated settlement to the Oregon issue. As with Texas, popular opinion over the Oregon Country was divided. Whereas Texas territory would have added proslavery representation in Congress, any potential states formed from the Oregon Country would be free states. Accordingly, Northerners were the chief advocates of acquiring as much Oregon Country as possible.

In the presidential election of 1844, Democrat James K. Polk rode to victory over his Whig opponent Henry Clay (who was largely responsible for the American system and a key player in the “Corrupt Bargain” of 1824) on an aggressively expansionist platform. Shortly thereafter, negotiations between the United States and Britain over the Oregon Country began. The initial American proposal called for the boundary to be drawn at the 49th parallel. When British negotiators rejected this proposal, President Polk took a bolder position by reasserting his campaign promise to support the 54° 40' line and announcing the American intent to terminate the joint occupancy agreement within a year. While expansionist Northerners cheered these provocative actions with shouts of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!," Southerners in Congress made it clear that they would not risk war with Britain over Oregon. British leaders were similarly adverse to conflict and did not want to jeopardize their important economic relationship with the United States (plus their fur trade in the area had significantly declined, as mentioned above). In June 1846, the Senate, preoccupied with war against Mexico, quickly approved the Oregon Treaty with Britain, setting the boundary at the 49th parallel.

The Gadsden Purchase (1854)

The Gadsden Purchase, or Treaty, was an agreement between the United States (under Franklin Pierce’s administration, 1853-’57) and Mexico, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $10 million (!!!) for a 29,670 square mile portion of Mexico that later became part of Arizona and New Mexico. Gadsden’s Purchase provided the land necessary for a southern transcontinental railroad and created the southern border of the present-day United States, despite the beliefs of some policymakers at the time who thought the United States would eventually expand further into Mexico.

14

17. Annotate this map, providing additional context for each section; requires review of Periods 3-5.

15

Perspectives on the Mexican-American-War (1846-1848)

Background: Most Americans call the war with Mexico in 1846-’48, “The Mexican-American War,” while Mexicans often refer to it as “The U.S. Invasion.” This exercise will help us to understand the roots of these distinctive perceptions and, ultimately, arrive at our own conclusions regarding the nature of the conflict and how it should be remembered in both the U.S. and Mexico today.

Questions for Consideration: To what extent was the Mexican-American War a “justifiable” war and not simply an excuse perpetrated by the American people in order to seize land from a weak neighbor? Was the United States justified in taking half of Mexico's territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Was Manifest Destiny an aggressive imperialism pursued at the expense of others? Or, were American actions justified by economic, political, and ideological impulses? Was this war prompted by a U.S. invasion? What would Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and/or Madison say about the war?

Instructions: (If you have not completed the Manifest Destiny & M-A-War document, you need to do so before getting started with this document.) Actively read the addendum documents, A-H. Then record commentary on the next page regarding how the documents address the questions listed above.

16

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

17

1850s Text Assignment

1. Begin on page 428, “1850: Crisis and Compromise”: Given the four distinct positions on California’s bid for admission into the Union, how do you evaluate the ultimate decision in the Compromise of 1850?

2. Why was the Fugitive Slave Act portion of the 1850 Compromise the most problematic?

3. What was the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)? What is its relationship to the Missouri Compromise (1820)?

4. The Republican party was an eclectic bunch. Describe how, below. Also, please note that the text is a bit misleading when it says that “all its members opposed slavery.” They opposed the expansion of slavery; a small radical faction supported abolition and racial equality; and while many saw the economic pitfalls of the slave system, they did not advocate for abolition as a party.

5. What was the American, or Know-Nothing party?

6. Why was Kansas called “Bleeding Kansas” in 1856?

7. What were the key tenets in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case (1857)?

18

Sources on Secession As we will see through videos and primary sources, both Northerners and Southerners are often guilty of misrepresenting the Civil War; namely, what compelled each side to fight. Northerners often argue that they fought the war to abolish slavery (from the start), while Southerners often argue that they seceded and fought for states’ rights, not slavery. Both positions are contradicted with overwhelming historical evidence. Good historical inquiry demands that we look carefully at both the evidence and the false claims, so that we can understand not just “what happened,” but why the story of what happened gets refashioned. To some, the refashioning of history is just as important as the “history” itself! In this document, we will explore 1) Southern justifications for secession, 2) Lincoln’s reaction to secession (you’ve already evaluated this source in our “Sources on Lincoln” document, but I’ve included it here again to emphasize its importance), and 3) how the South gets the Civil War “wrong”. Pay close attention to the relative value of each source and what it indicates about what ultimately compelled Southerners to secede in 1860-’61. Step 1: Actively read the primary sources (see attachment) and complete the corresponding questions (up to 7). 1. (See Context) According to the context above, what do Northerners

misrepresent about the war? How did the Lincoln film help to highlight that misrepresentation?

2. Make a list of key reasons given for Southern secession as you read through the primary sources. Indicate which source the reason is coming from by including the letter parenthetically.

3. What do the primary sources share in common? Do you see any important differences?

19

4. Assessing for value: When historians evaluate primary sources, they explore the larger context—timing, point of view, intended audience, purpose, etc.—to better understand the motives of the author and whether or not the words of the document should be taken at face value. Let’s explore several documents and assess for value:

a. What value would you associate with the secession declarations? With what level of certainty do they address our key question (what compelled the South to secede)?

b. What value would you associate with Alexander Stephens’ speeches? With what level of certainty do they address our key question (what compelled the South to secede)?

c. What value would you associate with General Mosby’s letter (Source I)? With what level of certainty does it address our key question (what compelled the South to secede)?

d. Which of the above sources (#4a-c) would be most valuable to an historian interested in how the South has refashioned their history? Why?

5. To what extent do you see a “states’ rights” argument in these sources?

6. What exaggerated/inaccurate statements do the sources make with regards to the North and its intent?

7. Which inaugural (David or Lincoln) was more effective given the circumstances? Why? Who appears to be the more capable or effective leader? Why?

20

Step 2: Read the background information on Dr. James W. Loewen below. Then actively read, “Getting the Civil War Right,”(see attachment) and complete the corresponding questions (8-12).

Dr. James W. Loewen is a sociologist and historian who has worked at Harvard University and the University of Vermont. He has authored many books that have received prestigious awards, along with teaching race relations for 20 years.

Dr. Loewen spent years at the Smithsonian surveying 12 leading high school textbooks of American history only to find an “embarrassing” blend of bland optimism, blind nationalism, and plain misinformation. This experience led him to write the best-seller and award-winning, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong.”

8. How does Dr. Loewen attempt to debunk the myth that the South seceded on the issue of states’ rights? Make a list of ideas, which you should find throughout the source:

9. Describe the “Lost Cause.”

10. Dr. Loewen takes historiography very seriously, and thinks students should, too. Do you agree with him? Why or why not? [Historiography is the history of the writing of history; how history-telling changes over time as a result of who is doing the writing, when, and for what audience(s).

21

11. Revisit the “What’s in a Name” section. Pick two of the names that have been used and speculate as to what those names “reveal about the people who used them.”

12. Imagine you are… a. a white student from Alabama, with deep familial ties to the region: How would you feel if you were taught that the

primary reason your ancestors fought the Civil War was to preserve a racist slave society at all costs? How would that feeling contrast with being taught that your ancestors fought to defend states’ rights?

b. a black student from Pennsylvania, whose ancestors had been enslaved in Virginia during the 18th century: How would you feel knowing that so many Americans deemphasize the role slavery played in the decision to secede?

22

Secession: Legal and Moral Questions

Is the United States really “one nation, indivisible,” as the Pledge of Allegiance asserts?

The U.S. government has routinely denied the legality of secession from the United States. The official White House response to secession petitions in recent years has been the following:

“Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot. . . . But they did not provide a right to walk away from it. . . . [About 800,000] Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.”

And the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”

The Constitution includes neither specific language providing for a right to secede, nor specific language prohibiting it. But, Article I, Section 10, reads, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….”

You might ask: What about Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which affirms Locke’s social contract theory and asserts eternal, self-evident, fundamental truths and rights? Could the South validly argue, as Jefferson did in 1776, that their rights were violated? Was there a long enough list of grievances? Did the South try and reconcile? Was there a pattern of tyranny? If the answers are no, does that make Southern secession unwarranted? Or, were the standards for secession set by Jefferson incorrect in some way? If so, what should the standards be?

Also consider the principle of self-determination, an idea that emerged at the time of World War I, and one that the United Nations declared was a “human right”: people should decide for themselves under what government they wish to live.

Other questions to consider:

• Is self-determination (see definition above) a fundamental right that knows no boundaries? Or, can self-determination only be applied when the party desiring it has a “just” cause? (colonists vs. British VS. Confederacy vs. Union)

• Was the South justified in seceding from the Union?

• Is secession legal? If a state were to try and secede today, should they be allowed?

• Is it legal/constitutional/ethical, to force parts of a country to stay part of that country? Is it tyrannical to physically force a minority to rejoin the majority?

• Should it be regarded as “treasonous” or “unpatriotic” to support Confederate symbols in America?

Provide commentary below:

23

Sources on Lincoln

Actively read the primary sources on Lincoln (1809-’65 | President 1861-’65), including the background context, which is often equally as helpful as the source itself. Incorporate content from the sources in your responses below. After each point, include a parenthetical note regarding which source the content is from.

Given the richness and quantity of the sources, you should have detailed/extensive responses/lists for each prompt. It may be easier to type responses and attach to your packet.

1. Keey track of Lincoln’s key thoughts/actions with regards to slavery and race. Note changes/evolution over time (include dates). This should be your lengthiest response as nearly all the sources touch on this topic and provide somewhat contradictory information:

2. Keep track of Lincoln’s thoughts/actions with regards to secession:

24

3. Keep track of Lincoln’s use of war powers:

4. Keep track of Lincoln’s thoughts with regards to Reconstruction (plans for the nation, post-Civil War):

5. How would you describe how Frederick Douglass felt about Lincoln?

6. Use this space for any questions you have relating to the documents or Lincoln in general:

7. How did the documents change or reinforce your view of Lincoln? OR: Survey after survey, of both American scholars and average citizens, show that Lincoln is ranked as the “best” president more often than anyone else. Does the evidence (thus far) support the view that Lincoln was the nation’s greatest president? Explain. If you think another president is worthy of the “best” title, explain your perspective.

25

Lincoln Viewing Guide

The Academy Award winning film Lincoln provides an opportunity to accomplish key objectives:

✓ Understand the mindset of Northerners in the Civil War era. While Northerners today tend to think of Northerners of the 1850s and ‘60s as a monolithic group that was opposed to slavery and a proponent of racial equality, this film helps us realize what a fallacy that notion is. In terms of thoughts on race/slavery:

o A small minority of radical abolitionists (“Radical Republicans”) were on the “right side of history.” Although some managed to get elected to the U.S. Congress, we’ll see in the film how much opposition they faced once there. They were far more progressive than the average Northerner.

o Most Northerners—post Mexican-American War—were anti-expansion of slavery. They were often called “free soilers,” who wanted all new territories/states to be free of slavery for economic and political reasons. Many in this category believed slavery would inevitably wither away in modern society.

o Most Northerners were ardently racist and believed free blacks and whites could never live in harmony with one another (as such, many felt blacks should be sent back to their homelands).

✓ Get to know Lincoln—and the influence he had on Northern public opinion—very well. He was a complex man whose views on race/slavery seem to have dramatically evolved over time. In some respects, he, as well as the war itself, nudged Northerners to evolve on issues of race/slavery.

✓ Understand the dynamics behind passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in the U.S.: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. . . .”

The film takes place in the 4th year of the Civil War (1865), during Lincoln’s final 4 months of life. The 13th Amendment, which abolishes slavery, has been passed by the Senate but was defeated in the House. This film is focused on Lincoln’s battle to bring the amendment to a vote in the House once again, despite all of the odds and seemingly odd-timing. One of the key goals of the film is to understand why Lincoln is so adamant about passing the 13th Amendment at this moment; what are his true motives, and are the actions he takes justified? Note: There are many profanities throughout the film. Any attempt to skip each scene where vulgar language is used would impede our ability to fully grasp the historical context and content.

It is helpful to review political parties at this time (1865) before watching the film.

Democrats Republicans

o Jacksonian o Distaste for government interference o Use of class rhetoric to inflame poor against rich o Favored U.S. geographic expansion o Mostly a Southern party; advocates of slavery o Northern Democrats were divided during this time: some supported

Lincoln’s wartime policies (such as violating the Constitution at times in order to preserve the Union) but disagreed with the Emancipation Proclamation due to racial attitudes, while others did not support any of his wartime policies

o Northerners: former free-soilers, Whigs, abolitionists (eclectic group)

o In the 1850s (after Mexican-American War), they all shared the anti-expansion of slavery view

o Conservative faction wants to negotiate peace; not interested in 13th Amendment unless it will bring peace

o Radical Republicans favor abolition of slavery and racial equality

26

1. What do you think was the purpose of the scene showing Lincoln speaking with the black and white soldiers?

2. Describe the views of Secretary of State Seward (picture right), the man Lincoln was speaking with in his carriage and in his office, on the 13th Amendment. What were some of the obstacles that Lincoln faced in passing the 13th Amendment?

3. Scene with Lincoln, Seward, and the Jolly’s: a. How did “the people” [of the Union] feel about the 13th Amendment?

b. If the war had ended, how would that change their view of the 13th Amendment?

4. Who was Preston Blair (picture, right) and what did his faction desire at this time?

5. Scene with Cabinet members: (scene begins with Secretary of War complaining about a war map)

a. Why were some Cabinet members upset with Lincoln?

b. Explain how Lincoln described his use of “war powers”:

c. Why was Lincoln so determined to pass the 13th Amendment at this time?

6. Why did the Radical Republicans, the minority faction of the Republican Party in favor of abolition and racial equality, distrust Lincoln? In their minds, what was motivating Lincoln to push for the 13th Amendment? [leader of the faction, Thaddeus Stevens, picture, right]

27

7. What did Secretary Seward and his hired lobbyists seek to do?

8. How did the Democratic Party label Lincoln? Why? (as evidenced by the speech from NY Democratic representative Fernando Wood)

9. What type of Democrat do Seward’s lobbyists think they could influence and how did they attempt to sway them? [lobbyist William Bilbo: picture, right]

10. Why did Seward get upset with Lincoln? Why is he so concerned with the “rumors”?

11. Scene with Lincoln and Stevens discussing the 13th Amendment and Reconstruction: a. What did Lincoln want Stevens and the Radicals to do in the debate? Why?

b. What was Stevens’s vision of the post-war era? What were Lincoln’s thoughts on this vision?

12. House debate scene: a. What strategy did the Democrats adopt in regards to Stevens?

b. What fears did Yeaman (the representative from Kentucky) raise about the 13th Amendment?

13. What created difficulty for Seward's men as they tried to hold onto votes for the Amendment?

28

14. Southern offer scenes: a. Describe Grant’s (picture, right) message to the “sesesh delegates”:

b. What dilemma was Lincoln faced with at this time?

c. What message did Lincoln send to Grant at first (regarding the sesesh delegates)? How did Lincoln change the message to Grant? Why?

15. What did Stevens do in his speech on the House floor? Why do you think he made this decision?

16. Why did Lincoln visit Seward's men (the lobbyists)?

17. Why was Representative Yeaman reluctant to change his vote and support the amendment?

18. According to Lincoln, what was at stake at that time?

19. House vote scenes: a. What did Representative Pendleton say in his remarks on the House floor? What did the conservative Republicans

decide to do?

b. What did Lincoln tell the House about a peace delegation? (this changes the minds of conservative Republicans)

c. After all of the votes, what was the final result?

20. What did Stevens do with the bill?

29

21. When Lincoln meets with the Southern delegation, what did they insist upon? What did Lincoln insist during this meeting?

Southern delegation Lincoln

22. Describe the plan for Reconstruction that Lincoln communicated to Grant:

Post-Viewing ?s: Type responses to four of the prompts below (2-4 sentences); email to Ms. Wiley by _________________________.

23. Summarize how the 13th Amendment came to be passed by the House of Representatives. To what extent was Lincoln responsible for the 13th Amendment? What other figures from the area should get credit as well?

24. What did the film showcase about Northern public opinion with regards to slavery/African Americans?

25. What insights can be gained about the nature of politics from this film?

26. How did the film impact your view of “honest Abe”?

27. Some revisionists have painted Lincoln as a “reluctant emancipator” due to his statements and actions with regards to slavery (and African Americans in general) throughout his life and career. How do you think this film weighs-in on the issue?

28. What was your favorite scene in the movie? Why?

29. What were your reactions to the Lincoln family dynamics?

30. Whose ideology do you respect more, Lincoln or Stevens? (think back to the compass analogy…)

Top: Lincoln and his son, Thomas “Tad”

Lincoln, who died at 18 ☹.

Bottom: Sadly, only one of Lincoln’s sons

survived into adulthood, Robert Todd Lincoln.

30

Reconstruction Simulation

The Civil War has just ended and the 13th Amendment has been passed by the House (thanks, Lincoln et al.). You have been nominated to serve on the ‘Reconstruction Committee’ for the House of Representatives. It will be your duty, along with your committee members, to develop a plan for post-war America. How will you rebuild the nation? What meaning will former slaves find in their freedom?

In your committee group you will address each question from an 1865 perspective. Remember that Congress was dominated by Republicans, which included a radical and conservative wing, and public opinion was far behind where the radical wing (led by Thaddeus Stevens) wanted it to be. This is probably something you should keep in mind, if you would like to be reelected by your constituents. You should also consider what Lincoln would have wanted (think of his discussion with Grant at the end of the war, his Second Inaugural speech, and the speech where he mentioned [qualified] black suffrage).

Discuss and respond to each question below. Bullets are fine, however, be prepared to elaborate on your points. Be sure to consider what political, social, and economic costs may result from your decision. What do you risk/gain with each decision? Also think about the Constitution; are all of your ideas constitutional?

KEY QUESTION: What to do with the newly-freed blacks? (approximately 4 million)

a) Where will they live? How will they gain land? b) What jobs should they secure? c) What rights should be granted? Right to vote? d) How will any new rights be protected? Should the federal

government protect former slaves? e) What will be done about education? (90% of former

slaves in the South were illiterate) f) What are the economic costs of any programs you’ve

created? Who will pay?

KEY QUESTION: How should the Southern states be reintegrated into the Union? a) What to do with top Confederate leaders/officers

and the soldiers who fought for them? b) Should lenient policies be enacted? Should the

states be pardoned? c) Must the South support the 13th Amendment? d) Military occupation? e) Swear loyalty to Union? If so, what percentage of

population? f) Reconfigure Southern life? Attempt to remove

deep-seated racism? Segregation? g) What to do about economic and environmental

devastation in the South?

31

1. What was the most challenging question to answer in your committee group? Why?

2. What factors did you consider before making your decisions? What influenced you the most? Why?

3. After learning about Reconstruction in class: How did your plans for Reconstruction differ from what actually occurred? Would your plan have worked effectively considering what you’ve learned about the era? Why or why not?

Thaddeus Stevens (1792-1868), speaking before the House

32

Sources on Reconstruction

The Civil War (1861-’65) may have settled some significant national problems, but it

also created many more. Slavery was abolished, the country was reunited, and the

supremacy of the federal government was confirmed. However, the cost of the Union victory—lost lives, destroyed property, and

sectional bitterness—was staggering and it created huge new problems and tasks. These challenges included determining the future

status of the four million newly freed slaves, who did not have jobs, an education, places to live, or any guarantee of basic civil rights,

and figuring out how to bring the former Confederacy back into the Union. Northerners and Southerners, who had just spent four

years slaughtering each other by the thousands, bitterly resented one another and were now forced to share the country once again.

Many Southern whites had their land or families destroyed during the Civil War, and had to rebuild their lives from scratch. Those

who survived still held many of the same racist attitudes and resentments towards blacks, and did not want to include them in

society.

After the death of President Lincoln (1865) and the failure of President Johnson, Congress took charge of the effort to “reconstruct”

the divided nation. “Congressional Reconstruction” (1865-1877) was an effort to establish and protect the citizenship rights of

freedmen while reintegrating the secessionist states. To achieve these goals, Congress, controlled by Republicans, divided the

Confederacy into five military districts, each governed by a Union general. In order to rid themselves of these “military dictatorships,”

Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for all citizens, including former slaves,

while excluding many ex-Confederates from serving in the U.S. government or military. By 1870, all of the former Confederate states

had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and were readmitted to the Union. At first, freedmen were supported/protected by Union

troops, the Freedmen’s Bureau, and the promises of the Fourteenth Amendment. But this did not last long. By 1877, attempts to

reconstruct the South officially ended, leaving white-only governments in its wake, which rapidly eroded the citizenship rights of

freedmen. African-American voting rates plummeted and former slaves fell into a “second class” citizenship characterized by

sharecropping, state-enforced segregation, and terror.

1. What were the key questions, objectives, and challenges of Reconstruction?

2. Based on what you’ve read so far, was Reconstruction a success or a failure?

A. Source: Excerpt from PBS’s A History of US (2011) See video on teacher site or the YouTube clip at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJLBrDSTgng

3. Take notes on key ideas from the video:

33

B. Source: Eric Foner’s Remarks on the Changing Views of Reconstruction (2009) See video on teacher site or the YouTube clip at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxA3v_aWoiY

Dr. Eric Foner is a history professor at Columbia University and president of the American Historical Association, the oldest society of historians and professors of history in the U.S. Dr. Foner is the leading contemporary historian of the Reconstruction period, having published and won awards for many of his books on the topic.

4. Take notes on key ideas from the video:

C. Source: Sharecropping Visual, PBS

5. What made the sharecropping system a “cycle of poverty”?

34

D. Source: Excerpt from Senate Report (1880)

Freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, former slave Henry Adams testified before the U.S. Senate some fifteen years later about the early days of his freedom.

The white men read a paper to all of us colored people telling us that we were free and could go where we pleased and work for who we pleased. The man I belonged to told me it was best to stay with him. He said, “The bad white men was mad with the Negroes because they were free and they would kill you all for fun.” He said, stay where we are living and we could get protection from our old masters.

I told him I thought that every man, when he was free, could have his rights and protect themselves. He said, “The colored people could never protect themselves among the white people. So you had all better stay with the white people who raised you and make contracts with them to work by the year for one-fifth of all you make. And next year you can get one-third, and the next you maybe work for one-half you make. We have contracts for you all to sign, to work for one-twentieth you make from now until the crop is ended, and then next year you all can make another crop and get more of it.”

I told him I would not sign anything. I said, “I might sign to be killed. I believe the white people is trying to fool us.” But he said again, “Sign this contract so I can take it to the Yankees and have it recorded.” All our colored people signed it but myself and a boy named Samuel Jefferson. All who lived on the place was about sixty, young and old.

On the day after all had signed the contracts, we went to cutting oats. I asked the boss, “Could we get any of the oats?” He said, “No; the oats were made before you were free.” After that he told us to get timber to build a sugar-mill to make molasses. We did so. On the 13th day of July 1865 we started to pull fodder. I asked the boss would he make a bargain to give us half of all the fodder we would pull. He said we may pull two or three stacks and then we could have all the other. I told him we wanted half, so if we only pulled two or three stacks we would get half of that. He said, “All right.” We got that and part of the corn we made. We made five bales of cotton but we did not get a pound of that. We made two or three hundred gallons of molasses and only got what we could eat. We made about eight-hundred bushel of potatoes; we got a few to eat. We split rails three or four weeks and got not a cent for that.

6. What does Adams’ testimony convey about the difficulty in defining “freedom” for the new freedmen?

7. With no education, resources, or certainty about the future, what would you have done with newfound freedom, had you been in Adams’ shoes?

E. Source: Excerpt from Frederick Douglass’s Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1881)

. . . History does not furnish an example of emancipation under conditions less friendly to the emancipated class than this American example. Liberty came to the freedmen of the United States not in mercy, but in wrath [anger], not by moral choice but by military necessity, not by the generous action of the people among whom they were to live, and whose good-will was essential to the success of the measure, but by strangers, foreigners, invaders, trespassers, aliens, and enemies. The very manner of their emancipation invited to the heads of the freedmen the bitterest hostility of race and class. They were hated because they had been slaves, hated because they were now free, and hated because of those who had freed them. Nothing was to have been expected other than what has happened, and he is a poor student of the human heart who does not see that the old master class would naturally employ every power and means in their reach to make the great measure of emancipation unsuccessful and utterly odious [hateful]. It was born in the tempest [storm, turmoil] and whirlwind of war, and has lived in a storm of violence and blood. When the Hebrews were emancipated, they were told to take spoil [goods or property] from the Egyptians. When the serfs of Russia were emancipated [in 1861], they were given three acres of ground upon which they could live and make a living. But not so when our slaves were emancipated.

8. What did Frederick Douglass identify as a problem with the way the United States government emancipated the slaves? Do you agree or disagree with him?

35

F. Source: Pennsylvania Congressman Benjamin Boyer’s Remarks (1866)

In January 1866, soon after the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, radical Republicans in Congress began arguing that freedmen

should be allowed to vote on equal terms with whites. A bill was introduced to give the vote to the freedmen of the District of

Columbia. Most Democrats and many moderate Republicans opposed the bill, though most radical Republicans supported it (even

though only five Northern states allowed African-American men to vote at this time). The following excerpts come from the speech of

Pennsylvania Congressman Benjamin Boyer, a Democrat who opposed the bill to allow African Americans the right to vote in the

District of Columbia.

It is common for the advocates of Negro suffrage to assume that the color of the Negro is the main obstacle to his admission to

political equality. . . . But it is not the complexion of the Negro that degrades him[; . . . the Negro is] a race by nature inferior in

mental caliber. . . . [T]he Negroes are not equals of white Americans, and are not entitled . . . to participate in the Government of

this country . . . .

9. What justification is given by Congressman Boyer to defend his opposition to the bill?

G. Source: Harper’s Weekly Cartoon (1876)

First white man: “Of course he wants to vote for the democratic ticket!” Second white man: “You’re as free as air, ain’t you? Say you are, or I’ll blow your black head off!” See question below.

H. Source: Abram Colby, Testimony to Congress (1872)

Colby was a former slave who was elected to the Georgia State legislature during Reconstruction.

Colby: On the 29th of October 1869, [the Klansmen] broke my door open, took me out of bed, took me to the woods and whipped me three hours or more and left me for dead. They said to me, "Do you think you will ever vote another damned Radical ticket?" I said, "If there was an election tomorrow, I would vote the Radical ticket." They set in and whipped me a thousand licks more, with sticks and straps that had buckles on the ends of them.

Question: What is the character of those men who were engaged in whipping you?

Colby: Some are first-class men in our town. One is a lawyer, one a doctor, and some are farmers. . . . They said I had voted for Grant and had carried the Negroes against them. About two days before they whipped me they offered me $5,000 to go with them and said they would pay me $2,500 in cash if I would let another man go to the legislature in my place. I told them that I would not do it if they would give me all the county was worth. . . . No man can make a free speech in my county. I do not believe it can be done anywhere in Georgia.

10. How does the cartoon and testimony above highlight how “freedom” and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) was undermined during Reconstruction? [15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged [reduced] by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. . . . ]

36

I. Source: Board of Education for Freedmen, Department of the Gulf (1865)

A month before the end of the war, Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau (1865-’72) to look after the former slave population, handling everything from issuing food and clothing to helping people find jobs, promoting education, adjudicating [resolving] legal disputes, and reuniting families. The bureau was never adequately funded or staffed, and many Southern whites viewed it with hostility. By 1869, the Bureau had lost most of its funding and was forced to cut much of its staff. By 1870, the Bureau had been considerably weakened due to the rise of Ku Klux Klan violence in the South. In 1872, Congress abruptly abandoned the program.

What follows is an account of the creation and sustaining of the first public schools for the children of freed slaves in and around

New Orleans.

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the difficulty of establishing these schools . . . .

[T]he Board decided not to build school-houses at present, but to avail themselves

of such accommodations as could be found. . . . Cabins, sheds, unused houses, were

appropriated, roughly repaired, fitted with a cheap stove for the winter, a window

or two for light and air, a teacher sent to the locality, the neighboring children

gathered in, and the school started. . . .

[I]t frequently occurs, that in a desirable locality for a school, it is impossible to

obtain boarding for the teachers. In such cases, a weather-proof shelter of some

kind--very poor at best--is obtained, some simple furniture provided, and a teacher

sent who is willing to undergo the privations--often hardships of boarding herself, in addition to the fatigues of her school.

Compelled to live on the coarsest diet of corn bread and bacon; often no tea, coffee, butter, eggs, or flour; separated by miles of

bad roads from the nearest provision store; refused credit because she is a negro teacher, unable to pay cash because the

Government is unavoidably in arrears [debts]; subjected to the jeers and hatred of her neighbors; cut off from society, with

infrequent and irregular mails; swamped in mud--the school shed a drip, and her quarters little better; raided occasionally by

rebels, her school broken up and herself insulted, banished, or run off . . . ; under all this, it is really surprising how some of these

brave women manage to live, much more how they are able to render the service they do as teachers.

Despite all the efforts of our agents . . . and the devotion of the teachers, many of these schools would have to be abandoned but

for the freedmen themselves. These, fully alive to all that is being done for them . . . mount guard against the enemy of the schools

. . . .

In a parish [community], some distance from New Orleans, a building was procured, an energetic teacher sent, scholars gathered,

and the work begun. The first week brought no report. It came subsequently, as follows: "Arrived. Found a place to live a mile and

a half from the school-shed! Dreadful people, dirty and vulgar, but the best I can do. Went about gathering scholars, have forty.

Did well enough till it rained, since then have walked three miles a day, ankle deep in thick black mud that pulls off my shoes.

Nothing to eat but strong pork and sour bread. Insulted for being a `n----- teacher.' Can't buy anything on credit, and haven’t a cent

of money. The school shed has no floor, and the rains sweep clean across it, through the places where the windows should be. I

have to huddle the children first in one corner and then in another to keep them from drowning or swamping. The Provost

Marshal [a title for the head of a military police force] won't help me. Says 'he don't believe in n----- teachers--didn’t 'list to help

them.' The children come rain or shine, plunging through the mud—some of them as far as I do. Pretty pictures they are. What

shall I do? If it will ever stop raining I can get along." Who ever has attempted to march through the adhesive mud of this delta,

under a Louisiana rain-storm, will realize the accuracy of that report. It is one of a score.

In Thibodeaux the school-house has been broken open, on successive nights, for months past, the furniture defaced, the books

destroyed and the house made untenable by nuisance. Bricks and missiles have been hurled through the windows, greatly risking

limb and life, and making general commotion. . . . While the teachers in the city and towns are not subjected to the same sort of

annoyance and outrage, they are still the objects of scorn and vituperation [attacks/condemnations], from many of their early

friends, who refuse to recognize them on the street, and place them under the social ban for accepting the new order of things. . . .

A much larger percentage of absences is found in our schools during the winter than the summer months. This is owing to the very

general want of warm and suitable clothing. At least one-fifth of the school children are suffering from this cause. . . . They come

to school with singular diligence, week after week, bare-footed and bare-limbed, with garments ragged and thin, shivering over

37

their lessons from cold and wet, but still persistent to learn. We have made our plea for bare feet and naked shoulders to Northern

charitable societies. . . .

The pupils, as a class, are orderly, industrious, and easily governed. They are exceedingly grateful for any interest and kindness

shown to them. It is the testimony of our teachers, who have taught in both white and colored schools, that these children do not

suffer in comparison with the white in the activity of most of their faculties, and in the acquisition of knowledge. . . . Another

habitude of these colored children is their care of books and school furniture. There is an absence of that Young America

lawlessness so common on Caucasian play grounds. The walls and fences about the colored schools are not defaced, either by

violence or vulgar scratching. They do not whittle or ply the jack-knife at the expense of desks and benches. It may also be said

that the imagination of these juveniles is generally incorrupt and pure, and from the two most prevailing and disgusting vices of

school children, profanity and obscenity, they are singularly free. . . .

Another . . . immediate and marked influence of these schools is seen upon the white people in the lessening prejudice, in the

admission of the African's ability to learn, and his consequent fitness for places in the world, from which we have hitherto

excluded him. . . .

11. What problems are identified by this school report?

12. To what extent do you think the federal/state government(s) should have made adequate schools available to former slaves?

J. Source: Black Codes, Opelousas, Louisiana (1865) and text of Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments

In the years following the Civil War, Southern states, cities, and localities passed laws to restrict the rights of free African-American men and women. These laws were often called “Black Codes.”

A) "No negro or freedmen shall be allowed to come within the limits of the town of Opelousas without special permission from his employers. Whoever breaks this law will go to jail and work for two days on the public streets, or pay a fine of five dollars.” B) “No negro or freedman shall be permitted to rent or keep a house in town under any circumstances. No negro or freedman shall live within the town who does not work for some white person or former owner.” C) “No public meetings of negroes or freedmen shall be allowed within the town.” D) “No freedman shall be allowed to carry firearms, or any kind of weapons. No freedman shall sell or exchange any article of merchandise within the limits of Opelousas without permission in writing from his employer.” E) “Every negro is to be in the service of (work for) some white person, or former owner.”

Amendment 13 (1865): Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or and place subject to their jurisdiction. . . .

Amendment 14 (1868): All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . . .

13. In what way(s) do the black codes violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments? Be specific.

38

K. Source: Albion Tourgee, Letter on Ku Klux Klan Activities (1870)

Tourgee was a white, Northern soldier who settled in North Carolina after the War. He served as a judge during Reconstruction and wrote this letter to the North Carolina Republican Senator, Joseph Carter Abbott.

It is my mournful duty to inform you that our friend John W. Stephens, State Senator from Caswell, is dead. He was foully murdered by the Ku-Klux in the Grand Jury room of the Court House on Saturday. . . . He was stabbed five or six times, and then hanged on a hook in the Grand Jury room. . . . Another brave, honest Republican citizen has met his fate at the hands of these fiends. . . . I have very little doubt that I shall be one of the next victims. . . . I say to you plainly that any member of Congress who . . . does not support, advocate, and urge immediate, active, and thorough measures to put an end to these outrages . . . is a coward, a traitor, or a fool.

See question below. L. Source: Petition to the United States Congress (1871)

. . . We believe you are not familiar with the description of the Ku Klux Klans riding nightly over the country, going from county to county, and in the county towns, spreading terror wherever they go by robbing, whipping, ravishing, and killing our people without provocation [reason], compelling colored people to break the ice and bathe in the chilly waters of the Kentucky river. The [state] legislature has adjourned. They refused to enact any laws to suppress [stop] Ku-Klux disorder. We regard them [the Ku-Kluxers] as now being licensed to continue their dark and bloody deeds under cover of the dark night. They refuse to allow us to testify in the state courts where a white man is concerned. We find their deeds are perpetrated only upon colored men and white Republicans. We also find that for our services to the government and our race we have become the special object of hatred and persecution at the hands of the Democratic Party. Our people are driven from their homes in great numbers, having no redress [relief from distress] . . . . We would state that we have been law-abiding citizens, pay our taxes, and in many parts of the state our people have been driven from the polls, refused the right to vote. Many have been slaughtered while attempting to vote. We ask, how long is this state of things to last? . . .

14. According to the letter and petition above, who did the KKK target, how did they terrorize their victims, and what were their goals?

39

Gone with the Wind Analysis Gone with the Wind is an American novel, published in 1936 by Margaret Mitchell. It became a smash success upon publication, won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize, and remains one of the best-selling novels of all time. In 1940, a film version of the book was made, which captivated audiences, in both the North and South. It quickly became one of the most popular motion pictures of all time.

The story is told from the perspective of a very privileged Southern belle named Scarlet O’Hara, who lives on an idyllic Georgian plantation named Tara. The film traces her experiences through the Civil War and part of Reconstruction (1861-1871). A major theme of the story is the transformation of the South from the pre- to post-war period. The novel begins in 1861, in the days before the Civil War, and ends in 1871, after the Democrats regain power in Georgia. The South changes completely during the intervening years, and Mitchell’s novel, and the subsequent film, illustrates the struggles of the Southern people who live through the Civil War era.

The novel opens in prewar Georgia, where tradition, chivalry, and pride, thrive. As the Civil War begins, the setting shifts to Atlanta, where the war causes the breakdown of traditional gender roles and power structures. When the South loses the war and the slaves are freed the internal conflict intensifies. White men fear black men, Southerners hate profiteering or domineering Northerners, and impoverished aristocrats resent the newly rich.

The book and film is told from a Southern perspective, which demonizes the North while glorifying the Southern way of life, including the institution of slavery (shown as very much a “positive good” for both slave and master. Many critics, both black and white, have harshly criticized Mitchell’s sympathetic depiction of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, along with her racist depiction of blacks. Critics and historians contend that the film nicely captures parts of the Lost Cause ideology: that the South was a virtuous, romantic, harmonious society before the war, and Northern aggression (via the Civil War and then Reconstruction) destroyed the most noble of civilizations that was “lost” forever...

The film opens with a telling quote: “There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and Slave. Look for it in books, for it is no more, a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind . . .”

Instructions: We will watch selected scenes from the film in class. While viewing the scenes, take notes on the items listed below. When we’re finished watching the film, respond to the question that follow.

1. How Southern culture/community is portrayed (for specific points about gender, see #2):

2. Gender roles in the South, pre-war, during war, and post-war:

40

3. How slaves are portrayed and the nature of the relationship between masters and their slaves:

4. How Southerners viewed the war:

5. Difficulties on the homefront during and after the Civil War:

Post-Viewing Question(s):

6. How does the film reinforce the quote that opens the film (see background section)? To what extent did you see elements of the “Lost Cause” ideology in the selected scenes?