The irrepressible conflict-1860
Background: As we all know, it's election season and perhaps no election cycle had more political significance than 1860. With the country deeply divided over slavery, current President James Buchanan was not doing much to stop it. In fact, his actions only exacerbated extremism and divided the Democratic party. The events at Bleeding Kansas and the corrupt Lecompton Constitution left the Democrats without their incumbent as a viable candidate. The newly formed Republicans, however, had problems of their own. In just their second party convention ever, the party formerly known as the Free Soilers had to find a way to win at the national level. They were seen by many in the South as extremists who threatened the institution of slavery altogether. Republicans were vehemently opposed to the extension of slavery in the new territories but they had to evolve into a fuller platform. A former war hero, John C. Fremont, could not get the job done in 1856 so there was pressure to court former Whig voters and win an election this time in 1860. What Happened? 10,000 delegates crowded into a makeshift meeting hall in Chicago, Illinois to pick the Republican nominee for President but the difficulties were evident from the start. Only three slave-owning states even attended the convention and their keynote speaker was David Wilmot, whose Provisio had gained notoriety for trying to ban slavery in the territory won by the Mexican-American War. Ten men would have their name brought forward for the nomination but the front-runner was clearly William Seward of New York. When the votes began on this day 156 years ago, Seward led the first round of voting by over 70 votes compared to his nearest competitor. Yet two rounds later he plummeted and the nominating process was over. How did this happen? 1. The convention took place in Illinois, the home state of nominee Abraham Lincoln. He and his closest allies had the infrastructure in place to campaign for votes and they did passionately. Lincoln's status as a "Western" candidate was key. Many knew that the Democrats had little chance of winning any Northern states after their support of the Lecompton Constitution and the Dred Scott decision so they key would be the Midwest. To win the Republicans needed to pick up the moderate faction, which bleeds into reason 2... 2. Seward was viewed as an extremist by many. Seward and his wife housed slaves as a "station" in the Underground Railroad. As a Senator he fought vigorously against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill which would have potentially opened up slavery in the area. He even once said he feared an "irrepressible conflict" was emerging on the issue of slavery. He also had fallen out of favor with the Know-Nothings, a political third party known for their xenophobia but were a key constituent group in creating a winning coalition in 1860. Lincoln, on the other hand, was a late-comer to the Republican Party. He had attacked the idea of racial equality during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates and seemed far more reasonable to moderates at the time. So, with some slick political maneuvering and a vulnerable front-runner, the Republican cast their fate with Lincoln on this day. Who Cares? Oh let me count the ways... 1. Lincoln goes on to be the most famous President of all-time, Seward goes on to...buy Alaska (affectionately known as "Seward's Folly"). 2. Lincoln becomes known as the Great Emancipator, when Seward had done far more on the issue of abolition up to this point in history. 3. The Republican Party finds legitimacy. What if they had picked New Yorker Seward and the Democrats had squeaked out a Midwestern state or two? Lincoln had only carried 40% of the popular vote when November came along. An electoral mess would have been solved in the House of Representatives which could have further complicated matters. Instead the Republican Party not only finds the White House but their hero. To the victor go the spoils.
0 Comments
Separate is inherently unequal-1954
Background: Linda Brown was a third-grader who wanted to go to Sumner Elementary school in Topeka, Kansas but she could not. Why? The color of her skin. Brown started a journey that culminated in six combined court cases all dealing with the same issue, can people be barred from public education because of their skin color? Is the 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that "separate but equal facilities" (which was on May 188th coincidentally) were acceptable actually acceptable? This four-year journey swept up other intelligent, ambitious African American students across America, including Dorothy E. Davis of Prince Edward County, Virginia and culminated in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court. Nine white men decided to settle the issue once and for all in the spring of 1954. What Happened? In a startling landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to overturn the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Their proclamation was that "separate facilities were inherently unequal" This sent shockwaves throughout the country. Reaction varied from mass celebrations to outright massive resistance to a perceived federal overreach. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the lead decision in a scathing opinion that proclaimed that segregation had instinctively created a stigma and badge of inferiority on African Americans. Who Cares? Once again the consequences were plentiful on this one. 1. The NAACP officially had their strategy to fight for Civil Rights, through the courts. With Congress mired by white Southern Democrats and an Oval Office most concerned with maintaining the "culture of consensus", the courts appeared to be the best vehicle for change. For years the legal team had pecked away at old Jim Crow but this bite launched what is officially known as "The Civil Rights Movement". 2. Thurgood Marshall, the lead lawyer, becomes a legend and this win will ultimately propel him to become the first African American Supreme Court judge. 3. This decision launched the career of the most famous judicial activist Earl Warren. Just appointed to the board less than a year earlier, Warren used is political background to campaign for votes on this key decision and guarantee a 9-0 decision to try to suppress dissent nationally. Warren would go on to give pretty much all the landmark cases of the 20th century including Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Tinker v. Des Moines and so much more. No judge has written more decisions about civil rights and civil liberties than Warren. 4. Unfortunately, Brown v. Board of Education would contain one fundamental flaw: it lacked a timeline for implementation. That oversight was so obvious that it forced the court to clarify its decision months later it what was known as Brown v. Board II. In it, the court said that the states should take "all deliberate speed" when implementing integration. This wishy-washy phrase gave rise to massive resistance. Public schools throughout the South shut down, private schools emerged, home schooling went up and the fight over school boundary lines raged up until today. As much as we celebrate this day we must acknowledge the limitations, as evidenced by this article. The Trial of the Century: 1868 Background: There is a certain aura associated with the title President of the United States, but that mystique fades when you're on trial in front of the American people. President Andrew Johnson inherited a tough situation when he was thrust into the Oval Office following Abraham Lincoln's assassination. His leniency to the South during Reconstruction made him Public Enemy No. 1 to the so-called Radical Republicans of Congress and the following 2.5 years resulted in a bitter political tug-of-war. In a move reeking of hubris, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act. This unconstitutional law said that the President could not fire a Cabinet member without Congressional approval, I suppose the logic went that since the Senate had to approve nominees they must also have a voice in their termination. Still, this move was clearly little more than a power play to show the country who really had the power in D.C. With a two-thirds majority, the Radical Republicans were more than willing to override any Presidential veto that came their way. Johnson, also overtaken by pride, decided to channel his almost namesake, Andrew Jackson. Rather than simply waiting for the Supreme Court to settle this constitutional question, he fired the Secretary of War out of spite. His reward for his bold move, an impeachment trial. The President of the United States was now being charged and drawn up like a common criminal before the entire nation in the chambers of the Senate. This spectacle began in late February 1868. What happened? After all the deliberations, the Senate voted on this day 152 years ago on the first charge of the impeachment. Johnson may have lost 35-19 but the total fell one shy of the two-thirds needed to physically remove Johnson from office. This decision stemmed from a partial fear over having a new President who was not elected in any capacity by the American people (cough*Ford*cough) and also a realization that Congress may have overstepped their bounds. Regardless of the reason, Congress saved Johnson the embarrassment of having to pack his bags and run home but the damage was done. Johnson finished out his final 10 months in disgrace as the lamest of lame duck Presidents. Who Cares? This moment matters for several reasons. 1. Gilded Age Presidents are particularly weak, partially out of philosophy but also because of fear in Congressional reprisals. It helps account for the overall weakness and ineffectiveness of Presidents until Teddy Roosevelt in 1901. 2. The Radical Republicans, who had done such good for the freed blacks after the Civil War, now look petty and power hungry to the American people. They had misplayed their hand and their attempted coup hamstrung them moving forward in their Reconstruction goals. 3. Being impeached is a stigma that does not go away, just ask Bill Clinton. It hangs over you like an albatross. 4. We are fascinated by celebrity trials, I can't wait for this FX series on this. In my search to become a better history teacher I stumbled upon this cool website made by a George Mason professor.
Lincoln Mullen's ever so cleverly titled website http://lincolnmullen.com has some cool digital project allowing you to visually some important historical concepts. The slave map charts the number of enslaved and free black population (as well as whites) over time, down to the county level which can certainly hit a bit closer to home. My favorite feature though was the Gender Predictor which gives you a history lesson on your name. It's particularly effective because you can see the waxing and waning of its popularity over time and compare it to other names. So have a contest with your friend for who has the more popular name. I will try to update this site my regularly moving forward and continue to push your minds outside of the classroom. Have a good Monday! Virginia has become one of the key swing states in America over the past few Presidential elections and yet very little attention has been paid to the Commonwealth because of the early states voting away.
I decided since polling companies do not want to update your research from last November, it might be interesting to see how Virginia's political stalwarts of the area are marking their territory in 2016. This obviously has ramifications on the Democratic side with super delegates but considering the competition on the Republican side it is interesting to see just how split up they are. So here it is. Team Jeb Bush: Despite poor performances up to this part, Bush has the most official endorsements in Virginia. Not weird considering how moderate the state has become. Eric Cantor- The former Republican Majority Leader is showing his Establishment nature that got him canned in the first place for Tea Party upstart David Brat. He is on team Jeb. David Ramadan-Former House of Delegates member Ramadan was a Scott Walker supporter before his dropping out last Fall, he is now on team Jeb loudly and proudly. He also it should be noted has been an open critic of Donald Trump. Jerry Kilgore-Former attorney general announced his work with Jeb Bush this past September. John Hagar-Former Lt. General is team Bush all the way. John Watkins-State Senator did not mix words in December 2015, Bush has that elusive electability factor. Team Ted Cruz: Despite the win at the Iowa caucuses, many Virginians have been hesitant to back the Texan conservative, here are the notable exceptions. Ken Cuccinelli- Former Attorney General, Gubernatorial candidate and proud social conservative is firmly on Ted Cruz's bandwagon (even campaigned for him in Iowa after hitting the phone lines) Dick Black-No surprise given some of his political stances over the years but the Virginia Senator is on Team Ted Cruz, even making Cruz's website. Team Rubio: Always hard to tell what the future holds for Rubio but these notaries have thrown their hat in with the Florida Senator. George Allen-Former Governor, Senator, Virginia Cavalier quarterback and son of the great Redskins coach, Allen is a household name but his clout and political power have fallen over the years. Though it took him a bit longer, Allen backed up Rubio in an interview on FOX Business News in January and could be an important opening act on Rubio visits throughout the Commonwealth to come. Barbara Comstock-One of the newest representatives in the US Congress, Northern Virginia's Comstock has placed her endorsement on Marco Rubio according to a Washington Post article. Team Trump: Turns out most Virginians are staying away from Trump further than just about any other states to vote so far in the primary season. Virgil Goode-The former Congressman turned independent Presidential candidate in 2012, Goode is a bit of an odd duck and his "outsider" credentials make his endorsement of Trump logical (albeit not terribly effective though). Team Clinton: This list is short but that is only because it includes just about every ranking Democrat in the Commonwealth. There are no Virginia surrogates endorsing Bernie Sanders. This list is looking at the most influential and/or adamant supporters for Clinton. Jim Moran- House of Reps member in liberal Fairfax endorsed Hillary Clinton way back in April 13 of last year. No indication he has changed his mind. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine-Both U.S. Senators from Virginia have put themselves in the Clinton camp. Warner is even being floated by some websites as Vice Presidential nominee (although Julian Castro will have something to say about that). Terry McAuliffe-You better believe Virginia's Governor is squarely in camp Clinton. The Clintons and McAuliffe have been close political allies since the 1990s. The Clintons worked hard to put McAuliffe in office over Ken Cuccinelli and now they expect their investment to pay off as the Governor campaigns throughout the Commonwealth for them. Team ?: The people who have not said anything. Douglas Wilder- Former Governor and political lightning rod, Wilder has not officially endorsed anyone, on either side of the Presidential aisle. He did retweet a Politico article though about Hillary Clinton's poor performance in New Hampshire, making me think he is not in the Clinton camp. In fact, I could see him supporting a moderate Republican like John Kasich before either Democratic hopeful. It does not take long before you feel old as a teacher.
I was born in 1984 (great year I know) and I am now teaching students who were born right around 2000. The freshmen class of high schools across America were born after 9/11, I was a junior in high school on that fateful day. To give you some perspective on how quickly time flies, let's look at it this way. My son Kai was born in August 2013 which means, minus any unforeseen problems, he will be part of the graduating high school class of 2031. Oh my. As a history teacher I cannot help but think critically at the question many educators are asking: what will education look like in the future? In some ways education has changed dramatically. When I was in high school probably less than 10% of the student body had a cell phone. I had no idea what PowerPoint was and MySpace was the social media behemoth. In the classroom we still had an old school overhead projector with transparencies and I still used an Encyclopedia at home with my desktop computer. That was in 2003. So yes much has changed in 13 years and yet many things have not. We still have 90-minute blocks, the core subjects are exactly the same and many pedagogical practices are exactly the same. In some ways the technology has changed but the process of education has barely changed at all. So how revolutionary is this technology revolution? In the age of Google information is available for everyone and that presents amazing opportunities and fears. Is innovation really in the future for education or is reenforcing the status quo the raison d'etre? I am reminded of a great question asked my colleague and friend Ms. Tornello. 1. Are schools becoming obsolete? In the age of Google, will the classroom move from a physical space to the world wide web? If so, what consequences will this result in? Will Kai take classes online and graduate from virtual high school? Will it come at the expense of social skills and human interaction? What kind of information will he learn? The kind of facts rote memorization has enforced for centuries (but now seem antiquated in the age of search engines). Will it be the kind of skills that require critical thinking and analysis that millions of young people struggle with? How will we grade these skills? Especially when we move from the comfort of objective to subjective activities. How will we offset these needs with a standardized testing system that is still stuck in the early 1990s? Will Kai's education experience is radically different from yours? Will his parents and their fellow teachers be casualties of competition in the world of "Crash Course" videos and Khan Academy? Will he be better for it? What do you think? We all know that the educational system is far from perfect. Reformers spend lots of time, money and effort trying to fix problems. As a history teacher, I am always a bit hesitant to embrace sweeping changes until I have thought about and analyzed the consequences of the actions. So while I often read about education and try to apply concepts that I agree with in my own class, I am always going to think of potential problems that might arise first as to deal with any troubleshooting issues. Call me a Negative Ned all you want, my mom would call it being realistic. Yet I read this article and I must admit it hooked me. I know there are potential problems with the model and things would have to change around it...yada yada yada. However, it deals with one of the biggest problems I have found at implementing large-scale educational reform: the school building itself. It would divide school into four types of classrooms: This was something that stood out from the crowd of reforms, at least in my opinion.
I am going to try and embrace the last part of the article too when it comes to change. What are your thoughts about this? Is it too idealistic? Is it something worth striving for? Am I asking too many questions? So the other day a colleague's daughter asked me a simple enough question: As a US History teacher, who do you think are three most influential Civil Rights figures?
A simple enough question but worthy of much discussion. You can see my answer on Twitter but I decided to weed through all the options this way: I defined "influential" as having the largest impact which normally means mainstream. After all, the more extreme voices like Malcolm X are going to be tuned out by huge swaths of Americans even though his rhetoric is incredibly important. So I finished with: NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois, SCLC member and icon MLK and SNCC founder John Lewis. The next day this spread into quite a discussion at the Social Science workroom. One teacher noted that I had no females on my list. After all, why must Civil Rights be only contained to black men? This is actually one of the main points the person asking the question is hinting at. When we think of Civil Rights in the country we think of racism but really it means every group struggling for equality. There was also a discussion about whether LBJ should be on the list since he was the President that helped implement many of the policies that were articulated by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s. There was also talk about expanding beyond America. After all, can we really have this list without Gandhi? I had considered some of these things but not all of these things when I answered a seemingly benign question. I kept it at America because I was asked as a US History teacher. Ultimately I came up with this list of American figures (not ranked). Alice Paul Bayard Rustin Betty Friedan Booker T Washington Cesar Chavez Charles Houston Daisy Bates Elizabeth Cady Stanton Fannie Lou Hammer Frederick Douglass Harvey Milk John Lewis Lucretia Mott Lyndon Baines Johnson Malcolm X Martin Luther King Jr Rosa Parks Stokley Carmichael Thurgood Marshall W.E.B. DuBois William Lloyd Garrison I'm also willing to tweak it but this is my further reflected summary. The bigger question came after this one. Her follow-up was: Who is the most influential Civil Rights figure today? I was at a loss. So was the entire Social Science department, at least initially. Look at the list above, with the exception of John Lewis they are all dead. My answer was Malala Yousafzai, I had to abandon my US-only parameters on that one. I'm curious what you guys would say to that question? Someone mentioned the "Black Lives Matter" movement but that group lacks a leader. Being an organic movement is awesome but I think it also has some negative consequences. Namely when accusations are thrown at it, the group has no solidified leader to respond. The movement can't simply go on Meet The Press and respond to allegations. It's almost like it is too democratic. So I wonder, where is the leadership? Is the era of strong civil rights figures gone? Are they going to be replaced by these grassroots movements like Living Wage, 99% and Black Lives Matters? Is this a net positive or negative? I just wonder what your thoughts are. |
Mr. GibsonFollow me on Twitter @MrG_Unit Archives
May 2016
Categories |