Washington and Its Residents
Note: For today's blog, you must respond to one question for each site visited. Please indicate for each answer, the site and the question number to which you are responding.
Tudor House Questions:
1. Was the Underground Railroad an effective response to the enslavement of African-Americans? Explain.
1. Was the Underground Railroad an effective response to the enslavement of African-Americans? Explain.
2. How did the location of the United States Capital affect the war effort?
Frederick Douglass NHS Questions:
1. Was violence necessary to end slavery?
2. If you lived during the Civil War era which approach towards emancipation would you have supported: Lincoln's step by step tactics or Douglass' more radical line of attack?
3. How did the close proximity of Douglass' house to the White House have a positive impact on his work to end slavery and improve race relations?
4. Should Douglass have held out for universal suffrage?
The location of the US Capital had a major impact for the beginning. As the least protected Capital City in the world, the first thing Lincoln had to do was make sure the biggest symbol of the US, The Capital, was not immediately lost to the Confederacy due to battle. Being surrounded by the Slave States of Maryland and Virginia made this a difficult task. Lincoln had to go on the offensive immediately to keep Washington, DC safe. He had to keep Maryland on the side of the Union and also fortify the city itself by establishing a network of bases to prevent attacks from succeeding.
ReplyDeleteIt is also hard to agree that violence was necessary in order to abolish slavery. The southern plantations were heavily reliant on the institution of slavery were willing to fight for their way of life. Appx 100 years prior to the Civil War, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Dec. of Indep and even wrote a whole passage rejecting slavery. The southern colonies were adamant about removing that passage from the Declaration in order to approve it. Maybe it was an inevitable clash between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. During the 1850's the violence broke out in Kansas and John Brown would resort to violence as well. Was it necessary to fight? probably not, but it was going to happen
The location of both Wasington DC and Richmond played an important role in the war! After spending the week in DC and seeing first hand just how close "enemy" territory was, easily visible from the high points around the city, it's plain to see how DC's location deeply affected the conduct and strategy of the war. Being surrounded by slave states as well as the proximity of the Confederacy forced Lincoln and his generals to protect the symbol of the Union. DC's location made it vulnerable to attack from both land and sea, and perhaps more troops and resources had to be expended there, rather than in more strategic battles. Hw different would the war have been if the capital had never left New York or Philadelphia? The Confederacy had the same issue, as Richmond was close also! Both sides spent a great deal of time trying to capture each other's capital, a strategy of that time designed to get the other side to "cry uncle" but even if either city was taken, would that been enough to end the war? Probably more so for Lincoln, who had to deal with the unpopularity of the war, and the loss of this city more than of Richmond to the south would have had larger consequences.
ReplyDelete#1- The Underground Railroad was not an effective means to put an end to Slavery, it was merely a stop-gap measure at best. This was a way to help enslaved persons to find a way to escape to slavery, in no way would this have ever ended slavery. After all if the Underground Railroad ever became extremely effective plantation owners would certainly have done something to stop it. In fact, it might have even helped the peculiar institution last longer because now the Southern plantation owners could argue that this illegal action proved that they were being unfairly treated and foreign nations might have been more likely to side with them.
ReplyDeleteTudor House #2: The location of Washington was important symbolically for the United States government. If Congress and the President were forced to flee north that may have increased the the possibility of foreign support of the Confederate government. Plus, it would certainly been a blow to the already low morale of Union troops as General Lee and his subordinates outmaneuvered their Union counterparts. The fact that the Union was able to maintain its capital within the South solidified the notion that the rebels would be defeated eventually.
ReplyDelete#1- When studying the lead up to the ending of slavery one thing is very apparent, this was a very emotional issue. For the Southern plantation owners, ending slavery was not only about the social issue of whether or not enslaved persons were equal to whites, but it was also economic. How would these farmers pay for the labor that they had not paid for for decades and stay financially afloat. Similarly Southerns in general did not agree with the idea that the national government (or other state governments) could decide how Southerns could live. Ultimately, violence was necessary to end slavery because there needed to be some bite to the legislative bark that was coming from the North. It might not have had to be a war but I believe violence of some kind was unavoidable to put an end to this peculiar institution.
ReplyDeleteWas violence necessary to end slavery? I believe it unfortunately was, as the economic impact of the abolition of slavery was thought to be too great in the south and the position of the slaveholders was so strong. The ability to compromise had eroded, and partisans on each side had hardened their minds. In order to retain unity, a showdown was necessary. Distrust, fear and ignorance was growing, and ideologues on both sides stirred up emotions. The issue of slavery had become a flashpoint, making violence quite possible. Many issues in the US (see labor!) have been "solved" by violence, perhaps it is the American way.
ReplyDeleteThe Underground Railroad was not an effective response to the enslavement of African-Americans. It was successful in bringing thousands of African-Americans to freedom, but that is such a small number as compared to the millions of slaves in the country. While it was not an effective means to an end for slavery, it did however have political and symbolic meaning and worked toward swaying opinion on the side of the abolitionist cause.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt the fact that Douglass’s house was located in close proximity to the White House had a positive impact on his work to end slavery and improve race relations. Due to his location, he was able to influence the President. We heard the park rangers speak of Douglass’s superb ability to “nag” the president. On the flip side, Douglass was originally a harsh critic of Lincoln and the interactions that he had with Lincoln served to convince him that he had a friend in the White House who was indeed committed toward working for emancipation.
Tudor House # 2-
ReplyDeleteWashington DC had a unique location during the Civil War being surrounded by both Virginia and Maryland. Virgina was a confederate slave state that included Richmond, the confederate capitol. Maryland was considered a border state, meaning they had slave but choice to fight for the Union. DC was surrounded by confederate sympathizers and was also the southern most tip of the Union. Since Washington DC was the Union capital it was constantly under threat throughout the war. It also had a great increase in run away slaves due to the emancipation of slaves in DC. Due to the high threat levels, the Union army had to focus many troops and supplies in Washington in order to secure it from the confederacy. The Union could not afford to have its capital taken over.
Frederick Douglas # 2-
ReplyDeleteIf I had lived during the Civil War, I believe that I would have supported Douglass's more radical view on Emancipation. I have always felt that ending slavery did not become an important point in Lincoln's strategy until it was political or militarily smart to do so. Lincoln may have claimed that the Declaration of Independence guided his principals but that is not the case with his support for colonization or his statements on saying he would not end slavery if it would end the war. Douglass on the other hand truly believed that African Americans deserved the right to be free and were every bit a part of this country as any one else. He understood that many of the great accomplishments in this country where built on the backs of slaves (including the capitol building).
The underground railroad provided a way for African Americans to escape but it did not end slavery. It was a stepping stone to give African Americans a sense of hope! Unfortunately, not enough people were able to use these resources.
ReplyDeleteI loved where Douglass's home was located . It represented his strong presence. He stood up for his beliefs and he was going to be heard! To begin his life as a slave and then to become an important figure during that time-was amazing. He fought hard and Lincoln could not ignore him!
Tudor House #1
ReplyDeleteThe Underground Railroad was not an effective response to the enslavement of African Americans, but a natural one. Without a doubt, slaves were faced with the urge to escape their horrible conditions since the very beginning. Unfortunately, despite good intentions, anti-slavery supporters could not help all slaves reach freedom. The story of the Pearl, as told by the tourguides at Tudor Place, reminds us of the failed attempts to reach freedom. In 1848, nearly 80 slaves boarded a ship on the Potomac River. As the heavy winds slowed their journey, it gave time for the slave owners to realize their property had escaped. The ship was found and the slaves were returned to their owners. The largest attempted escape on the Underground Railroad had failed.
Frederick Douglass #2
If I had lived at the time, I think I would have agreed with Lincoln's step by step tactics. Morally, slavery is wrong and should have been abolished quickly. However, one must keep in mind that Lincoln wanted to keep the country together. It takes time to change peoples' minds and that is what had to be done.
Tudor House – Question 2. It would seem at first glance that the Underground Railroad was not an effective response to enslavement since the most optimistic estimate of escapees is about 100,000. However, if we look beyond the numbers and think of the impact that those who made it to freedom might have had as they related their stories, it can safely be assumed that these new freemen were at least somewhat instrumental in transforming the attitudes of the masses. Those in the North who heard the accounts of people like Harriet Tubman and Henry “Box” Brown could not help being sympathetic to the cause of abolition, perhaps stirring some to vote for candidates who worked for the abolition of slavery and eventually galvanizing support for the Civil War policies of Abraham Lincoln. Few would deny that Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin contributed to a transformation in Northern attitudes towards slavery as it put a human face on this very inhumane institution. So likewise, the speeches and narratives of those who managed to escape would be even more likely to move those unfamiliar with slavery. Imagine a 19th century Northerner hearing for the first time about the whippings, endless hours of brutal work, the separation from family and then the decision to make a run for it, knowing that it might all end in death. Those few who did make it out and then shared their stories are therefore proof that the Underground Railroad was an effective response to enslavement.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass House – Question 3. The close proximity of Douglass’ house to the White House certainly had a positive impact on both Douglass and Lincoln. From the first time we looked out from the hill upon which the Douglass house was located it was obvious that this location was significant. Every day, by looking in one direction, Douglass was reminded of the life in slavery in Maryland from which he escaped and by looking in the other direction, he was reminded that Washington as the seat of government was were the power to make change was based. He was not afraid to criticize the seemingly slow progress that Lincoln and others made towards abolition and to nudge and nag them toward the correct course of action. He became Lincoln’s conscience and more importantly showed Lincoln that African-Americans were capable of making significant contributions to our country’s life. Lincoln got to see up close that like him, Douglass was a self-made man of great intellect and determination. If they had not lived in such close proximity, it is doubtful that that there would have been much face to face discussion and opportunities for persuasion. It is quite poignant to think that the last time the two met, Lincoln clearly affirmed his belief in total equality when he told his guards to admit Douglass because he was his “friend”. If only he had been of this mind earlier.
ReplyDeleteTudor House Question#2
ReplyDeleteWashington's location during the Civil War really put the president at the South's doorstep. D.C. was surrounded by slave states and filled with many southern sympathizers. Lincoln could see the South from his front door. A constant reminder of the struggles the North faced in order to preserve the Union.
Fredrick Douglass #2
The only possible way that slavery would have ended without violence was if there was enough money to compensate the slave owners. Even with a large monetary compensation and a promise of future income this would have been a monumental task. Unfortunately an issue of this magnitude is one that causes violence throughout history. Its and issue where people' beliefs allow them to justify violence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglas NHS
ReplyDelete# 2
I would have supported Lincoln’s tactics. Lincoln’s methods remind me more of 19th century Britain; slow gradual process for reform rather than France’s series of radical revolutions. Lincoln’s original objective was preservation of the Union, and not necessarily to free the slaves. There were too many radical elements on both sides of the political spectrum, and Douglas’ radical efforts could have hurt the cause of abolishing slavery. Geographically, the desire for the Lincoln to hold onto the border states would have been in jeopardy if Douglas had gotten his way. Lincoln’s path was strategic but secondary to preserving the US.
The location of the Capital was crucial for the war effort due to the fact that to the North you had states loyal to the Union and just to the South of the Capital you had states loyal to the Confederacy. Essentially the Capital was a border zone and if the Confederates were successful in gaining this territory it surely would lay the groundwork for an easier advancement up North, on many different levels.
ReplyDelete-
Lincoln had a very hard task in front of him and his main goal was to unite and protect the Union. I would certainly have taken Lincoln’s step by step approach for he did not want to dismiss the west when it came to the debate of whether the state was going to uphold slavery or not. Lincoln knows that he can not afford the loss of another state to the Confederacy and he must take baby steps to ensure it will not shock the system.
Tudor #2
ReplyDeleteThe successful defense of Washington D.C. was of vital importance to the Union. It was so important that military strategy was often linked specifically to its defense. The loss of Washington to the Confederate armies would have been disastrous (ex. European support for the South being more of a possibility). Its existence became a symbol of Northern strength and Southern inferiority. As the city grew so did Federal power.
Douglass #1
I believe violence was necessary to end slavery in The United States. The "Peculiar Institution" was a national disgrace, a moral outrage and remains a stain on this nations history. Rich white plantation owners, fueled by greed and fear, continued the hellish business of slavery long after it should have died out. If war did not come in 1861 there is a very real possibility that slavery would have continued for several more decades.
Tudor House #2: While we discuss the fact that Washington was so close to Virginia in the classroom, we never paint the picture of Washington itself. The Byzantine like skullduggery of the city streets seems like something out of the Cold War rather than the Civil War. The city was half full of Confederate sympathizers, and even those with Southern ties like the Tudor’s who were not plotting against the Lincoln government were viewed with a wary eye. Add to this the idea that there was no modern police force for the city and it really complicates issues. I know that Lee only threatened Washington seriously twice with military force, but our visit and the book “They have Killed Popa Dead” show that the city was always a hotbed of tension. The Federal government had to be very wary early in the war that its actions would not cause Maryland to secede the Union. The military action of the war was dictated very much by the local politics of Maryland and Washington itself. I think if the capital had been located in New York or Philadelphia, Lincoln might have taken a less delicate approach to issues dealing with the border states.
ReplyDeleteFredrick Douglas Question #1: Was violence necessary to end slavery? First, what do you mean by violence? If violence is some sort of act of aggression then I say yes. During the 1850s southern ideology had become more entrenched. We see that a man like Frederick Douglas had to flee to England because of the Fugitive slave Law. In the 1850s the fugitive slave law became more of an issue for southerners than ever before. The South, I think, realized that in order to hold onto its slave society it was going to have to become more tenacious. We learned that Lincoln’s suggestions for gradual emancipation or colonization were met with silence. As the south became more rigid in its stance, it was never going to let go of its way of life without being forced. Two examples to prove this: First Lincoln himself has to be goaded by individuals like Douglas towards emancipation himself, showing that even northerners like Lincoln who are morally against slavery are not at first politically willing to tackle the issue. Second, Lincoln asks the Border States to give up slavery at one point and they completely ignore him. Due to this, I do think some sort of ‘aggression’ was going to be necessary. Perhaps not a war, but I could think of a situation where the South never left the Union but was forced years later to give up slavery under Federal law.
Tudor House Questions:
ReplyDelete2. How did the location of the United States Capital affect the war effort.
During the Civil War Era – it would be difficult for anyone to simply “forget” where you were and that there was a war going on. Between the general approximation to enemy territory, you could not escape the sensory overload. The sights/sounds/smells of the soldiers preparing and awaiting their orders camped throughout the city – the wounded – the dead - the supplies. Being in DC – the citizens of that city were in the thick of it. Being the capital and what it represents to this country and the world – every troop movement – every victory – every defeat – every article written would be closely followed.
Frederick Douglass NHS Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Was violence necessary to end slavery?
When is violence “necessary”??… I do believe it was a natural reaction to anyone who allowed their passion for the subject get the better of them – on both sides. In any sensitive “hot button” topic there will always be those who talk and those that act. Those that act who believe that they are doing “Gods work” can be the most radical and dangerous to those who hold an opposing view. In the years of our complicated National history Violence has appeared on many occasion: Violence to end Slavery compared to Violence to pass the Temperance Movement compared to Violence for Women’s Suffrage compared to Violence in reaction to the 13th-14th-15th Amendments compared to our current National reactions to acts of Violence on Immigration and Gay Marriage.
Tudor House Question # 1: While the Underground Railroad certainly helped many African American find their way to freedom, it was not an effective response to the enslavement of African Americans. By the time Lincoln had taken office the issue of slavery was becoming the “elephant in the room” and the nation was soon going to be pushed into either forever accepting it or forever abolishing it. The Railroad was just one of many movements that helped persuade Lincoln and others that the time had come for the nation to abolish the institution of slavery and join the ranks of other countries that had already outlawed this horrible economic system. The South was not going to give up its economy without a fight. In the mean time, activities such as the underground railroad and the abolitionist movement helped push the country towards the idea of emancipation.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass Question #1: I think violence unfortunately was necessary to end slavery. Slavery was not only a “way of life” for the South but it was the whole basis for its economy. There was no way the South was going to give up its livelihood without a fight. Further, the South believed strongly in their “right” to their way of life and was willing to die for it. Just as strongly Lincoln believed in preserving the Union at any cost. There was no way that each side would give in to the other without violence. Both believed strongly in their cause and both died to protect their views and their way of life.
ReplyDeleteTudor House Question #1 - The Underground Railroad seems like a rational response to the issue of slavery, and has been romanticized in history and folklore as an institution which was highly effective in freeing black slaves. Although the psychological and political impact of the very existence of the Underground Railroad had some significance, I do not believe that the Underground Railroad was an effective response to the enslavement of African-Americans. For all the folklore surrounding it, practically speaking, the Underground Railroad freed a very small number of slaves – less than 1000 per year at a time when the slave population was naturally increasing by over 70,000 per year. Those who were unsuccessful in their attempts were returned to their owners and faced severe punishment at his hands or faced being “sold South.” Further, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made Northerners and their law enforcement institutions responsible for enforcing slavery and in some cases allowed free blacks in the north to be enslaved. All in all, this was an interesting piece of the puzzle which was the abolitionist movement, but was not generally an effective response.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass NHS Question #1 - It is difficult to make the argument of violence being necessary for any reason, and in looking at the question of violence being necessary to end slavery, we are considering the deadliest war in American history. That being said, I am not sure that slavery could have been ended without such violence. Lincoln and many abolitionists advocated a slow policy which would make slavery no longer economically feasible, by stopping its expansion and offering compensated emancipation. But these tactics had been advocated for many years before the outbreak of war, and slavery was showing few signs of actually ending, although in the border states it appeared that various circumstances might lead to the eventual end of slavery there. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 brought the issue home to moderate abolitionists in the North, who now were faced with the decision of whether or not to obey a law which applied to them, rather than observing and opining from afar. As the 1860s approached, the southern fear that slavery would end in the border states led them to scramble to protect the institution, ultimately through secession. It is probably not realistic to argue that the issue could ultimately have been settled in any way other than through bloodshed.
ReplyDelete1. Was the Underground Railroad an effective response to the enslavement of African-Americans? Explain.
ReplyDeleteI would have to argue that the Underground Railroad was somewhat an effective response to the enslavement of African Americans. At this time something had to be done. The underground railroad did help large number of slaves escape to freedom, and although many where brought back down south under the Fugitive Slave Law, but many did go on to live lives free from the shackles of slavery. I agree that more needed to be done then just the underground railroad, but, the railroad was better then nothing. Bold leaders like Harriet Tubman, risked their freedom to work as conductors on this railroad, I feel that these people would not have risked so much if it was not somewhat effective.
2. If you lived during the Civil War era which approach towards emancipation would you have supported: Lincoln's step by step tactics or Douglass' more radical line of attack?
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to say whose tactics I would support. I feel that Lincoln’s approach was more practical for the time period. The nation was not ready for a radical line attack that Douglass had wished for. Lincoln knew that the preservation of the Union was of the up most importance, and had he taken a more radical line could have pushed the boarder states away from the Union and forced them to join the Confederacy. If I was a hard-nosed abolitionist or a former slave, of course I would have wanted a more radical line of attack. Having lived as a slave once during his life, it is no wonder why Douglass supported such a radical approach.
#1
ReplyDeleteWhile the Underground Railroad makes for a great story over a century after the civil war, its overall effectiveness comes into question. When looking solely at the numbers in terms of both the total amount of slaves as well as those helped by the Underground Railroad, it is clear that only a small percentage escaped the shackles of slavery. I believe that the Underground Railroad was symbolic as it represented the idea of freedom and more importantly hope. It showed that some people were willing to help regardless of skin color. Overall though, the Underground Railroad was not very effective in helping the slaves.
1. Was violence necessary to end slavery?
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that in 2010, no matter how far we as a society have come, I can safely say that violence is sometimes the answer. The same can be said over 150 years when the North and South fought the civil war over the issue of slavery. This “peculiar institution” was not only the backbone for the southern economy, but a way of life for millions of people. No amount of discussion or politics was going to convince the southern plantation owners that they should relinquish their property and alter their lives for some idea about “equality.” When two sides feel so strongly about an idea that they are willing to give their lives, violence has historically been and will continue to be the only solution.
Tudor House #2:
ReplyDeleteHow did the location of the United States Capital affect the war effort?
After visiting DC for the first time since I was in 8th grade, I was able to better appreciate how it's location greatly affected the war effort. It was plain to see (literally) just how close the city was to Confederate lines. This close proximity left the capital extremely vulnerable and forced Lincoln to protect the city with troops who changed the area overnight. The sights, sounds, and smells resulting from the sudden population increase changed the city forever. But if not fully protected the capital could have been easily overtaken meaning Northern defeat.
Frederick Douglass #3:
How did the close proximity of Douglass' house to the White House have a positive impact on his work to end slavery and improve race relations?
The Ranger Program at the Frederick Douglass house made it clear that Douglass was persistant in making sure that Lincoln heard him. Being so close to the White House made it that much easier for Douglass to very often reiterate his ideas to Lincoln and make sure that he would not be ignored. Ultimately, this would have a great impact on stipulations at the end of the war and lay some ground work for race relations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTudor #2
ReplyDeleteWashington’s location on the Potomac had an enormous impact on the war effort. As we stood on the hills of the President’s cottage or at the Frederick Douglass House we could see how Washington D.C. was surrounded by the enemy. Both Maryland, a border state where slavery was still legal, and Virginia, a confederate state, were within a stones throw. Due to this close proximity 68 forts were built to protect the city. If the city fell to the confederates the war and the union could be lost. The cities population also ballooned with the sudden influx of thousands of soldiers. Unfortunately, the cities infrastructure was not ready to hand this large increase in population.
Frederick Douglass #1
ReplyDeleteIn 1860, violence was definitely necessary to abolish slavery in the country. The South was not ready to free their slaves due to their economic importance. Cotton was king and slavery made it possible. Events such as Bleeding Kansas and the secession of southern states after Lincoln’s election help show how many Americans were not open to the idea of emancipation. War was the only way to preserve the Union as well as emancipate the slaves. It is possible by the turn of the century technology could have replaced slave labor but in 1860 this was not the case.
Tudor House- #1: The Underground Railroad did not end the institution of slavery in the United States but operated in several critical roles. The first is that it provided first person accounts from runaway slaves attesting to the evils of slavery. From an uneducated field hand to Frederick Douglass, escaped slaves put a human face on an institution. The escaped slaves personified the necessity of the abolitionist cause just as today organizations choose someone to represent their “message” to the public. From the current “Cover Girl” to the charming gecko from Geico Insurance, spokespeople focus the organizations public image and convey a message.
ReplyDeleteThe second important function served by the Underground Railroad was to provide an option to slaves living in the most deplorable circumstances or faced with the imminent sale of family members an option, a course of action. For slaves in the border states there loomed a 25% chance that someone in your family would be sold to the deep south. This fear and the proximity of freedom prior to the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 pushed slaves to run. This option was not an easy one and frequently ended in runaways caught and returned to the circumstances that forced them to flee. However, some runaways were successful and for every man, woman and child who escaped slavery, the Underground Railroad fulfilled its promise.
The Underground Railroad’s third important function was to provide hope to the millions of enslaved African-Americans in the United States. While impossible to measure, the hope given to so many by the stories, rumors and successes of the Underground Railroad can not be minimized. Some complain about the romanticization of the Underground Railroad in today’s culture as being disproportionate to its actual impact, the size of the effort and in terms of numbers saved. However, this romanticization attests to the value of stories that represent the best of the human spirit both today and in the past. Stories of courage give people the strength to continue another day, to hope and to dream of a better future. The essence of this idea is captured in the story of the man who kept throwing starfish back into the sea despite the multitude that continued to wash up around him. Another person seeing the man’s efforts said to him that his efforts didn’t matter at all because so many washed up and died anyway. He replied as he threw a starfish into the sea, “It mattered to that one.”
Frederick Douglass NHS-#2: I admire those who have the courage to blaze new trails and hold the difficult yet just position but I don’t think I have the courage to be one of those people. I am sure that I would have been a product of my time had I live during the civil war just as Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were products of their experiences. Frederick Douglass as an escaped slave, self-educated man and role model/representative of his race had no choice but to take a position of total emancipation and equal rights for free blacks. Abraham Lincoln, despite his personal opinions, took action as a public person, the President of the United States. Both of these men were forced to shape their thoughts and feelings through their public personas. I believe that I would have been against slavery as I tend to always side with the oppressed but would have supported a gradual approach to emancipation which woud have been more socially acceptable.
Tudor House:
ReplyDeleteThe location of DC had to have had an impact on Lincoln/Union. The nation's capital is a symbol of strength and stability. The capital was facing the confederate threat in an extremely close proximity. The Union could not allow the Confederacy to take DC, it would show great weakness and destroy what little morale existed. To be fighting a war against your own citizens is tough enough but to look out the window of government and watch it unravel adds to the mental and emotional devastation a war automatically carries.
Douglas#2
ReplyDeleteIn any point in history to craete change you must determine how much the people can handle, A radical approach like Douglas is often too much too soon. Such a radical approach is often guided by emotion rather than logic and that can lead to disaster. While slavery is something that is morally and ethically wrong many in our nation were resistant to change, often based on their own economic greed. A more step by step attempt to change is logical, but it won't create change overnight and abolitionist had waited and were tired of waiting for logic to establish change. While i disagree with radical methods for change, the ending of slavery had tried the logical 'legit approach for way too long, Sometimes you need to go outside the bounds to win the prize.
WASHINGTON AND ITS RESIDENTS
ReplyDeleteTUDOR HOUSE: The location of the U.S. Capital affected the war effort in several ways. It was bordered by Maryland (which was part of the Union but consisted of many Southern sympathizers)and Virginia (which was part of the Confederacy). Many residents retained family ties in Maryland and Virginia and some of the wealthy families, including those living at Tudor Place, owned farms using slave labor. Therefore, residents were divided between the North and South in their support. Tensions regarding slavery between those with northern roots and those with southern roots. Because of its location, all of the District of Columbia was engulfed by the Civil War. Some of the large houses became rooming houses for Union officers, including Tudor Place, even though the family supported the South. Military camps were set up throughout Washington, D.C. Because the number of wounded continued to grow, churches were used as hospitals. Local businesses provided food and supplies to the Union armies. In addition, the location of the U.S. Capital would have made it impossible for President Lincoln and its residents to escape thinking about the Civil War.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS NHS: The home that we visited was a testament to what Mr. Douglass was able to achieve during his lifetime. Having escaped from slavery, he made a name for himself by becoming an impressive public speaker who claimed that the U.S. Constitution should be used as an argument against slavery. From the hilltop vantage point of his front porch, Douglass could look to Maryland and be reminded of his escape from slavery as well as view the capitol building, representing the nation's seat of government, which would have urged him on to continue in his quest for equality for all. The close proximity of his home to the the White House had a positive impact on his work to end slavery and improve race relations by making it impossible for Lincoln to ignore Douglass' stance. He was persistent in his pleas to the president toward abolition. Eventually, his influence on Lincoln led to him being considered a friend and on one occasion he was welcomed into the White House by the president after having been turned away, as an African-American, by others.
If you lived during the Civil War era which approach towards emancipation would you have supported: Lincoln's step by step tactics or Douglass' more radical line of attack?
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I would have taken the more radical approach based on the concept that slavery was morally wrong and needed to be stopped immediately, but what I have learned through this week really brings me to a different conclusion. Lincoln needed to act as a President. His goal was to preserve the Union, so he did have to think of many factors that would have prevented a more radical approach. He did need the influence of more radical individuals, but his role as President warranted a more step-by-step strategy.
#1
ReplyDeleteThe location of the US Capital was immensely symbolic during the Civil War. Imagine fighting a war and being able to actually view the "enemy" from the White House grounds? The proximity of the Capital to the dividing line between the North and South really demonstrated how many families were torn between sides.
The location also shows that DC had to be a military target for the South, and the importance of preserving it as a Northern symbol of strength. The loss of DC or even attack upon it had immense consequences.
Tudor House #1: No, I do not think that the Underground Railroad was an effective response to the enslavement of African Americans. It was a loosely organized system for helping fugitive slaves escape to Canada or to areas of safety in free states. While many might think that this system was highly successful, most of the runaways were aided by abolitionists or by the daring supporters of the movement. It is difficult to separate the legends passed on from the reality since no more than a few thousand a year escaped between 1840 and 1860 successfully. The Underground Railroad was exaggerated in both the North and South for different reasons. The abolitionists used the system as propaganda to dramatize the evils of slavery while the South publicized it to illustrate the Northern infidelity to the Fugitive Slaves laws. Unfortunately it would take a brutal war to bring it to its demise and the passage of the 13th amendment.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass #1
ReplyDeleteThis has been a controversial topic with strong arguments for both sides and looking what was at stake for both regions, war seemed to be the answer at the time. Fueled by strong feelings of sectionalism, how the economic base would affect the lives of many, the greed of money and power, our new nation was torn by politics. Our country was separating into different distinct sections and the feelings of nationalism that we fought so hard for was slowly dissipating. Slavery was a peculiar institution that perhaps would have been phased out over time as it did in other parts of the world. However, The Dred Scott decision reinforced that this institution would now thrive and spread into our western territories- slavery was here to stay. The North realized the balance of power could now shift to our southern neighbors and the South was ready to expand its economy with slavery. War should be our last resort for an answer to a problem but unfortunately the power was in the hands of our leaders. In 1860, women and slaves could not vote...something to think about.