Students Again

1865 to Present Homework

Competing Voices #1 (Chapter 16)

1. Why does Hill call congressional Reconstruction unconstitutional? Do his claims have any merit? Explain.

Hill believed congressional reconstruction was unconstitutional because the enfranchisement of African Americans would disenfranchise white people. Confiscation of land for the purpose of redistribution would improve the position of the previously oppressed and cast the previously privileged down to oppression. Hill also argued that the military occupation of the South during a time of peace trampled the states and its laws through force. Hill believed that the military occupation directly violated the terms of surrender. The South believed that their surrender would allow them to be in the Union again with all of their rights. For readmission to the Union, the South agreed to fulfill all of its obligations according to the terms of the surrender. The South did not believe that after the surrender they would be subject to military occupation and feel forced to fulfill their obligations. Hill’s claims do have some merit depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. The improvement of a group’s social/economic position by means of oppressing another group is wrong. This idea amounts to nothing more than a reversal of the wrongs done to slaves by their masters at the expense of the former master. Although slavery was wrong, this is not a valid solution. It still amount to harming one group for the benefit of another group. The Federal government cannot trample over the state’s rights to serve its own purpose. This situation depends on the perspective of the person analyzing the situation. It could be viewed from Hill’s perspective of the South automatically becoming part of the Union again with their rights intact. In this point-of-view there are aspects of the reconstruction that could be deemed unconstitutional. However, if this situation was viewed from the North’s perspective then the South was not yet readmitted to the Union. In this point-of-view the South would not have a claim to the reconstruction being unconstitutional because they would not be under constitutional protection.

2. What is Hill’s advice to the freed slaves? Do you think he is sincere?

Hill’s advice to the freed slaves is not to trust the politicians. Hill poses the question of how someone faithless to the Constitution could be trustworthy to freed slaves. Hill also gives warning to the freed slaves that the Constitution will not protect them if they do not build friendly relationships with the white people they will live near. Yes, I think Hill is sincere in his advice. Hill presents his advice and warnings in a condescending manner showing his belief in the superiority of the white race, but he seems to believe in what he is saying. I think Hill is trying to basically tell African Americans that two wrongs cannot make a right and will be met with resistance. However, Hill is also telling African Americans not to trust the politician’s promises because they are probably lying in the first place.

3. Summarize the provisions of Stevens’s bill. How does he justify Congress’s right to enact it?

Stevens’s bill calls for reimbursement of the cost of the war to the North at the expense of the South. To claim this reimbursement, the bill proposes to confiscate all property of the state and national governments of the conquered. Steven’s further proposes to dole out the confiscated land to freed slave families. Stevens’s justifies Congress’s right to enact the bill by claiming a duty to protect the slaves they have freed through war and because Congress is dictating the terms of the peace.

4. What reasons does Stevens give to support the necessity of land reform?

The reason Stevens gives to support the necessity of land reform is that African Americans have been systematically kept ignorant and must gain some independence from their wiser neighbors to safeguard them from fraud and usury.

5. Based on the chapter and these selections, how do you think our society might be different today had Reconstruction gone farther? How would it be the same?

Our society might be different today if reconstruction had gone farther in the sense that there might be a role reversal between white people and African American people in terms of economics and opportunities. African Americans may have been better able to capitalize on their talents and improve their overall status in society. This progression is happening today to an extent, but may have moved much quicker and to higher levels if reconstruction had gone farther. Our society might be the same in the sense that a polarization may still exist between these two races. It seems as though one group maintains an advantage. This advantage is the roadblock to true equality, a happy coexistence, and acceptance of each other.

Competing Voices #2 (Chapter 17)

1. What do the terms severalty and in trust mean, and what was their impact on reservation life?

The term severalty means to have the condition of being owned by separate and individual right. Severalty, in the context of this chapter, was used to divide land for the benefit of the U.S. government at the expense of Native Americans and their tradition. The term in trust means to hold a persons property (land, etc.) for future disbursement to that person or their benefactors once they come of age. In this chapter, the U.S. government held land allotted to Native Americans under the age of eighteen in trust for a period of twenty-five years. The impact on reservation life was significant. The Native American no longer had a firm grip on their traditional culture of using land for everyone’s benefit. In addition, due to the environmental limits of land they would suffer from those repercussions. For example, if a Native American was allotted a tract of land that was particularly well suited for summer months but not the winter months they had no way of improving their position during those winter months. Also, they used to follow the wind to more fertile grounds because if they stayed behind the wind it would blow away the fertile soil revealing a ground of mostly clay deposits which were not good for planting. Severalty no longer allowed them to do such things because they would now end up being on someone else’s land.

2. What incentive does the government provide Native Americans who remain on their allotted plots of land?

The incentive the government provided to the Native American’s who remained on their allotments was protection and liberties. All Native Americans that received allotments would benefit from equal protection under the law within the territory of their allotment. In addition, Native Americans who embraced civilized life would be declared a citizen of the United States and all the rights, privileges, and immunities that come with citizenship.

3. What difference does Chief Joseph see in the white and Indian relationships with the land?

Chief Joseph sees a great difference between the white and Indian relationships with the land. The white man saw land as an endless source of economic opportunity to be owned and the environment was a commodity to be consumed. The Indian relationship with the land was spiritual. Therefore, Native Americans tried to live in harmony with the land. It was their goal to intertwine the human world with the natural world.

4. Does Chief Joseph claim ownership of the land? Why?

No, Chief Joseph does not claim ownership of the land. The Native Americans believed that land could not be owned because it was the property of the Creator. Chief Joseph claims that the country was not made of property lines and it was not man’s business to divide it. The only one who has a right to ownership of the land is the one who created it.

5. Why does the traditional Hopi land system not include permanent, continuous farms?

The traditional Hopi land system does not include permanent farms because during the Spring and Summer a gale wind comes and blows the sandy surface soil leaving barren infertile ground. The planters must follow the wind to find fertile ground to continue to grow their crops. Then, after a few years they can return to the original ground that once became barren to find it fertile once again. This land system was necessary to always be on fertile ground which will provide food.

6. In what ways is Hopi farming and landholding communal rather than individualistic?

Hopi landholding and farming was communal because the Native Americans shared the land and none claimed ownership. Because arable localities of land were not continuous each Native American family needed the freedom to move from barren land to arable land as necessary. This communal practice served for the survival of the whole tribe.

7. Does the Dawes Act fail to take into consideration Native American culture?

Yes, the Dawes Act fails to take into consideration Native American culture. The major way it neglects Native American culture is by allotting land. This goes against Native American culture in two ways. First, it creates individual ownership which is not believed possible by Native Americans. Land can only be owned by the one who created it. Second, by creating individual ownership the Native American culture of communal landholdings and farming are nonexistent. Native Americans are no longer free to move to fertile ground as necessary because it is now recognized as being owned by someone else.

Competing Voices #3 (Chapter 19)

8. Why does Walker believe that the new immigrants cannot become good Americans?

Walker believed that the new immigrants could not become good Americans because they have “no inherited instincts of self-government and respect for law.” He believed that the reduced cost for passage to America brought the least desirable people. Walker believed these people could not blend in with America’s way of doing things. The only thing the immigrants understood was to obey through force. Walker seemed to believe that the immigrant understanding of day-to-day life was contrary to the American way of life which would make it impossible for them to become good Americans.

9. How does he see globalization and the communications revolution impacting immigration?

Walker sees globalization and the communication revolution impacting immigration by making it possible for more immigrants to come to America. Walker views this as a threat on many different levels, some of the treats perceived include political and economical. He was very concerned that America could not take care of a huge influx of immigrants. In addition, he was concerned about how a constant influx of immigrants would affect the lives of Americans from safety to the job market.

10. Do you see any similarities between Walker’s argument and those used today against immigration?

Yes, there are many similarities between Walker’s argument and arguments used today against immigration. Some of the similarities include arguments about labor problems, lawlessness, and diminishment of our national condition. The labor problem argument entails the idea that there is not enough employment to go around. The argument about lawlessness involves the accusation that immigrants are not law abiding and will contribute to crime. The idea of diminishment of our national condition is rooted in the cost associated with taking care of a large number of unskilled foreigners. These arguments have been made in recent years, particularly in relation to immigration into the United States from Mexico.

11. How do you explain Clancy’s assertion that America, itself a land of immigrants, has always greeted “newcomers” with “bitter persecution”? How could members of Congress who were the children of immigrants vote to restrict new immigrants?

Clancy asserts that America has always greeted “newcomers” with “bitter persecution” because of congressional reports noting such abuses. When the Irish came to America they were ill treated. The Irish suffered little employment opportunity with the prevalence of No Irish Need Apply (NINA). In addition, Irish immigrants that did manage to find work were made to do the most dangerous jobs because their lives were viewed less valuable than that of slaves. German immigrants endured similar difficulties. Chinese immigrant were ill treated through hard labor and when they were not needed Congress even passed things, as noted in this chapter, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which suspended Chinese immigration. I believe Clancy makes his assertion because there are many examples that agree with his claim. Member of Congress, as children of immigrants, could vote to restrict immigration because of the idea of “the fearful fallacy of chosen people and inferior peoples.” It is possible for Congress to vote this way because immigrants do not view themselves the same as other immigrants.

12. How is Clancy’s definition of “Americanism” different from Walker’s definition?

Clancy’s definition of Americanism is defined by preserving current Americans as Americans. Walker’s definition of Americanism is defined by adding new people who will become Americans. The difference, in my opinion, is a matter of time. In Clancy’s definition you must already be American to be an American… you don’t become an American, you either already are or not. In Walker’s definition new Americans are generated through assimilating people from other lands indefinitely. You can come to America today, tomorrow, or anytime and declare your desire to become a part of America. In Clancy’s view the only new Americans would be child born to current Americans. In Walker’s view everybody can be an American all they have to do is come to America and assimilate.

Competing Voices Question – Chapter 23

1. Why does Schenck cite the Thirteenth Amendment in his leaflet?

The first section of the Thirteenth Amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction (U.S. Constitution).” Schenck cited the first part of the Thirteenth Amendment because he believed it was violated by the Conscription Act. His underlying premise is that conscription is akin to slavery which was only acceptable for a convict under the Thirteenth Amendment. Therefore, any subject of conscription is being treated as a convict. This logic was used in the leaflet to legitimize what he believe was wrong or even unconstitutional.

2. According to Holmes, why are Schenck’s actions not protected under the First Amendment?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes believed Schenck’s actions were not protected under the First Amendment because it violated the clear and present danger clause. This clause limits individual rights when it poses “a direct and unmistakable threat to national survival (Holmes 926).” For example, falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which results in a panic would not be protected speech. Holmes believed Schnck’s speech was similar; like “standing outside a theater, telling people not to enter because there is a fire inside (Gillon and Matson 928).”

3. What constitutes a conspiracy for Holmes?

For Holmes, a conspiracy consists of a plot devised by two or more people to commit an act against legislation.

4. How does Goldman define love of country?

Goldman did not believe neither the constitution nor does being born in a particular country constitute love of country. For Goldman, love of country was “that of the man who loves a woman with open eyes (Goldman 927).” This love that Goldman speaks of rest on the ability to see the great things as well as the bad things in relation to the country. This creates a true love of country rather than a blind unwavering following regardless of right or wrong. Goldman’s idea with this message places love of the people above loyalty to a government.

5. What does Goldman find lacking in American democracy?

Goldman argues that America fights to make democracy safe for the world, but need to secure that safety at home first. If this is not achieved the rest of the world will not take democracy seriously. She argues American democracy is lacking because free speech is being suppressed, peaceable assemblies are being broken up, and free press is being gagged.

She argues that if this much is lacking in American democracy, how can America spread democracy?

6. How does Goldman propose to resist the government?

Goldman argues that resistance does not have to consist of violence and physical action. She advocated for resistance through a declaration of beliefs and vowing inaction. For example, to refuse to fight in a war you do not personally believe in even if your country is engaged in a conflict. Also, to express opposition through “word and by pen (Goldman 927).”

7. Goldman spoke almost two years before Holmes’s decision. Did she anticipate any of his arguments?

She may have had an idea of the Holmes’s argument. The tone of her speech denotes a lack of democracy through the suppression of speech (among other things). Her speech vehemently denounces this action. Holmes clear and present danger clause argument deals with a suppression of speech (even if it is to secure national survival). This coincidence gives the appearance that she could have anticipated such an argument. Goldman arguing against the suppression of speech and Holmes arguing for the suppression of certain speech, I think, is beyond coincidence.

8. Is Holmes justified in restricting rights in wartime? To what degree?

Yes, Holmes is justified in restricting rights in wartime. During a time of national vulnerability some rights cannot be upheld in certain situations. For example, trying to incite civil chaos through the use of civil rights cannot be tolerated. This is to the degree in which rights are justified in being restricted during wartime. If normally protected actions are used to threaten civil disruption this must be prohibited. Just as with the clear and present danger clause if a clear and present danger exist it cannot go unattended. A right that may be used to threaten the national security of a society during a time of war is justified in being restricted. The measure of threat is different during a time of war due to the vulnerability of the nation.

Competing Voices Question – Chapter 26

9. Why does the Interim Committee oppose giving Japan advance warning?

The Interim Committee opposed giving Japan advance warning because “with previous notice, the Japanese air power was still adequate to give serious interference (Gillon and Matson 1050).” This could create a huge problem because the bomb was unused and therefore unpredictable as to its reliability. Considering the Japanese air forces were adequate to interfere, the interference could create failure of the whole endeavor. If the attempt did end in failure in such a manner it could have more serious repercussions (Gillon and Matson 1050).

10. How does the Interim Committee picture the Japanese armed forces?

The Interim Committee pictured the Japanese armed forces as “determined and fanatical military men … If such an open test were made first and failed … the chance would be gone to give [effective] shock and surprise … [and] would make the Japanese ready to interfere with the atomic attack if they could (Gillon and Matson 1050.” In other words, the Interim Committee viewed the Japanese armed forces as an effective fighting force that would have a probable chance of thwarting an attempted atomic attack in such a case where they were forewarned or witnessed a failed attempt and prepared for future attempts.

11. According to Franck, why would the United States be at a disadvantage in a nuclear war?

According to Franck, the United States would be at a disadvantage because of “its agglomeration of population and industry in comparatively few metropolitan districts … compared to nations whose population and industry are scattered over large areas (Gillon and Matson 1051).” The fear is based on the premise that nuclear bombs cannot remain secret and that other counties would soon start to develop such weapons after knowing of other nations that already have such weapons. If multiple nations have nuclear weapons the United States would be at a disadvantage because of the countries concentration of people and industry in less numerous locations. If a nuclear attack were to occur in such a concentrated area the devastation would be much greater to the nation than it would be to a nation of dispersed population and industry. The nation with concentration stands to loose lives and economic support much quicker, especially if there are fewer targets to create such a crippling effect, and increase the probability of overall loss.

12. Why do Franck and his colleagues want to delay using the bomb?

Franck and his colleagues wanted to delay the use of the bomb because:

“If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons (Gillon and Matson 1051).” Franck and his colleagues argued that the postponement of using the bomb would have the advantage of delaying the beginning of a nuclear arms race as long as possible (Gillon and Matson 1051). In addition, they argued that if the United States had a demonstration of the power of the bomb then she could take into account public opinion before deciding to use the bomb against Japan thus allowing other nations to take a share of the responsibility attached with such an act (Gillon and Matson 1051).

13. Were their predictions accurate?

Yes, their predictions were fairly accurate. Public reaction to the use of the atomic bomb was not overwhelmingly positive. Also, the action did lead to an arms race and the future creation of nuclear powers.

14. How did assumptions about the world shape the strategic recommendations of the Interim Committee and the Franck Report?

The Interim Committee viewed the Japanese as prepared, determined, and courageous (or at least fanatical) which shaped their strategic recommendations. The Interim Committee assumed that warning of atomic warfare would create failure, due to the qualities that the Japanese military was believed to possess, and therefore strategically advised against warning before atomic attack. Franck and his colleagues, in the Franck Report, assumed that the world would become a place of lacking public support, a race for armament among nations, and jeopardizing the future control over such devastating weapons. Due to these assumptions about the world it shaped the Franck Reports strategic recommendation of delaying the use of the bomb. This was in hopes of gaining public support so nations could share in the responsibility, delaying an arms race, and having some overall control in the nuclear world.

15. How did the atomic bomb change America’s international image?

The atomic bomb changed America’s international image into an image of callous disregard for the after effects of the use of such a weapon on the recipients of the detonation. This was also an image of fear which motivated other nations to posture against such an act on their soil. America became a nation that would fight under certain circumstances, but take the fight to extraordinary lengths.