U.S. Civil War, States Rights, and Slavery

A recent article in the Washington Post titled "Texas Officials: Schools should teach that slavery was 'side issue to Civil War" has, once again, shed light on a very old fight taking place on the core issues of the United States Civil War.  Historians almost across the board agree that slavery was the core issue of the U.S. Civil War, those that disagree will normally acknowledge that the "states right" that was being fought over was slavery.  I will touch on that, later in this post, but I first wanted to express in a more general tone why, to my eye, this particular issue on the interpretation of the U.S. Civil War is so critical and is still so violently fought over.

Since the close of the U.S. Civil War in 1865, and with the termination of Reconstruction in the late 1880s, the United States has seen a general move by its southern states, and portions of the northern states, to embrace the U.S. Civil War as a fight over the "Lost Cause."  This is a romanticized view of the U.S. Civil War, a re-imagining of the conflict as a battle fought by an outmatched foe (the South) against an aggressive dominating rival (the North.)  This view of the U.S. Civil War pivots the narrative into one of the Southern states fighting to defend more morally palatable issues for the United States of the 1880s forwards, issues of limited government, Constitutional balance, and yes, states rights.

States rights reaches to the issue of federalism, the balance between the states and the central federal government, and has been an issue of contention in the United States since its founding.  The initial divide between our two political parties reflects this, it is a divide which is rooted in the current debates shaping the United States today.

At its root the "Lost Cause" view of the U.S. Civil War was an effort to remake the war into something more noble.  It was also part of an effort by the north and south to reunify the country and close still strong sectional divisions in the early 20th century.  As part of this effort both sides agreed to a tacit cultural agreement, northern historians and cultural figures would accept the "nobility" of the southern cause and support that position, and southern historians and cultural figures would embrace Abraham Lincoln and the northern actions as necessary if regrettable.  I will admit this is just my opinion but I believe it was this compromise that really put an end to the idea that states had a moral right of secession as a mainstream theory about the U.S. Civil War, most people today may debate the legality of secession and when it could happen, but they've accepted the U.S. Civil War was necessary because it kept the United States a strong nation.

This compromise reached its height, in my opinion, in 1958 with the passage of U.S. Public Law 85-425 which granted the widows of Confederate forces the right to a pension from the U.S. government.  The actual law is limited to just this but it has since been taken in common culture as a taciturn recognition of Confederate veterans as having the same status as veterans of the U.S. armed forces in general.  For the purposes of this post the actual legality of that view is irrelevant, what matters is that since 1958 the accepted image of Confederate veterans in the south is that they were patriots, equal to U.S. veterans, not traitors or criminals.

But was the U.S. Civil War about slavery at its core?  Bottom line, yes, and also state's rights, and also regional power.  To see this though you have to go back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which dealt with how to handle new states entering the U.S.  The issue was the admission of Missouri, whose residents wanted to own slaves.  The challenge was that the balance of power in the U.S. Senate balanced evenly between slave states and free states in 1820.  This balance of power was considered vital for the southern states because the more populous north dominated the House of Representatives and with the northern states there was growing resistance to slavery.  (Not due to any particularly strong moral issues, although that was part of it, rather to a blend of moral issues with good old-fashioned economic concerns.)

To deal with this Maine was admitted at the same time, as a free state, and the U.S. Congress drew a line across the lands of the Louisiana purchase marking off where slavery would end.  Both sides also understood that newly admitted states would have to maintain the Senate balance of power between slave states and free states.  To offset that balance was unacceptable to both sides - to the north loss of the Senate would make them bound to an unfair "slave power" in the U.S., which had economic interests violently opposed to the growing interests of northern industrial powers.  For southern states loss of the Senate would make them vulnerable to pressures that would harm their economic interests as a trading power engaged in a fiercely competitive global agricultural trade.

This balance remained in place until Stephen Douglas in 1854, in part of a bid to improve his political position in a run for the Presidency, in part to open land for railroad settlement, and also due to his political convictions came up with a new plan - scrap the Missouri Compromise and let the residents of each state decide if they wanted to be free or slave.  Hence the creation, and passage, of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which said "you local residents, you decide among yourselves if you want to be slave or free."

Now if slavery was not, by itself, a burning issue with deep roots to sectional conflicts, state position, and deeply held ethnic tensions in the United States, you might imagine that this would have been settled in a calm, collected manner.  It was not.

The image above is a "free state" poster regarding Kansas - give it a look - as you can see people were quite touchy on the issue of if Kansas would be a slave or free state.  Both sides on the issue flooded the territory with individuals and the issue was resolved with armed force.  This period was, and is, referred to as "Bleeding Kansas" and it basically pitted "free territory" settlers against individuals from Missouri who came to ensure that slavery would be allowed to expand into Kansas.  The situation wasn't really resolved until 1861 when Kansas was admitted as a free state to the union.  (By which point things had already reached the "Holy Hell" stage with South Carolina already pulling out of the United States.)

Allow me to close with this point - slavery as an issue in the United States from its founding through 1865 was a contentious issue, both on its own merits and for what it symbolized to the people of the United States.  From the 1850s onward though it became probably the central issue of United States politics, for better or for worse.  From the rise of the Republican Party out of the dead remains of the Whig Party, a new political organization with an avowed goal of shattering slavery in the United States ideally and at a minimum containing it in the southern states till it died out on its own against Southern leaders who with the Dred Scott decision made it clear they intended to bring slavery into free states and use the power of the federal courts to make slavery a default acceptable option throughout the United States.

If I had to summarize it I'd say that the U.S. Civil War was about slavery because it was a war about what shape the United States would take, what sort of nation it would be - one with slavery or one without.  Because within that issue was tied a whole host of other issues of what the United States would be:

• Predominately a strong agricultural exporter power with low tariffs or a strong industrial power with high tariffs and limited foreign trade
• A nation with a strictly enforced racial hierarchy empowered by law or one in which the racial hierarchy was more fluid
• A nation in which private property was sacrosanct or one in which the federal government had the right to redefine, seize, and modify property based on Congressional laws
• A nation in which the federal government or the individual state governments would hold the strongest position of power

It is an ugly truth today but in the end it all really did come down to the issue of...slavery

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on Bleeding Kansas, Lost Cause, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Missouri Compromise

George Washington's Legacy - Not What People Think

2016 has been an acrimonious year election-wise in the United States and I've noticed a trend in this particular election to generate memes like the one above.  In it we see George Washington scolding the United States population for some sort of vague "make your government more what you want it to be" without actual specifics.  For me, this meme implies that George Washington would find the current United States federal government, and its actions, unacceptable and challenges the citizens of the United States to "step up" and take back their government.  Which to me is taking the actual presidency of George Washington, and its legacy, and corrupting it.  Because George Washington as President faced off against the very sort of action this meme espouses, and he did not take kindly to it at all.

This glorious painting is from 1791 during the Whiskey Rebellion, and the figure on the horse is George Washington leading a combined force of United States federal troops and local state militia units on an expedition to disband an armed rebellion against a tax law passed by the United States Congress.  The Whiskey Rebellion formed in reaction to the high debt held by the federal government after the Revolutionary War, in which the federal government absorbed individual state debt along with its own.  Import duties, it was felt by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, could not be raised higher and a tax on a domestic product was needed.  Distilled spirits became the target of the new law, it was seen as a "sin tax" and Hamilton, along with Washington, felt that the tax would spark the least anger of any taxed domestic industry.  They did not figure with the anger of farmers living in the western portions of the United States at the time, in particular western Pennsylvania, who felt this tax violated their traditional rights and position.

Distilling spirits was seen by western farmers as a legitimate means of storing surplus grain and generating a valuable product for sale in eastern markets.  Whiskey was also used as a means of currency in the region, so this effort to tax farmers for making whiskey was widely seen as a new form of "taxation without representation."  Rebels in the region rose up, attacked tax collectors, and refused to pay the tax.  Many claimed they were defending the spirit and principles of the American Revolution.  Hell many of them were veterans of the American Revolution.  Washington strongly disagreed and although he sent out peace delegates to deal with the rebels, he also marched out with an army to disperse them.  The Whiskey Rebellion collapsed and the right of the federal government to tax internally was defended, by Washington, against individuals rising up to defend the spirit of the revolution - a.k.a. traditional limited federal government.

But hang on, because evidence is even more present in Washington's economic policies.  Although he attempted in his first term as President to stand neutral between two rival factions, Hamilton and Jefferson, who respectively wanted a larger federal role in the economy and a lesser federal role (Jefferson and his yeoman farmers concept) - Washington leaned in Hamilton's direction.  By his second term Washington fully agreed with Hamilton's ideas about a broader federal government and used his executive powers, along with raising support in Congress, for new laws that expanded the role of the federal government in the domestic economy of the United States.  This included controversial actions like creating a Bank of the United States, strong investments in infrastructure, and tariffs to protect rising domestic industry.  It even involved direct federal investment in the creation of local factories, a level of federal involvement today that makes many scream.

Overall Washington was not the man depicted in the first meme at the top of this post, he was actually as President a strong believer in a firm, well organized, fiscally involved federal government that firmly held in its hand a whip to coerce those who would rise in rebellion.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on George Washington's Presidency and the Whiskey Rebellion

Spanish American War Timeline Using Primary Sources

Our newest lesson covers the "splendid little war" known as the Spanish American War. Although brief, this war is essential for students to understand how America transitioned into becoming a world power.

In this lesson, students analyze 10 primary sources from the Spanish American War, including cartoons, newspapers, lithographs, maps, and pictures all related to each aspect of the war.

Students then match these documents to questions along a timeline. The documents begin with a cartoon related to America protecting Cuba and move through the explosion on the USS Maine, the Teller & Platt Amendments, Rough Riders, Yellow Journalism, Buffalo Soldiers, Philippine-American War, and more. 

Each task is of varying difficulty and caters to visual and kinesthetic learners in having them finishing sketches to reinforce concepts. An answer key is included and can be seen below. You can download this lesson for your classroom by clicking here. A free preview of all the documents in the lessons is available as well.

"Uncle Wiggle Wings - The Candy Bomber " Berlin Airlift & Communism Story

This lighthearted, heartwarming true story tells of American Air Force pilot Gail Halvorsen who flew supplies over Germany during the famous Berlin Airlift of 1948.

After the Soviet Union cut off Berlin from West Germany, the US plan to fly in supplies rather than break the blockade famously embarrassed the Soviet Union. This tension eventually led to the building of the Berlin Wall.

During his flights, Halvorsen would drop candy out of his plane to the children of Berlin, earning him the nickname "Uncle Wiggle Wings the Candy Bomber".

This worksheet includes one page on this fantastic story, mixing essential Common Core knowledge like the Berlin Airlift, Allied Powers, President Truman, Stalin, and more with the amusing tale of Uncle Wiggle Wings. My students really enjoyed this story and were able to relate very well to the children of Berlin.

Just the title of the story had them laughing and anxious to read it!

You can download this worksheet for your students by clicking here. An answer key is included for your convenience.

American Imperialism: World Leader or Bully?

This downloadable worksheet combines several layers of Bloom's Taxonomy, including comprehension, analysis, and critical thinking as students review 10 US actions during the Age of Imperialism.

Included are the US purchase of Alaska, Spanish-American War, building of the Panama Canal, the annexation of Hawaii, and more. For each event, students must determine whether they feel the US was acting like a "world leader" promoting good or a "bully" acting in its own self-interest.

Whatever their decision, they must provide evidence to back up their claim. After completing the chart, students then determine whether America overall acted more like a World Leader or a World Bully and compose a short persuasive essay on their choice.

I did not include an answer key because each aspect of this is opinion-based and arguments could be made for either. However, if you would like a completed student sample, please let me know and I will supply one!

Click here to download this lesson for your student to use today!

Turning Paper Boxes into Picket Signs - Strikes & Labor Lesson Plan

In this creative cooperative learning activity, students create picket signs from old paper boxes that tell the story of some of the most famous labor clashes in American History.

Included are 7 one-page stories on each of the following: The Homestead Strike, Haymarket Affair,Pullman Strike, Ludlow Massacre, Great Railroad Strike of 1877, Flint Sit-Down Strike, and Memorial Day Massacre.

In groups, students then complete the reading and create a picket sign that tells the story of that strike and present them to the class:

  

As groups present, a Venn Diagram helps students organize similarities and differences between the different strikes:

Lastly, students complete a set of comprehension questions. A rubric for the presentation is included as well as an page describing the procedures in detail and pictures of completed examples.

This can be downloaded from this link and is a very fun activity that your student will remember and enjoy!

http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Major-American-Strikes-Labor-Issues-Picket-Signs-Lesson

Last Japanese Soldier to Surrender in World War II

One of my favorite stories from history is that of Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese intelligence officer in World War II who was stationed in the Philippines. In 1945, he did not believe the leaflets he saw that Japan had surrendered and continued hiding in the hills, using guerrilla tactics until 1974 - almost 30 years after the war was over!! I thought his story would be great for the classroom to bring history alive and make the end of the war more personal for my students.

I created this worksheet that tells his story for my students. The downloadble & printable worksheet includes his full story in one page and is written in an engaging style that will be easy for your students to comprehend and enjoy. The included comprehension questions test your students' reading ability and knowledge of World War II history.

 It does an excellent job of reinforcing to students how the Japanese felt about surrender and would work well after a lesson on the choice to use an atomic bomb or invade Japan. My students always enjoy this reading and feel a mix of humor and respect for such a dedicated soldier.

This is definitely a great read for World of US History students! You can download the worksheet here and an answer key is included for your reference.