What is the 2nd best option?

Thank you all for your work on your group presentations to wrap-up the first semester. Most of you demonstrated an understanding of the history that we’ve been covering, and of the various options given for this assignment.

By looking at alternative outcomes (the options that did not actually happen) we are practicing what is called counterfactual history. In the case of our activity, it helps us understand what the founders may have been considering before they settled on independence. We do have to be careful when working with counterfactuals that our understanding of what actually happened is not confused. You all are intelligent enough to avoid this problem.

So let’s work a little more with our alternative outcomes. We all know that it was Option 4 that was chosen by our founding fathers, but what if they had made a different choice. What do you believe would have been their best choice out of the three alternatives (Options 1-3)? Why would have it have been the best alternative? Do you think the outcome would have lasted, or would have independence eventually come?

Give serious thought to your answers, and think carefully about the “Why” question. I’m looking for serious and thoughtful responses. As always, I encourage you to respond not only to my post, but to the comments of your classmates.

When you finish this blogging assignment I hope you focus on having a great Christmas holiday and an unbelievable New Year!!

Slavery: Old News or Relevant History?

I hope that you all found today's activity on slavery informative and eye-opening. But does it really matter that we study stuff like this? Some would question whether or not it is wise to dig up this awful part on our nation's history. Why not put it out of our minds and just move forward? I suppose we can ask that question about all of history. That would not be good news for a history teacher!

We've discussed how Southern plantation owners may have justified their involvement in the institution of slavery. A good case can be made that without slavery the economy of the Southern colonies - and later the Southern United States - would have crumbled. Howard Dodson, writing about the importance of slavery to the cotton trade in 1800s America, says "the slavery system in the United States was a national system that touched the very core of its economic and political life." He goes on to describe how the institution of slavery was interwoven into virtually every part of the U.S. economy at the time:

Each plantation economy was part of a larger national and international political economy. The cotton plantation economy, for instance, is generally seen as part of the regional economy of the American South. By the 1830s, "cotton was king" indeed in the South. It was also king in the United States, which was competing for economic leadership in the global political economy. Plantation-grown cotton was the foundation of the antebellum southern economy.

But the American financial and shipping industries were also dependent on slave-produced cotton. So was the British textile industry. Cotton was not shipped directly to Europe from the South. Rather, it was shipped to New York and then transshipped to England and other centers of cotton manufacturing in the United States and Europe.

As the cotton plantation economy expanded throughout the southern region, banks and financial houses in New York supplied the loan capital and/or investment capital to purchase land and slaves.

Recruited as an inexpensive source of labor, enslaved Africans in the United States also became important economic and political capital in the American political economy. Enslaved Africans were legally a form of property—a commodity. Individually and collectively, they were frequently used as collateral in all kinds of business transactions. They were also traded for other kinds of goods and services.

The value of the investments slaveholders held in their slaves was often used to secure loans to purchase additional land or slaves. Slaves were also used to pay off outstanding debts. When calculating the value of estates, the estimated value of each slave was included. This became the source of tax revenue for local and state governments. Taxes were also levied on slave transactions.

Politically, the U.S. Constitution incorporated a feature that made enslaved Africans political capital—to the benefit of southern states. The so-called three-fifths compromise allowed the southern states to count their slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating states' representation in the U.S. Congress. Thus the balance of power between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states turned, in part, on the three-fifths presence of enslaved Africans in the census.

(from National Geographic News)

So were Southern plantation owners right? Was the future of the United States - and the survival of the colonies before that - critical enough to justify slavery? Obviously, we have decided as a nation - as late as it was - that slavery was an evil institution and a regrettable part of our past. So should slavery be remembered as a necessary evil? If so, then how can it we get past the fact that African slaves were forced against their will to be at the center of this horrible history.

Today you heard the horrors that Africans had to endure from the moment they were captured. Hopefully, for a few minutes you tried to put yourself inKunte's shoes - as impossible as that is.

So after reading above about how important slavery was to the economy of our country's early years and after considering what we heard and felt in class, how do you think the United States would be different today if the slavery in North America never existed? Would there have ever been a United States? Would the United States have been better off without slavery? If we decide that slavery was important enough to forgive early Americans for, then we should consider what Lincoln said:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

That probably a good test to apply to ourselves whenever we argue for anything!!

Remember, keep your comments and debate respectful. Be thoughtful!!

Are you a good citizen?

We talked quite a bit over the last few days about what citizenship is, and about how we can be good citizens. While we learned that there are certain steps to becoming a U.S. citizen, we hopefully realize by now that being a citizen of the U.S., or any other country for that matter, does not necessarily mean we active citizens of our community or our country.

So what does it take to be a good citizen? As citizens of the United States, should anything be expected of us when it comes to citizenship? How about required? Should citizens of this country be required to serve their communities and/or nation? Or should it be left up to the individual?

Some countries around the world have laws requiring citizens to serve in the military for a few years. Would this be a good idea in our country? How about requirements for community service? How do we balance the precious right to choose what we want to do with our time with the need for citizens to take an active role in protecting those freedoms?

Finally, how important is it that we as citizens take the initiative to learn all of that information on the citizenship test that we took on Thursday? If so few natural born citizens know that material, should we still require immigrants to know it in order to become citizens?

There is a lot to think about here, so take your time and give thoughtful responses. Teach me and your fellow students something.

I've provided a few links throughout the above text. They may help you think about the topic.

Your comments must be posted by 11:59 pm, on Wednesday, September 10. Good luck and have fun!!