Typo, “Unites States”
The Colombian exchange were mainly about the idea of a new world, and the colonization of people but also the separation of geographic.
Four of the first five presidents, for example, were from Virginia.
Let’s be specific, the tests didn’t confirm it. DNA showed that a Jefferson male fathered at least one of Hemings’ children. TJ is one of a half-dozen possibilities. It would be more accurate to say that modern DNA testing lends credence to the attacks by Callender.
Grammatical error in the 4th sentence, “…threats to the British liberties they saw as a their birthright.”
This will be fixed. Thanks!
Will be changed. Thanks!
Will be fixed. Thanks!
This section would be more appropriately titled “Civil Rights and Education” or “Racism and Education.” See Barbara and Karen Fields Racecraft regarding the use of the term “race.”
To further explain…this section is not really about “race,” it’s about desegregation. So, the best title is probably “Desegregating the Schools” or something along those lines.
I don’t see a place for American Yawp Reader problems so I’ll post this here.
The following seems to be titled wrong:
The strike being referenced is from 1836. And the text was published in 1898. So unless we know that Robinson’s recollection dates to 1863, I’m thinking that the title just reversed the final two numbers in the date.
The word “amelioration” doesn’t make sense here. Perhaps appeasement is what was meant?
Most African Americans already gained their freedom in the Civil War.
Why is the citation in the text? Shouldn’t there be a citation number, with the full citation placed in the endnotes?
“Whilst”? Give me a break! Use of this word is an annoying trend, generally associated with conspiracy web sites and low brow folks trying to appear intelligent.
“Benefited,” not “benefitted.”
There is simply too much repetition and overlap all throughout this textbook, both in the pre-1877 portion and the pos-1877 part. The Great Awakening is just one prime example. It was covered in the previous chapter. I wondered, as I read about it there, why there was no mention of the Enlightenment, since the general interpretation is that the Great Awakening was a reaction to the Enlightenment. So now, here, in the following chapter, the Enlightenment is discussed, and the Great Awakening material on Whitefield is thrown in once again, as if it had never been covered before. Is there any communication between the various authors? Is there any editing done? The entire textbook needs a review and a good editing.
Shame on the conservative “author” of this segment for putting the Boston Massacre in quotation marks — five people were killed, for Christ’s sake. And referring to Crispus Attucks as a “ringleader” is pure bullshit, bordering on racism. Who wrote this crap? George Will? What’s the agenda here? Is there any editing or oversight to this slapdash hodgepodge you call a “textbook”? And at least be consistent — in the first sentence of section IV the quotation marks are suddenly gone. Textbooks by committee are always bad; this one is the worst ever.
There were five “Intolerable Acts,” not four. The Quebec Act has been omitted here.
Would this not be a logical place to introduce the term, “Loyalist,” or “Tory”?
The Treaty of Paris is not covered satisfactorily. What about the details? The acquisition of land east of the Mississippi, for example? There is a lot of detail at the end of this chapter, and mention of a lot of minor historical figures. Doesn’t the Treaty deserve, at the very least, a paragraph of its own? I assumed this might be covered in the next chapter, but it is not.
You cannot just dive into Shays’s Rebellion. There is an entire section omitted here, one covering the Articles of Confederation. Just mentioning it in a couple of paragraphs is insufficient. You need to cover its positives and negatives, and you need to at least mention some of the successes. The Land Ordinances of 1784, 1785 and 1787 are nowhere to be found. The Northwest Ordinance HAS to be discussed. As I noted in the previous chapter, the Treaty of Paris of 1783 is pretty much ignored, so it logically follows that the Articles, and the Land Ordinances, would get short shrift. This really needs to be corrected.
1791, not 1761.
Yes, the KY and VA Resolves would have “important effects in later decades.” So how mindless is it for the author(s) of this section not to introduce the term, “nullification“? (And “interposition” should be explained, as well). Gee. 🙁
I applaud the way the Louisiana Purchase is covered here, especially its connection to L’Overture’s revolt. But is there not a missing paragraph here? Shouldn’t there be at least some mention of the Lewis and Clark Expedition? I see not a word regarding it . . . how is this possible in an American history textbook? Maybe I’m missing something.
Repetitive, as is so common all throughout this textbook. This was covered, at least in part, in the segment on Jefferson’s presidency. The segment on Native Americans, as useful as it was, served mostly to break up the narrative. Now we are back to the Embargo. This chapter, and the entire textbook, needs editing. Like they say, “you get what you pay for,” and what kind of a textbook should one expect for free?
And now we’re back to Tecumseh again. Couldn’t the Native American material have been integrated into the War of 1812 segment in a more seamless fashion? The chapter, and the entire textbook, reads like a sloppy first draft of a master’s thesis. Are there no editors?
Poor Tecumseh — he’s already died twice in this chapter! Hey guys, does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Is there any effort at editing this disorganized hodge-podge?
Should be, “the Americans won THEIR first successes,” or “AMERICA won its first successes.” (And do you really “win” a “success”?)
Hard to believe the authors don’t even mention the Battle of Lake Erie at Put-in-Bay. The campaign that killed Tecumseh would not have been possible had Commodore Perry not won control of Western Lake Erie.
The contributions of African Americans to US victories is completely ignored. Black troops were essential to the victories at both New Orleans and Put-in-Bay.
Some, perhaps most, of the material on the Battle of New Orleans belongs in an earlier chapter, when the battle is actually being discussed. I pointed out back there that a number of African Americans fought at New Orleans. What sense does it make to have this information here, at this point? Once again I ask, is anyone editing this textbook?
And this should have been discussed earlier, when the John Adams presidency was covered. As it is, although the VA and KY Resolves are discussed, the term “nullification” is not mentioned. One person, one editor, needs to read this entire textbook and eliminate the needless repetition, as well as stuff being “tacked on” later because it was not covered when it should have been.
Am I missing something here? I have combed through this chapter, which focuses mainly on the Jacksonian era, and there is absolutely nothing on the Indian Removal Act, the Trail of Tears, or Worcester v. Georgia? Nothing at all on Jackson’s battle with Chief Justice Marshall? Yet there are four pages on the Peggy Eaton affair?! Who wrote this chapter? What’s the game plan here? I think perhaps some of the Native American-related material is covered in Chapter 12, but it belongs here, with the other material on Andrew Jackson. The entire textbook needs rethinking, reorganizing, and a lot of editing.
This segment on Indian removal belongs in the previous chapter, with the other material on Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Somehow tying it all in with American evangelical reform is very questionable. Also, the term “Trail of Tears” is introduced with no explanation — it’s just tossed in. Someone needs to edit this entire textbook. Is anyone besides me even using the book? I see almost no comments or suggestions. Is anyone else as disappointed as me with all of the omissions, repetition, and poor organization?
Are there actually two organizations? Was there an American Antislavery Association, in addition to the American Antislavery Society, or is this a typo?
One of the most irritating and pretentious trends of the past few years is use of the word “amongst.” And so much of this material on dueling, eye gouging, and all the rest is unnecessary filler. You’ve gotten off the narrative. Did a graduate student write these segments? This textbook needs editing in the worst way. No, wait! It already has been edited in the worst way, hasn’t it?
Who cares about all this? Timothy Bennett? Thanks for letting us know that he was from Belleville, Illinois. Very important!
Wow, does this chapter need some cleaning up. Talk about unnecessary detail! On the other hand, this entire textbook is so bad, it is actually entertaining. Sort of like really bad movies, like Plan 9 From Outer Space, or Robot Monster — you know, so bad they’re good. Did anyone associated with this endeavor ever actually read through any of this before it was posted on line? I used the second half of the book last spring, and I thought it was pretty good — but this pre-1877 half is an abomination. Keep up the good work!
Another reference to the Trail of Tears, which should have been included in the earlier chapter dealing with Andy Jackson, but wasn’t, and which has yet to be covered sufficiently.
This entire chapter can be eliminated. Put the Indian Removal material in Chapter 9 where it belongs. Put the Monroe Doctrine there, as well (I was wondering where the hell it was back when I was working on Chapter 9). Put the Mexican War material in Chapter 13 as a lead-in to the Compromise of 1850. Then whatever is left over can either be eliminated or interspersed in other chapters. This entire textbook is horribly organized. The best way to organize a textbook is chronologically, not thematically. Students coming out of high school are confused enough as it is — they need a chronological framework. What is worst of all about this book is that the writers and (non-existent) editors cannot make up their minds whether they are working chronologically or thematically — sometimes it’s one thing, then its another. This is why there is so much repetition and overlap, while other things are missing altogether. Again I ask, did ANYBODY associated with putting this hodge-podge together ever actually sit down and read it from start to finish prior to posting it on the web?
The entire original citation is left in the text, rather than being endnoted. And this occurs all throughout the book, in fact — here and there you will notice entire citations at the end of paragraphs. I have made note of this elsewhere. This is proof that nobody ever actually sat down and read the entire textbook. This textbook is like a last-minute research paper that hasn’t been proofread. Somebody has to edit it.
All of this belongs in Chapter 9, with the other material on Andy Jackson. I’ve said it elsewhere in my comments on this textbook, but it cannot be said enough. It occurs to me that the writers and (non-existent) editors of this textbook felt they absolutely had to have 15 chapters, so they took material out of other chapters and slapped it all together here. That is the only conceivable explanation for placing the Indian Removal material here.
You are simply padding the text, like a student padding a research paper. This entire chapter is unnecessary — put the Indian Removal material where it belongs, in Chapter 9, along with the Monroe Doctrine, and there is very little left for this chapter.
I’ll say it again: you are simply padding the text, like a student padding a research paper. What purpose do these lengthy quotes really serve? This entire chapter is unnecessary — put the Indian Removal material where it belongs, in Chapter 9, along with the Monroe Doctrine, and there is very little left for this chapter.
Just to add to my other comments — take note in this chapter of all the lengthy (and unnecessary) quotes. This is “padding,” pure and simple, exactly like our students do on hastily-done research papers. This chapter serves no purpose. All of the material belongs in other chapters.
This quote is just unnecessary padding.
More unnecessary padding. Get rid of these lengthy quotes.
Oh where oh where is the Wilmot Proviso? Maybe it’s there but I just don’t see it. No, it probably was left out, or maybe it’s tacked on in some other chapter.
Rehash from the Transportation Revolution chapter.
More rehash from the Transportation Revolution chapter.
And yet more rehash from the Transportation Revolution chapter.
All these “editors” and the chapter is still awful. You all need to go back and edit it a few more times. In fact, edit out the entire chapter.
The semicolon after “Christianity” should be a comma.
Repetition. The Haitian Revolution has been mentioned more than once in earlier chapters.
This all sort of sums of how disorganized this textbook is. The Northwest Ordinance was not even mentioned in Chapter 6, where it should have been covered. Now, when we are about to get into the Civil War, it is discussed.
Now we are repeating a lot of material that was covered earlier, with a few extra things tossed in. This textbook needs to be edited — too many things are repeated too many times. Other material is ignored when it should be discussed, and then thrown in later on. There is no overall game plan. There is no editing.
Everything in Section II has either already been covered, or should have been covered, in earlier chapters. The same is true for much of Section III. This textbook is organized in a way that makes it very difficult for me to plan my semester. It’s as if whoever wrote this chapter wrote it in a vacuum, with no thought to what may have been covered in earlier chapters. And the layout of the entire book is like that — the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. There is no editing. It is quite apparent that no one person ever sat down and went through the entire textbook in its entirety.
This is a rather awkward transition, from the Fugitive Slave Act to the 1852 elections. Shouldn’t there be more on the often-violent opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act? In places like Christiana, Ripon, Oberlin, etc.?
This material is important, but it is out of place. It belongs earlier, in the discussion of the Fugitive Slave Act, not here, after a paragraph on the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
The Free Soil aspects of the debates ought to be emphasized here. What about the “Freeport Doctrine,” which pretty much torpedoed Douglas’s chances of winning the presidency two years later?
Why is the apostrophe in “weapon’s”?
The reasons for the Democratic Party’s rejection of Douglas are not explained. This is why the Freeport Doctrine should have been discussed earlier, in the segment on the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
More needless repetition — Seneca Falls was covered in an earlier chapter. Do some editing.
The Wilmot Proviso should have been covered earlier, in the chapter covering the Mexican War. It wasn’t, of course. But hey, what the hell, let’s just throw it in here!
Doesn’t an election as important as this deserve at least one full paragraph of its own? Maybe an election map or a pie chart or something like that? It would help illustrate the nation’s sectionalism, particularly how the split in the Democratic Party ensured Lincoln’s election. I mean, considering all the repetitive and needless material that has been tossed into this chapter, this doesn’t seem like too much to ask. It’s like the writers were in a hurry to finish up.
John Bell? Shouldn’t he at least be mentioned? He won some electoral votes, after all.
All throughout this chapter there is insufficient discussion of the differences between “anti-slavery” and “free-soil,” and it comes to a climax right here with the inaccurate statement that “The Republican platform made the party’s antislavery commitments clear.” This is absolutely wrong.
OK, so I should have guessed! The Election of 1860 is covered AGAIN in the next chapter — I just checked. There is the usual repetition, plus a little more. So did any of the folks responsible for this “textbook” ever actually discuss the division of labor? Did the person responsible for the next chapter ever look at this one? Has anyone out there who is using this textbook ever seen another textbook with so little planning and so much overlap? Good Lord, it’s frustrating trying to use this book.
“when Abraham Lincoln acted upon his constitutional mandate”? What is this referring to? You can’t just throw this in without an explanation.
The Republican Party was absolutely NOT an “antislavery coalition.” Again, this chapter fails to differentiate between anti-slavery and free soil or to adequately explain what the terms mean.
“All bets were off”? If your student put this in a formal paper, wouldn’t you strike it out as improper slang?
What, exactly, is the topic of this paragraph? The topic sentence would indicate that it is about the 1852 election, or about the Whigs. Yet, the bulk of the material is about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. If you are writing a paragraph about the book, don’t throw in everything but the kitchen sink. This is some bad writing, which is typical of this entire textbook.
Include this in the previous chapter. Why discuss some of the election in Chapter 13, then some more in Chapter 14? Put it all in one chapter or the other. Then start this chapter, which is, after all, “The Civil War,” with the Civil War? Who is editing this hodge-podge?
“provoked several Upper States”??? There were four states — identify them!
Should be noted that Julia Ward Howe’s lyrics were not used until after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Really ought to mention that Johnson was a Democrat. Otherwise, the term “National Union Party” is meaningless.
“The Crittenden Compromise,” not “Crittenden’s Compromise.”
Antietam Creek, not creek.
Over 22,000 casualties.
The material on women is nicely-done. But shouldn’t Clara Barton be in here somewhere?
“Infamous” March to the Sea? A Southerner obviously wrote this chapter. I could tell earlier, by the use of “Sharpsburg,” rather than Antietam. Anyway, I don’t think the thousands of slaves freed by Sherman’s army considered it “infamous.”
So what is missing here? Shouldn’t there be a paragraph, at the very least, on Johnson’s impeachment? I keep looking for it, but I don’t see it. What is the thought process here? Also, you never mentioned, either in this chapter or in the previous one, that Johnson was a Democrat. But what should one expect from a textbook that leaves out so much — gee, you didn’t even mention Lewis and Clark way back in Jefferson chapter. You left Indian Removal out of the chapter on Andy Jackson. The folks who put this textbook together were in too much of a hurry and cannot see the forest for the trees. Too many unnecessary details, too many unimportant people discussed, but basic material left out.
And a Democrat — never mentioned and never discussed, not even when you covered the 1864 election. Gee. 🙁
Yes, it’s very important to tell students what play Lincoln was attending. Much more important than Andrew Johnson’s impeachment.
Kudos for this paragraph, and for this entire section. This textbook does very little that makes sense, so you deserve to hear about it when you actually do something right. (Now go back and put in a couple of paragraphs about Andrew Johnson’s impeachment in Section II).
This paragraph was obviously not written by the same person who, earlier in the book, referred to Crispus Attucks as a “ringleader,” or described Sherman’s March to the Sea as “infamous”!
The CIO is not a union. It is an umbrella organization with many unions, one of which is the UAW. Also, by this time — or by 1955, in any case — the CIO had merged with the AFL, to form the AFL-CIO.
Taft-Hartley was passed in 1947, not 1949.
“Defeat,” not “defat.” (In the first sentence).
The new cabinet office (HEW) was HEALTH, Education and Welfare, not “Housing.”
Pontiac and Neolin are already heavily covered in “Colonial Society.” Rather than redescribing these events, there should be some kind of external link.
“As Butler explained to an audience in Edgecome County…” Mising b, should be Edgecombe County. (Thanks Guy Aldridge)
There is a typo in the very first sentence of the introduction. “pecf” should be “of.”
build a wall to keep illegal Mexican immigrants out
this is an important distinction.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to travel abeoad while in office.
There were pacifist Quakers who wanted slavery to be abolished but there were some other Quakers who did not want slavery to end. The fact of ending slavery was debatable.
Slavery was the central element for the region’s economy. People in the North tried to make use of slaves.
The slaves tried to protest against slavery by killing the white settlers. It wasn’t right but they deserve justice
Americans were fighting for individual freedom. The settlers became so much more independent and they valued education by viewing it as more important than before.
European society was much more stable and organized than the American society. At the time, the Europeans had a much more grounded government than the Americans.
Before the Sons of Liberty became the Sons of Liberty, they were Stamp distributors that resigned. They came from different colonies to broaden their appearance to become more popular.
After King George III became king, he brought Torres into his Ministry. It basically made things worse for the colonies. The king caused conflict between him and the colonists and the colonists soon protested against the king’s decision to stop settling in the Appalachian Mountains.
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment should be described here. It should not be somewhere else in the narrative.
Jefferson’s Notes were first published in 1785, not 1787. His comment about racial war is being badly misrepresented here: rather than encouraging white slaveowners to remain “vigilant,” he wrote this sentence to encourage emancipation and colonization. See Peter Onuf, “‘To Declare Them a Free and Independant People’: Race, Slavery, and National Identity in Jefferson’s Thought.” Journal of the Early Republic 18, no. 1 (April 1, 1998): 1–46. Additionally, I recommend citing a scholarly edition of the Notes, rather than this more obscure 1832 printing. The most recent is Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Frank Shuffelton (New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1999), 145.
A more accurate way of phrasing this could be:
As early as 1785, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia that slaves should be freed, but then they should be colonized to another country, where they could become an “independant people.” White people’s prejudices, and black people’s “recollections…of the injuries they have sustained” under slavery, would keep the two races from successfully living together in America. If freed slaves were not colonized, eventually there would be “convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” ((Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. Frank Shuffelton (New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1999), 145.))
(The phrase “two warring nations” is not found in Jefferson’s Notes. )
many immigrated from overseas.
This is confusing, since Emerson did not support Manifest Destiny. You can find a dozen other primary sources that make the argument better.
The Copperheads are a response to the Emancipation Proclamation. The vast majority of Democrats supported the war to restore the Union. It was only when Lincoln made emancipation a war aim that “peace Democrats” emerged.
Move this photo down a few paragraphs to the 1863 section.
Why “infamous”? It’s not like Sherman committed a war crime. It was momentous, since it represents that shift to “total war.”
Somewhere in here you simply must discuss the Gettysburg Address. You can insert it when you discuss unity if you like. But if you are going into this depth of detail about Civil War medicine, you can certainly spend the time discussing Lincoln’s use of white papers and speeches to keep the public informed as to his policies, and how those papers and speeches coaxed Americans into agreeing that emancipation was a worthy war aim.
Start with Garry Wills classic Lincoln at Gettysburg: the Words that Remade America.
This paragraph is inaccurate, and totally ignores Red Cloud’s War, a rare victory for the Plains People. The Indians compelled the U.S. government to sign the Treaty of 1868, creating the Great Sioux Reservation. That treaty remains in effect today.
This entire chapter does a poor job of describing events from the Indians’ point of view.
This is sugar-coating it. The situation in California was nothing short of genocide. The population didn’t just “collapse.”
Spelling error in first line: should be “and THEN transformed the American economy” instead of “and THE transformed the American economy.
Needs a comma between global and political in the first sentence.
Change “women” to “woman” in the reference to Geraldine Ferraro
Typo “pecf” instead of “of.
The year listed should be 1791.
Leave a comment on par
Four of the first six presidents were from Virginia.
[Virginia #1, #3,#4, #5; Massachusetts #2, #6]
I think this chapter could be improved by including the information that the mortal wound of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was not acquired in battle but that he was shot by his own camp guard. I feel that action was a reflection of the fear that was likely existent on both sides as the ferocity of battle had escalated and the war dragged on.
Remove this to make it flow better
I am seriously considering switching to OER material in my History 107 (Early American) and History 108 (Post Civil War) classes. So far, what I have seen is impressive. Important topics are covered without being boring and the resource material provided at the end of the chapter is excellent.
My suggestion would be to include the “date span” for each section. Those of us who have been using traditional textbooks are used to a date span and have prepared material along those lines. Having a date span on this material would make it easier to make the change from traditional textbook to OER.
Columbian Exchange had good and negative aspects: it had widespread transfer of plants, animals, culture, technology and ideas that could be from the Americas to the Old World, in relation to colonization, trade. But the down fall was we wiped out entire populations by war and disease.
Creation and migration: History of the first Americans started with the tells of Sky woman who fell onto Turtle Island/ North America. South Easterns’ beginings started in Mississippi Valley specifically in the Seven Caves,this was all before they migrated to New Mexico.
7-2 court ruling
[women as responsibl for the health of the republic]
Responsible needs to be corrected
Useful information but it takes an extremely long time to read! There is too much unnecessary details, please shorten it. This goes for every chapter in the book.
“Fearsome technology that ever used in war.”
*that was ever used in war.*
If black soldiers were drafted and fought and died on equal footing with white soldiers, then white Americans would see that they deserved to full citizenship.
This should say “then white Americans would see that they deserved to have full citizenship”
It is Tzar not Czar, right?
The link for the picture does not work, needs to be updated (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2017762891/) is the one I found.
People thought the first Americans were the Clovis people.
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Archaeologists and anthropologists, meanwhile, focus on migration histories. Studying artifacts, bones, and genetic signatures, these scholars have pieced together a narrative that claims that the Americas were once a “new world” for Native Americans as well.]
The word “trope” five lines down is a poor choice of usage in the English language. Most of your readers will not know what is meant by this word. Actually, I looked it up, and I still don’t know what you’re trying to say!
Mountain Empire Com. College
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
Only New York had a population in 1820 of over 100,000. Philadelphia was 63,802 in 1820.
George D. Salaita
Big Stone Gap, Va 24219
Most German immigrants were NOT Catholics. Over half were Lutheran,Reormed, or antibaptist.
Only 1% per Jewish,not MANY.
I meant Reformed, not Reormed.
The Jackson family did NOT come to the US from Ireland, but Northern Ireland. There is a difference.
Mountain Empire Community College
Big Stone Gap, Va.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Thus by 1790 it was TWO years , not four years later, in 1790 that…….
Mt. Empire C. College
The Sea Islands are in large part also off the coast of Georgia. It is wrong to just say South Carolina. Actually, of over 100 islands, a few are also off Florida.
Mt. Empire Community College
The author should define the South. In paragraph 19 of this Chapter 11, Maryland is not a part of the South. In this paragraph 38, it is.
How can you say “the vast majority of northerners went to war to preserve the Union”? Actually, less than 3 million served in the Union army. If anything is true, a larger percentage of the population of the south served in the Confederate army.
It is not true that Britain stood alone in Europe. Britain and her Domininew zeND ( Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and even India sent aid, not to mention thousand from Poland and may other countries as well.
Big Stone Gap, VA
Anzio did not become surrounded. The operation was behind German lines, and the American troops there were always surrounded.
It should read Airman, not soldiers, on bombing raids left from……..
Big Stone Gap, Va. 24219
The navy does not use the word platoons as the army does.
Woolworths was not a department store, no more than Walmart is considered a department store in 2017. Walmart is a discount store. Woolworths was a five-and-dime store. Students today haven’t heard of five-and-dime stores, and they should not be told that Woolworths was some kind of Macys or Dillards or Kohls.
Mt. Empire Community College
Selma is not 70 miles from Montgomery, Alabama. By most accounts, the mileage is 54, or 87 km.
There seems to be a typo in the second to last sentence: “decoration or churches” should be changed to “decoration of churches”
Native Americans passed down many of their traditions when they were roaming the land before the Europeans conquered it. Also specialists focused on tracking there migration history reviewing there bones, writing, and architecture.
[The image of thousands of armed black revolutionaries terrified white Americans. ]
I think it is important to note that the image of thousands of armed black revolutionaries terrified white Americans because of the very real threat of their being exterminated in the event of it’s occurrence. Almost all French whites, including women and children, were slaughtered by the blacks in Haiti’s uprising, including non-slaveholders. In Southern states with black majorities, this constituted a very realistic possible outcome of a slave revolt.
The current passage notes that they were terrified but it doesn’t adequately explain why.
The usage of the term “capitalist” and its cognates like capitalism perhaps need some explaining. The term is typically used today as a synonym of free markets, but the European colonial powers had anything but free markets. Mercantilist policies are not synonymous with free markets by definition, a definition conveniently explained in Paragraph 43 of this chapter. The state-assisted nature of mercantilism precludes it from being a free market in any strict sense. Thus, I would argue that the use of the term capitalism is somewhat misleading. Only the broadest sense of the term–that capital is being employed–could the term be appropriated used here, and yet that isn’t the commonly understood use of the term.
Actual free markets presume the Rule of Law and free agents exchanging as they see fit. Slaves simply do not fit into the liberal concept of free markets as understood at the time thanks to Smith, Grotius, and other Enlightenment philosophers. A government-assisted or government-dominated system of exchange that supports slavery is nothing like this. It would be helpful to include some economic history at this juncture to explain the competing theories and practices as they arose in the 17th century and 18th century.
This section has proven to be confusing for some students, who believe that African Americans caused all of the violence during the Red Summer. It might help to clarify that much of the violence was instigated by white people.
Hiiiiiiii your book is hard u need make it easy, also nothing on anything
Hiiiiiiiiii niki huggy
the expansion OF democracy (?).
I think this could be revised to be “In the summer of 1886. I feel it works better this way.
The statement in the last sentence of this paragraph, “It was God’s will, he said,” is a completely inaccurate summary of the cited journal entry.
long a participant [in] an increasingly complex network of economic, social, and cultural interactions in Latin America, entered the late-nineteenth century with a new aggressive and interventionist attitude toward its southern neighbors.
“In the midst of the terrible destruction wrought by the fighting, Americans with investment interests plead for governmental help but the United States government tried to control events and politics that could not be controlled. ”
[Two months later, American troops took Cuba’s San Juan Heights in what would become the most well-known battle of the war, winning fame not for regular soldiers but for the irregular, particularly Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.]
[Although his reputation was wildly exaggerated, he was first major national politician to go after the trusts]
grammar- needs a “the”
[African American voters threatened to the dominance of Democratic leadership in the South, southern Democrats turned to what many white southerners understood as a series of progressive electoral and social reforms—disenfranchisement and segregation.]
wording- “threatened by” not “threatened to”
“But it Progressive Era”
It can be removed
In the Primary Source “Rhode Islanders Protest Property Restrictions on Voting, 1834”, in the 3rd paragraph, the “B” is missing from the last verb. Currently it is “e given”. Sorry there is no feedback on the primary source page. The mistake is in the 3rd paragraph. See below “…whatever course a true patriot might feel himself to adopt in one of the corrupt monarchies of the old world, no such reason can e given“
[estimated 10,138 deaths on what became known as the Trail of Tear]
This is a serious misreading of what Russell Thornton wrote in his book on page 76. Thornton did not claim that 10,138 deaths occurred. Rather he claimed that based on the population projections, there were 10,138 fewer Cherokee alive than one would anticipate in 1840. Some of this is attributed to non-births due to deaths on the Trail of Tears. And in the prior paragraph from which this excerpt is misquoted, Thornton admits that there was a lack of population data on the Cherokee in 1840, so he is having to make mathematical estimations of what the population of 1840 should be. He then subtracts his estimate from the population data he can find and comes to this number.
General consensus is that approximately 4,000 died along the Trail of Tears. There is no need for an inflated number, 1/4th is horrible enough.
Typo on third line. Should be “operated in a single state.”
Was coercionthe only method used to gain imperial control?
The French and Indian war was only over land and border control??
The Columbian Exchange consisted of people, animals, plants, and microbes.
This caused Ten thousand years of geographic separation, inaugurated centuries of violence, unleashed the greatest biological terror and revolutionized the history of the world.
“In the fall of 1761…” this is a typo and should be 1791.
The sentence “Pancho Villa, a popular revolutionary in Northern Mexico, spurned by American support for rival contenders, raided Columbus, New Mexico.” should employ the past tense verb “spurred.”
“Increasingly, a sense that the fate of the Western world lay in the victory or defeat of the Allies.”
This sentence lacks its primary verb
The word “pact” has been omitted after “Hitler and Stalin’s 1939 non-aggression”
Let’s correct the spelling of the treaty here to Guadalupe Hidalgo. Sorry for the oversight.
Misspelling: change the word “acvtivists” to “activists” in the last sentence.
Source the “Letter from Birmingham Jail:” http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html
Change “magnified” to “intensified” in first sentence.
Change “classroom building” to “Foster Auditorium.” Foster Auditorium is a gym, not a classroom building.
Kate Chopin’s The Awakening NOT The Great Awakening.
Agree with Art Dematteo, this paragraph or at least the details surrounding it belongs elsewhere, such as in the previous chapter regarding Andrew Jackson. The court case and Indian Removal Act is unquestionably much more prevalent to the previous chapter on “Democracy” than on the current one on “Religion and Reform”. Certainly a change should be considered.
The growth of cities was caused by the consumer revolution, levying taxes on sugar, paper, lead, etc.
-Bulk of the enslaved population lived in rural areas
-Slaves often worked as domestic servants
-Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England.
-Virginia, the oldest of the English mainland colonies, imported its first slaves in 1619.
-By 1750 there were approximately 100,000 African slaves in Virginia, at least 40% of the colony’s total population.
factors: war and competition
attempt to reform Beitish Empire after war.
attempt to reform British Empire after war.
Currency Act held colonies back from making paper money.
I believe this is supposed to be 1791.
Typo: Shoud be changed to “the fever of the time”
Typo: Should be changed to “revivals of the Second”
Typo: Should be “swept along the”
[expansion the democracy.]
Typo, should be “expansion OF democracy” or “expansion of the democracy”
Is this something that instead belongs in the footnotes?
[(Francis Newton Thorpe ed., The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America Compiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 (Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1909).))]
Typo. Remove “of”
Belongs in footnotes?
(James K. Polk, “President Polk’s Mexican War Message,” quoted in Statemen’s Manual: The Addresses and Messages of the Presidents of the United States, Inaugural, Annual, and Special, from 1789 to 1846: With a Memoir of Each of the Presidents and a History of Their Administrations; Also the Constitution of the United States, and a Selection of Important Documents and Statistical Information, Volume 2, (New York: Edward Walker, 1847), 1489.)
[of developing Whig.]
*of a developing Whig.
[Sally received the label of she would share]
*Sally received the label she would share
[The amendment and legally abolished]
* The amendment legally abolished
[helped Grant him win most]
*helped Grant win most
[growing congregations, provided]
*growing congregations provided
After this part, the formatting on the website appears to have a large white space with nothing in it…not sure if this was intentional.
There is a large white space before the picture below (essentially room for paragraphs that no longer exist).
[away blac job-seekers]
*away black job-seekers
[The Homestead Act, meant to open the West to small farmers was often]
*The Homestead Act, meant to open the West to small farmers, was often
[ response reprisals]
Choose one word or the other here
[gave lie to the “New” South.]
Language is probably a little too obscure, even for college students…maybe change to “contradicted”
typo: “construction of”
[ the South]
missing period: “of the South.”
[As poor as white southern mill workers were, southern blacks were poorer, and many mill workers could afford to pay for domestic help in caring for young children]
Could just be me, but the language here seems a bit ambiguous…is it supposed to say that mill workers could NOT afford to pay? If the passage is correct, consider revisions to the purpose of this sentence.
[ If measured by industrial output and railroad construction, the New South was a reality, if, relative the rest of the nation, a limited one.]
Some revisions needed. Suggested: “If measured by industrial output and railroad construction, the New South was a reality;* if, relative to* the rest of the nation, a limited one.
[Even Gladden came to accept Rockefeller’s donation and businessmen, such as the Baptist John D. Rockefeller, increasingly touted the morality of business.]
The use of Rockefeller’s name twice here is redundant…
This image does not appear in the official version of the textbook.
Typo: either “had become” or “became”
[Though the Spanish-American War had begun under the administration of William McKinley, Roosevelt, the hero of San Juan Hill, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Vice-President, and President, ]
Consider revisions here. While technically grammatically correct, the abundance of commas seems to confuse many students.
[a key moment in “savages’” progress toward]
Two changes suggested:
“in [which] savages”
[responding the shifting]
“responding [to} the shifting”
[ approached about immigration]
There seems to be quite a bit of overlap in this section with the immigration section in Chapter 18.
Assuming this is a sarcastic remark, it might be wise to include italics or quotations for the word “fraud”
[not only his classrooms]
*not only in his classrooms
[help African Americans too accomplish]
[ perceived to ]
Typo. Either just perceived or perceived to be.
[Ottoman Empire, in Turkey]
no comma needed
[the Germany army]
[America as crusading nation]
American as a crusading nation
to the launch
[influence the Senate]
influence in the Senate
[bloodshed during included]
[ membership rising to an estimated five million.]
this is repeated unnecessarily at the end of paragraph 71
[Panicked selling set in]
[ stock sunk]
[of the J.D. Rockefeller’s]
*of J.D. Rockefeller’s
[at migrant farmworker camp]
*at a migrant farmworker camp
[ most visible group many who were]
*most visible group who were
[The pamphlet denounced the hardships wrought by the southern economy—in his introductory letter to the Report, called the region “the Nation’s No. 1 economic problem”—and blasted reactionary southern anti-New Dealers]
There are some issues with this sentence. The “his” does not refer to any specific subject, and there seem to be some grammatical errors as well.
[Yet the greatest opposition came from the Supreme Court, a conservative filled with appointments made from the long years of Republican presidents.]
Grammatical issues…maybe change to “…the Supreme Court, which had been filled with conservative appointments made…”
[that ever used in war]
*that has ever been used in war
*coalition that would
[Britain and France, alarmed but still anxious to avoid war, the major powers agreed]
sentence structure needs changing
[a half million ton]
*half of a million tons
[The Federal Bureau of Investigation targeted numbers on suspicions]
Missing an indirect object here
[any persons ]
any persons or just Japanese Americans?
*as well as
*guard, but also caused
[But even at the height of the global economic crisis, communism never attracted many Americans. Even at the peak of its membership,]
*is a little redundant with the use of the sentence structure containing “even at”
[A bloc of left-liberal anti-communist, meanwhile, purged remaining communists in their ranks,]
*grammar error here…maybe change to “left-liberal anti-communists”
[and the concomitant global spread of communist]
[Ronald Reagan stood at Berlin Wall ]
*stood at the
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 86 0 Partisans fight to claim responsibility]
The link to this site from the chapter is wrong (it directs to the feedback site to Chapter 27)
[ Discrimination and segregation continued, however, activists would continue to push for fair housing practices.]
Grammatical error here…either requires a semicolon before “however” or an “and” after its comma
[uch as the sit-ins freedom rides and especially the March on Washington]
Commas are needed to separate these ideas
Is this supposed to be “literature”?
[Acts, the War]
*”and the War”
[“middle America” The]
Needs a period
[here there fewer]
*where there were fewer
[ more job meant]
*more jobs meant
[ the cost of good and services increases]
[n end the arms race]
*to the arms race
[Most New Deal and Great Society proved durable.]
*programs proved durable
[even when as controlled Congress or the White House.]
grammatical error here, needs revision
[next Google or Amazon.]
Since these companies were still fairly new in the late 90s, should this sentiment be revised? Instead of the “next” Google or Amazon, maybe it should be to find those ideas in the first place.
Might not be a bad idea to identify who Lewinsky was (White House intern/staffer)
[United Supreme Court]
United States Supreme Court
[Joint Chiefs of State]
Joint Chiefs of Staff
*had? (tense change within paragraph)
Once again, there is quite a bit of mixing of verb tenses in this paragraph…either we need to go sequentially, with a past to present flow…or we need to keep it as past tense (as most historical scholarship uses).
chose one of these verbs
*period instead of semicolon
*extra period here can be removed
*pick one of these verbs
This period is missing on the live site.
It would be great to expand on the other half of the UFW with specific individuals representing the Filipino farm workers, particularly Larry Itliong and Philip Vera Cruz, who are both garnering greater recognition in California. While no where near as well known as Chavez, these two figures were nearly as instrumental at the movement’s successes. A great resource for this is “Delano Manongs,” a documentary outlining the Filipino farm labor movement and its part in the Delano Grape Strike. Thank you for your amazing work on this text.
Why did it take so long to print the Bible if the puritans moved to the Americas so they can practice their religion.
Was this actually the currency for Pennsylvania alone?
The Henry Street Settlement was founded by Lillian Wald in 1893. See the Henry Street Settlement website and pages for information at:
Florence Kelley was not the founder this social welfare organization
Chapter 9 does not include a conclusion section like the other chapters.
The caption should read “The women” instead of “This women.”
Unnecessary period in this title.
“black famers often turned to sharecropping”
*black farmers often turned to sharecropping
I am trying to take notes for testing/essay purposes and find some topics hard to follow. For me, I’m trying to put things in date perspective as the chapters seem to jump around. For example, one paragraph might refer to something in the 1500’s but it is hard to know if the next paragraph is in that same time or some other time. For us detailed folks, it would be nice to have date references more often or be assured that everthing listed between date references apply to the last stated time frame.
Thanks for your consideration.
“limiting the slave trade by 1808” => should be “limiting the slave trade before 1808”
This comment is supposed to refer to Paragraph 17, but it’s pointing to the previous paragraph.
White southerners, rather than southerners in general.
Photograph is misidentified as a WPA photograph. Lange worked for the Farm Security Administration, not the WPA, and thus I suspect that this picture is from that collection. The link is also broken.
Wondering if it is at all possible to include a summary of pre-Columbian African history alongside those of Europe and the Americas. The societies and cultures of all the Atlantic continents were profoundly altered by the “discovery” of the New World, and a short discussion of African peoples and contemporary developments would, I think, help to put the affects of the Atlantic slave trade on African history into better perspective.
Chopin’s novel is The Awakening, not The Great Awakening.
Most of the material in this paragraph does not support the paragraph’s first sentence that asserts Harding’s corruption because of the way the second sentence is phrased. The second sentence would work much better if “for instance” were replaced with “to be sure.” The examples such as Wallace, Hoover, and Mellon belie the paragraph’s main point but are presented as examples of Harding’s corruption.
Because Judge magazine generally favored Republican political views (favoring McKinley and degrading W.J. Bryan), it is likely that this particular cartoon views American Imperialism and the potential for industrial opportunity in China as something favorable.
Inflame not Enflame
Helped fuel, not fueled
“like empire” is incorrect. “like an empire” or “looked similar to that of an empire” would best suit the sentence.
Last line of paragraph…”Entertainment [had or would] become the phonograph’s major market.”
Word is missing.
Once she became active in the temperance movement, she used the spelling “Carry A. Nation” to emphasize her goal to “Carry a Nation to Prohibition.”
It was the National WOMAN’s Party.
Would be useful to actually call this the Treaty of Versailles at some point. Some students were confused when I referred to the Treaty of Versailles.
Typo in 11th line of paragraph ‘ “fruther”
Last sentence repeats “component in African American’s long history of cultural and intellectual achievements” two paragraphs up. Also should be Americans’.
But if many who flocke
The Cotton Gin was not developed by Eli Whitney. It was one of his slaves’ inventions that he patented.
“prerogratives” should be prerogatives
I think that is a typo for crowds
The first sentence doesn’t make sense. is it supposed to be Americans had lost confidence in President Adams? They had let him know it.
helped fuel, not fueled. its a typo
Typo: “even when as controlled Congress . . .”
should be “even when Democrats controlled Congress . . .”
“Annual annuity” is redundant. An annuity is a sum paid every year.
No reason to have two parentheses on the outside here. Reduce it to one.
How could the revolution be fought for liberty if the wanted to continue slavery? Did Britain oppose slavery ?
a year here would be useful–1869
If, by American Society for the Prevention of Lynching, you mean The Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, Keep in mind it doesn’t come into existence until the 1930s.
Actually the original title of Carnegie 1889 article was “Wealth.” As moted in the footnote. Others referred to it as the “Gospel of Wealth” and he would adopt that term.
You could write that he popularized the idea of the “Gospel of Wealth” in an 1889 article.
Italicize ship name, no?
the correct name of the group is the National Woman’s Party
womAn not womEn
Again correct name of group Woman’s Party
I think it is worth pointing out that about 47% of single women worked outside the home in the paid labor force
Overall participation of white women in the paid labor force was 21.9$ in 1920,
overall participation of black women in the paid labor force was 42.9%
and married black women were more likely to be in the paid labor force than married white women
In other words–give the numbers–I see that in following paragraphs, you point to racial differences. But without numbers, the impact is vague.
What were the short and long term consequences
Who are consodered ‘common citizens’ and how did they play important roles in the local and state government
The treaty of Paris was to end the war and send slaves back. The British sent their slaves back to different locations throughout. But some Americans disobeyed the treaty of Paris and still forced their slaves to work
Should the 2nd sentence of the paragraph be revised to read “The amendment had legally abolished slavery “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”?
The fourth sentence (begins “The Constitution counted each black individual as three-fifths of a person..”) might lead to a misunderstanding as free people of color were counted as whole persons for purposes of representation.
best, Noah Simmons
No Mention of the IWW? It’s pretty important in the history of the labor movement as it was one of the first non-segregated Unions in America. It was also instrumental in helping mobilize opposition to World War 1. Also, due to its syndicalist nature did strike more frequently than the AFL and was instrumental in getting the eight hour day.
It looks like the fourth sentence should say “race pride” instead of “race price.” If I’m wrong, my apologies.
It seems odd that there is no mention of President Johnson’s impeachment in this chapter. The nuts and bolts of the process might not be needed, but using it as an example of the division between Johnson and the Republicans in Congress is important.
local women would gather at one “of” their homes… the word of needs to be added.
Frank Buckles of West Virginia, was the last veteran of WWI to pass away. He was 110 and died in 2011.
I would add something about the expulsion of the Jews to this sentence: “The Crusades had never ended in Iberia: the Spanish crown concluded centuries of intermittent warfare–the Reconquista–by expelling Muslim Moors [and the Jews] from the Iberian peninsula in 1492, just as Columbus sailed west. With new power, these new nations–and their newly empowered monarchs–yearned to access the wealth of Asia.
I read this paragraph fully about the difference of newest and preceding technologies, it’s awesome article.
I got this site from my friend who informed me on the topic
of this website and at the moment this time I am visiting this web site and reading very
informative posts at this time.
This chapter alludes to the Albany Congress, but never uses the term, nor provides any description of the specifics discussed there. Students need to know that it had a name.
Remove “s” at the end of “Rosenberg”
Take the n off of American.
“other thirteen colonies?”‘ What was New England?
The authors try to hard to make it dramatic and make the flashback dates too difficult to follow.
How is the “form it took” a contradiction?
This is one of the most unorganized texts I have ever read. It is obvious that many people are involved. It jumps around in time with many chronological events scattered among random paragraphs. One example is the mention of President James Monroe, without specific dates for his presidency. It focuses as much on drama and opinion than on actual historical facts. Casting shadows and imposing a political agenda is not good history. It is useful; however, for causing young American students to develop a sense of resentment for the imperfect people who started our country. When truth is revealed, they will also resent the “educational” deception that was imposed by imperfect authors.
mistake in dates
It would be good to include a small section on the development of the first two-party system in this chapter within the discussion of the ratification debate and the first Washington administration, rather than just mentioning it within the conclusion. It would help contextualize the political debate between Jefferson’s vision and Hamilton’s vision.
“EventuallyTecumseh solicited…” should be “Eventually Tecumseh solicited…”
*to scare away black job-seekers
“Americans farmers” should be “American farmers”
“cattle rustlers.Such images” should be “cattle rustlers. Such images”
“such as bronc riding” should be “such as bronco riding”
“was curtailed.Americans also” should be “was curtailed. Americans also”
“frontier life.William Frederick” should be “frontier life. William Frederick”
“As many 80 toured” should be “As many as 80 toured”
Wasn’t sure if the sentence should read
“four men in men military dress:
Proposed change from the caption under the map: “…The highest percentages lie along the Mississippi River in the “Black Belt” of MISSISSIPPI…”
The word “principal” should be changed to “principle.”
Could be worded better perhaps but “vast majority” refers to their motives for fighting not how many fought.
this isn’t cool
I feel like there should be a bit more here about American isolationism. Lend-Lease Act; Neutrality Acts; Cash and Carry policy. “America First” shows up as a primary source, but isn’t really explored in the chapter.
Two books from Richard White should be added to this list:
The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896
Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America
i dont agree
There are a few points in this chapter where the text refers to “sex with a slave”, which is an oversight of the fact that “sex with a slave” is nothing short of sexual assault and rape. This is never pointed out or referenced, and it would do well to do so.
In the sentence, “Much to Falwell’s delight, conservative Americans did, in fact, stand against and defat the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)…”, the word defeat is misspelled as “defat”
…seeking land, gold, and titles would sound better I think.
June 18, 2018 at 7:52 am
See in context
June 13, 2018 at 7:01 pm
June 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
June 13, 2018 at 6:57 pm
June 13, 2018 at 6:51 pm
June 13, 2018 at 6:50 pm
June 13, 2018 at 6:49 pm
June 13, 2018 at 6:41 pm
Website content © American Yawp / Feedback 2018. All rights reserved.