The source is mislabeled as “brooked beak of heaven” and should be fixed.
This suggestion will likely just seem excessively nit-picky. In regards to the “[n]o America city, in fact, would match Cahokia’s peak population levels…” statement. Although it is somewhat implicitly stated in previous statement”north of modern-day Mexico,” the use of America in the aforementioned sentence only to refer to present day USA and Canada could cause a little confusion. As the writers of this resource I’ve had the pleasure of discovering recently probably already know, the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had a size on par with that of Constantinople. Such a fact is likely included in many cite-able sources. The one where I had found it would be The Cambridge Economic History of Latin America: Volume 1, The Colonial Era and the Short Nineteenth Century by Coatsworth, Bulmer-Thomas, and Cortes-Conde.
Thank you for the great work you’ve done with this website. I was never very interested in North American history until I had found this resource!
Poverty Point would be an excellent addition to this paragraph, or as part of a paragraph on trade in early America. http://www.povertypoint.us/
Sentence two states “Europeans rediscovered or adopted Greek, Roman and Muslim knowledge.” That makes no sense. You can not rediscover anything. Europeans blatantly STOLE knowledge, & ideas & accredited it as their own. This is very misleading & should be changed considering that you have a very large audience viewing this textbook.
Role of women
The Enslavement of Native Americans.
End of Civilization
The first two sentences are poorly constructed and repetitive (e.g., word “unleashed” is used repetitively in the first two sentences). Possible rewrite:
“Europeans’ ‘discovery’ of America unleashed waves of destructive exploitation underwritten by murder, greed, and slavery.”
The first two sentences are poorly constructed and repetitive (e.g., word “unleashed” is used repetitively in the first two sentences). Possible rewrite:
“Europeans’ ‘discovery’ of America unleashed waves of destructive exploitation underwritten by murder, greed, and slavery.”
**decline in health
**produced more foods
**pusured other skills
**people were able to do other things rather then just make food
Sistema de Castas, not Casas
This sixteenth century drawing depicts the Spanish and their Tlaxcalan allies fighting against the Purépecha, not the Aztec. The text on this image includes “guzmã,” which stands for “Nuño de Guzmán,” the Spanish conquistador who crushed the Purépecha, who were the people of “michuacá,” which is today’s Michoacán, in western Mexico.
The site at Buttermilk Creek, Texas, dated at roughly 15,500 years ago, predates both Monte Verde and the Florida site mentioned and might be cited as an example of a much earlier date for human activity.
One of the main reasons for the shift from the ecomienda system to the repartimiento was the papal encyclical delivered by Pope Paul III in 1537 and adopted by the Spanish monarchy, the Sublimus Dei. Which stated that the Native Americans “are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property…nor should they be in any way enslaved…” This
This paragraph is rather disingenuous. Not one source in entire paragraph to support these claims. So many qualifiers in every statement without one specific instance of any tribe/people/group, anywhere in America who practiced sexual liberation and care-free divorces. Five thousand plus years of Native American history where mass human sacrifice and territorial fighting and raids were commonplace surely also saw many machismo tribes and polygamy was probably common among warring tribes where women were taken as brides by the victors.
Europeans CAN rediscover that knowledge if it was known previously but was lost. That’s the whole point of the word “rediscover”. Europeans can also learn and adapt from others (Greeks, Romans, Muslims). Human beings adopt superior ideas and knowledge, that is a universal trait for all cultures and societies. It is unfair to attribute bad intent upon one massive group for no other reason then irrational dislike for them.
The book should make a distinction between Columbus and the conquistadors and colonists that came after him. Columbus never killed any natives and had constantly warned the men under his command to not enact violence on them. Bartolomé de Las Casas book was written in 1542 (published in 1552), decades after Columbus died in 1506. de Las Casas admired Columbus, who his father sailed with to the New World on Columbus’s second voyage (1493). It is unfair to place Columbus in a disparaging and inaccurate light and connect him to the cruelty others had wrought on the natives. A helpful source on Christopher Columbus comes from Carol Delaney, Professor of Anthropology who wrote a book on Columbus called: Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem (2011).
Native Americans were Catholics, who spoke Norse. Therir ancestors were NOT in America until the Mississippian Culture, wich is dated from AD 800.
I only noticed the S in people(s), (l.8) that should maybe be removed
I have just begun reading this, and it is very well done, thank you.
There is absolutely no evidence that any Aztecs believed Cortés to be Quetzalcoatl. He bragged in his letters to Charles V of Spain that the native Aztecs were gullible and told such tall tales, but the majority of Mesoamericanist scholars reject his side of the story.
[bridged more than ten thousand years of geographic separation]
This implies that there was communication and altercations before ten thousand years when in reality Europeans have not made contact with Native Americans in history until this point. So “more than ten thousand years” should in reality be a lot more
Interesting that the title of the chapter is The New World when in the very first sentences the authors note that is a misconception and misnomer. Why not follow the lead of historians such as Daniel Richter and refer to the “ancient” Americas or use a similar concept?
Native Americans lived and developed governing systems within their own beliefs and knowledge of the Americas before the Europeans “discovered” their new world. Before their arrival and greedy mindset brought disease, separation and segregation and slavery to the Americas. Similar tactics were in place however were more humane toward both humans and animals.
Native American stories of how the earth was created by their indigenous belief systems. The broad scope of the stories aren’t much different than religious mindset. Both have similar outcomes with different story line. Archaeologist and anthropologist focus on a scientific study of artifacts, bones, genetic signatures tell their own story to give a similar timeline with scientific evidence.
Through evidence collected after the global ice age between 12 and 20,000 years ago was when human hunter gatherers traveled in small groups as means of survival in the new land of Asia and America.
The was a division of native group that understood the vast benefits of their surroundings. Those in the NW had salmon filled rivers. Plains and prairie, deserts, and forest the cultures were as different as their environment.
Mesoamericans relied on maize/corn for survival and this began the agriculture. North America continues to hold the importance of those that began the development and sustainability of North America.
If they were so good at surviving, then how come they didn’t live into their 100’s?
That’s a keen observation; I guess they author’s intention is to appeal to the perspective of the European settlers, but being a valued historical textbook, they probably should have opted for a more objective title. I agree…I wonder why they chose that approach.
The first Dutch and Swedish settlers who encountered the Lenapes in the seventeenth century recognized Lenape prosperity and quickly sought their friendship. Their lives came to depend on it.
Spain settled into their new empire.
Agreement of antecedent and pronoun would be
“Spain settled into its new empire.” OR
The Spanish settled into their new empire.”
Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca joined the Narváez expedition to Florida a decade later but was shipwrecked and forced to embark on a remarkable multiyear odyssey across the Gulf of Mexico and Texas into Mexico.
A better wording would be “along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico”
Goats were native to Eurasia. How is this possible pre-contact?
Agriculture was able to set the foundation of society. This allowed people to diversify themselves and put their abilities to their best use possible. This not only set the foundation for this time period but, for more to come. Today we see the youth trying to follow their parents’ footsteps and, this began behavior was set years ago, according to the text since people pursued their own activities that intrigued them. Allowing farmers to produce food also let society use their minds differently and independently.
It is unreal how the Puebloans’ knew how to celebrate life and start a religious ceremony that would be carried down from generation to generation. with the resources given to them at the time, they knew how to convert those resources into an environment that is sustainable. It felt like for anyone during this time period they would be living in caves or huts not in complexes. The Puebloan people knew how to come together and they understood that together, they could accomplish goals for having a better community.
Native Americans had a right to their land and in keeping it. The Europeans had no place in trying to colonize it for their own. However, during this time of expansion they were eager to control more land throughout the world. Why was world domination so important during these times when there could have been peace?
25 percent is too low for an estimate of the death rate for the Black Death. Modern estimates generally range from 30 to 50 percent.
The thesis that “maybe” some Aztecs believed Cortés to be the god Quetzalcoatl is a little more complex than presented here. A central issue is that the translation of the Nahuatl term “teotl” as “god” as opposed to “spiritual being” (refer to Camilla Townsend’s work). The notion that the Aztecs regarded Cortés or the Spaniards as “gods” is not in first-hand accounts but later narratives. It is perhaps more apt to note that the Aztec and other Mesoamericans had a religious system that believed the world consisted of cycles of destruction and rebirth. The sudden, violent arrival of Spanish conquerors took place in this context. As for the Spaniards’ “persuasion” of the Aztecs, two main factors there were strategic displays of violence (Cholula Massacre) and an alliance with Tlaxcala, a major rival of the Aztec Triple Alliance. In a sense, the Spanish invasion became a “Mesoamerican Civil War,” in which Spanish forces took sides with the Aztecs’ many rivals.
Camilla Townsend, Burying the White Gods: New Perspectives on the Conquest of Mexico, The American Historical Review, Volume 108, Issue 3, June 2003, Pages 659–687, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/108.3.659
considering that the entire Delaware River Valley as the homeland of the Lenape, it might be better/ more accurate to say that the Susquehannock were located to the west and south rather than just south. Also you might mention the the Minqua (Susquehannocks) were an Iroquoian people.
Thank you for considering my suggestion
The “three sisters” are mentioned, but there is no specific mention of what the “three sisters” are
“…inaugurated centuries of violence…” The chapter has already stated that the native inhabitants had “warred with their neighbors.” In this sense, violence had already been inaugurated. Perhaps “continued” is a better word choice than “inaugurated.”
The releasing of “the greatest biological terror the world had ever seen”–while I agree that this was both “biological” and a “terror,” it seems that putting those two terms in such close proximity to each other drums up a sense of premeditation on the part of Europeans.
Hi, I am a student ((the main reason I am reading your work)) I just thought you should know that placing citations in the middle of your work is pretty distracting. I think it would be best if you used superscript. Other then that your writing style is wonderful, it’s as if you are talking straight to me.
The “but” in Line 5 of paragraph 70 (“modern association between food and geography are but products of the Columbian…) should be changed to “by”.
It should read “geography are by products of the Columbian Exchange”
What the Aztecs did that most may not know is bring ‘chocolate’ , then many types of medicines from herbs and especially the passion flower which treated seizures, menopause ,burns, and even hysteria.
Their skills in sports were also invented – popcorn.
They were the leading in agriculture and taught draining and other ways to crop and drain swamps.
Pyramids and templates and their hieroglyphic writing.
Sports was big with them.
The phrase “using hand tools rather than European-style plows” is rather poorly worded, as it suggests that the natives in the Eastern Woodlands were using European style plows. This is implied by the “but” at the beginning of the sentence as “but” is used as a contrast to something mentioned beforehand.
They are referring to the core crops they depended on; corn, beans and squash per paragraph 11.
I completely agree! The name somewhat threw me off but I understand what they were trying to do, This was how the world became a “New World”. i think..
The convention among Latin American historians these days is that the Aztecs did not see Cortes as Quetzalcoatl. The only evidence we have of the conquest from the time of the conquest is Cortes’ letters to the King and in those he does not make mention of this. This theory was put to rest with Camilla Townsend’s article “Burying the White Gods”. It is a Eurocentric interpretation.
Chapter 1: illustration of Cahokia Mounds
The link to the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site is not workinghttp://www.cahokiamounds.org/
It is not only on this page that it is not working; trying to locate the site via google yields the same, non-working link.
The link seems to be working now.
So here it is the first reading…I have to say I am intrigued with the reading…..not as bad as I thought it would be…..the title…I would call it the Beginning…..the new world……
Yup, this should be re-captioned as the “crooked beak of heaven” mask.
The Spanish phrase “Sistema de Castas” is used two paragraphs above, but, in this paragraph (64), it says “Sistema de Casas.” There is a letter “T” in one (castas/casas) and not the other. I assume this is a mistake.
An oral account of a peoples history that is passed down through generations can sometimes be misconstrued through the ages.
They had efficient means to hunt and farm that I wasn’t familiar with
I didn’t know they planted tobacco back then I thought it was a newer crop.
When did the sailors perfect the astrolabe?
17 ships only held 1000 men? that seems like a small number ratio.
They didn’t have modern medicine. Although they flourished in other components such as being able to have a food supply that may not run out. They may have encountered certain virus’ that led them to getting sick. Since this was way back they didn’t have the medicine we now have today to protect them from these virus’.
I think it is because although nourishment and resources were in plentifold. there were also a lot of environmental and health challenges that weren’t fully easy to overcome while they were out there in the early days.
@DylanBarnes I totally agree with your comment. Especially considering Native American culture which based its history on stories that were passed on by generations rather than written documents.
NEW WORLD FOR EUROPEANS BUT NOT FOR AMERICANS WHO HAVE LIVED THERE
DIFFERENT LAGUAGES SPOKEN HERE
NATIVE AMERICANS MIGRATED KEPT PEACE WITH THY NEIGHBOR, HAD ALLIENCES. HAD TRADE NETWORKS
COLOMBIAN EXCHANGE CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR THEM, LIKE SEPARATION, VIOLENCE, TERROR
The fact that this even says “the global exchange of people” is so incredibly sad and heartbreaking.
What does “yawp” mean? I’ve never heard/seen this word before.
This is so interesting. I never quite knew exactly what Indigenous people lived here in California in prior times and now I know that is was the Salinan tribe. It’s also so cool to hear how the first man and women came to be–based off their beliefs/religion. The bald eagle that formed the first man out of clay and the first women coming from a feather is pretty much their version of our Adam and Eve. I’ve never heard other stories like this from different cultures and I love that I already learned something new!
Must’ve been a long trip…
I wonder if these languages are still with us today or if many of them have gone lost over the centuries.
I’m sure they were very resourceful.
I knew men would do the hunting and fishing but what I didn’t know is that it was the Women who built their agriculture. Good for them.
When we gain something we must lose something as well. This how the world run today.
European nations began to emerge several centuries ago as economic powers. They. had a modern perspective. If you cam appeal to the European you can have some sort of power
Yawp \yôp\ n: 1: a raucous noise 2: rough vigorous language”I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.” Walt Whitman, 1855.
I wonder if there were any other types of fish that were to be able to be caught besides just the salmon ?
I am thinking even back then in the olden days that a farmer would produce just as much as the hunter and gatherer if not more because they have the tools necessary at any given moment, then again I may be wrong.
As I am reading this paragraph I am wondering was the word Macaw means in old English. If I had to guess I would say it is a small dug out chair within a home ?
I find it very unique how the ancient natives link their life and death experiences with the sun, moon and stars .
I can imagine the acers of land that these tribes had conquered would crumble over time especially if there was no one there to upkeep the land.
For me this seems like the natives were not just from India, but from all over the country.
Sistema de Castas
This is beyond creative: “Eastern Woodland peoples wove plant fibers, embroidered skins with porcupine quills, and modeled the earth to make sites of complex ceremonial meaning.” I notice the Native’s were highly intelligent when it came to communication and survival. You could actually put them any where on earth during the Ice Age and the Natives would figure out away to live. This is a 1000’s of years ago. No electric technology just stick, stones, and living organisms. Pretty amazing!
in the fifteenth century
Its interesting to see how they spoke hundreds of different languages, because this isn’t taught in school at all.
Is there a specific reason they call is the “Three Sisters?”
I wonder if agriculture was worth the cons for the Natives. They cons of having weak bones and being “sick” for other skills. I also wonder how badly their weak bones affected their skills.
[North America’s indigenous peoples shared some broad traits. Spiritual practices, understandings of property, and kinship networks differed markedly from European arrangements. ]
I feel that it was a great thing for them to share traits, it causes less divide and less suffering, it makes me wonder if its better for us to share traits or for us to have diverse beliefs and traits. I know that differences help us grow but at the same time, there are more problems with more differences.
[This incorporation did not mean equality, however.]
I think this statement is important, because a lot of people like to argue about the fact that they were outnumbered but don’t like to talk about the fact that there wasn’t any equality. This quote is just a memorable one for me.
I think that this picture should be incorporated into the text because it helps readers to envision he once thriving aztec village.
I think it should be mentioned that las Casas solution to the mistreatment of indigenous peoples was the importation and enslavement of Africans.
Also – flipping between Spanish and European is confusing for some of my students. Let’s be honest – most Americans have little knowledge of geography and may not realize that Spain is part of Europe.
This was the beginning of history where the natives did not receive equality.
I think Americas was a new world for the Natives also ,but it was no longer knew to the Natives when Columbus came.
It’s interresting hearing about how Europeans drastically changed the world for Native Americans. It makes me wonder what life would look like if instead of us bashing the Native Americans for there cultures and ripping that away from them, what would of happened if we welcomed their culture with ours? How would the world look today?
When reading about Native American culture I always find it interesting how respectful of the land they are. Most people are greedy and will run land dry as long as they get good use out of it. By the way the passage describes, the Native community only “provided nutritional needs necessary to sustain cities and civilizations” without making the land unusable. I respect that thought process and effort.
A mind blowing thought is thinking about how all of this was made with their hands or tools that they made by hand. How was this possible?
The Lenapes organized their communities around their crop harvesting seasons, this was crucial in there successfulness as a community. Without this it seems as if they wouldn’t have been as successful with their upbringing.
It is clear in this passage that to Europeans new culture equals money and power. This is why the renaissance was sparked and created that demand for new commodities.
What would of happened if Columbus hadn’t convinced Queen Isabella and Kind Ferdinand to give him 3 small ships? Would we of discovered Bahamas as quickly as we did? How long would that of taken?
This was selfish of the Europeans. Why did we see that we were causing harm to the people that lived on the land and not do anything to stop the destruction? Obviously we were selfish and didn’t care. Why is peace always the last resort? The Native Americans should of had to accommodate for the colonials.
should NOT** of had to accommodate for the colonials.
I wonder what the look on the soldiers faces where like when they had seen the cities for the first time? Everything being described in this passage sounds like a dream, I can only imagine how incredible it was.
95% of the Native American population perished because of diseases brought on by Europeans and we are just now talking about it. This is disgusting and I am embarrassed by my ancestors.
I wonder how did the native Americans develop many cultures and languages.
I think the Aztec institution of human sacrifice should be mentioned here. Apart from being one of the most distinctive and memorable aspects of Aztec civilization, it surely helps explain the unrest in the Aztec empire.
The text is correct. The “but” here is a slightly uncommon usage that means “merely”. Our association of potatoes with Ireland is [but/only/merely] a modern product of the Columbian Exchange; it is not as ancient as one might think.
We are identified as Americans in the present so if Europeans were called Americans, then does that make us Europeans? How did we “the present-day Americans form or choose the language that we speak today known as “English”? I’m wondering, was the “New World” big enough so that people would not end up dating within their kinship, and did they believe in cousins, in-laws, leading down to generations of kinship as we do in the present world
American history is quite different from Biblical history. in the history of American history, these people are named as “Salinan” and are claiming to be of present-day in California claims the first man was made of clay and the first woman out of a feather, which I would find that difficult to believe. However, I think it is a separation of life from the world and the bible. Now, that is confusing as well because I’m thinking, how can you separate the world from the beginning of time, which the Bible “I feel” has the right to. Ideally, I would think people migrated from different parts of the world, settle in areas, and claimed it making a new world outside of anything that could already exist. i think when this information speaks of passing down origins, written and oral that they share how their lives were when came to creation and migration history, that is something that has been passed down from generation to generation for many many many years. I think back on the stories and tales from my grandparents, aunts, uncles, parents, and elderly people
In short, I think it is amazing how studying the remains of bones and genetics can tell a story. I have a better understanding of how artifacts can tell a story because it is simply a study of what was formed or made by an individual in their present time and has become a part of history when it appears after years and years.
The description of the native civilization prior to the arrival of Europeans is very romanticized. It reads as if everything was blissfully amazing and that the arrival of European migrants has brought apocalyptic destruction. Are there supporting and tangible facts or artifacts that speak clearly about that period? Are there facts that do not involve ‘logical deductions’ and can speak for themselves? Can they be integrated into the text with references?
An interesting read – but fairly “woke” in its approach.
No context to the history of slavery – just something Europeans apparently invented. Certainly not at all like that practiced by natives. No mention of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Africa, India, China and the Muslim world where slavery was practiced for tens of thousands of years…don’t take this as a comment to make slavery ok – just one that intends to point out it is mankinds heritage – not white European men’s yoke to wear alone – that is never going to heal if not spoken of truthfully and in context of our growing understanding of history (and no – not the “1619 nonsense”)
Treated the death of natives neutrally as per disease – no one intended it but it certainly happened – that is a step above how it is often portrayed.
People seem upset by the phrase “new world” in these comments…men (and women of course) have been on the planet 3-4 million years = modern man half a million. One group of modern men get to the American continents 10,000 to 20,000 years before another group and this makes them “indigenous” or “native”? Seems to me that both groups spent the better part of 500,000 years not here except one spent only 480,000 years not here. In truth – I believe the authors used the phrase New World just right – in circa 20,000 bc it was a new world for the first Americans as they put it, then in 1492 ad it was a new world for the second group. I also respected the author’s for including creation stories and beliefs of those calling themselves indigenous.
History is always told by the slant of the authors – intentional or no. This one seemed better than most.
Hi hi guys hello how are you guys are you doing this weekend lol I have to go get back in my room and I have a few things to do but I’m on the road so I’ll see you soon lol lol I’m so bored I don’t want you guys lol I just want you guys lol I have to go to watch a movie lol lol I’m watching Netflix and watching movies watching Netflix and Hulu lol .
who cares. stop posting your life on social media.
Wow that is incredible! six hundred rooms!
I thought chinampas were specifically for farming and providing a place to grow crops.
“Much of the city was built on large artificial islands celled chinampas”
Were the structures of the city and buildings built on them as well?
There should be an index or glossary for key terms.
ur an idiot
This paragraph is about how the Europeans considered the Americas as a new world, but it was everything but that. There had been people living in the Americas for 10,000 years. It also says that the Europeans caused the greatest biological terror ever.
There shouldn’t be a period in “the New World.” as it is not dialogue but a quote, and the “But” after it should not be capitalized as it is not the beginning of a sentence. Even if it were, you dont start a sentence with a preposition.
I would say the title gives a great distinctive meaning. The New World as for a new beginning as where it stated that humans have lived tens and thousands of years and has become very diverse. Its pretty interesting to know that every single human being has a trait that makes them unique whether its the different culture, language and spiritual values.
The variety of languages culturally speaking depending on where most cultures migrate to help them learn the languages they might actually need to learn to help better understand one another.
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 6 4 Archaeologists and anthropologists, meanwhile, focus on migration histories. ]
Studying artifacts was probably the most interesting job to have. There have been many items that were preserved for many years to show for in today’s time.
Illustrations make it easier to actually see how prehistorically times were. It looks like a village being created and not having much and materials being used to build housing. 1000 ce probably was a time that having important land to create housing and farming was important. Being near the Mississippi River was easy for them.
I would have to agree. I guess in this situation with not very many materials they had to use what was provided for them. I just couldn’t imagine having anything touch my body with a porcupine quill. Ouch.
[The peoples of this region depended on salmon for survival and valued it accordingly.]
Very interesting fact. Salmon was actually a source of survival for the Pacific Northwest region. To know they also decorated the fish and treated it as a spiritual respect is odd, but neat.
It’s so crazy that they are depicted like this hard working, resilient and brown.
I find it very interesting to me that the Native Americans had built and settled communities . That they had a “vast trade networks”. I didnt realize that. I always thought that was kind of after the Europeans arrival.
Awesome description from the Salinan people belief of how the bald eagle form the first man of clay and a woman of a feather. I find it very fascinating.
It seems odd to me that Native Americans never tried to discover different continents. I feel like some had to have tried but I have never heard anything about that. Except that they have only ever been in North and South America.
this is the only story I remember learning in Native American studies at my elementary school. I keep forgetting that there were so many different tribes with different beliefs as well
I cannot believe how much I have forgotten about the ice age. This is so fascinating that humans were able to survive these harsh conditions such a long time ago. I am curious what they did once it started to get warmer and the ice started melting. Or did it happen so gradually it was not a shock to anyone and no need to adapt to a different climate too quickly?
Why were they called the three sisters?
This is super fascinating! I love the fact that woman being considered a minority did not exist everywhere in the same time periods. So it was not something everyone was born knowing, it was taught that men were superior in most parts of the world.
This is mind boggling to me. Why couldn’t Europeans come up with something like this? It is still horrible to keep people captive but at least they saw everyone as humans and not as property.
that sounds insane. In one canoe? It is so fascinating how smart natives were with making sure they thought about the future when it came to harvests to they knew how to make sure they did not over harvest or overkill species to ensure that they survived and could rely on them the next season. Unlike theEuropeans who came in and wiped out the wild buffalo population
I want to know who was the first to go to Asia? How did they know that there was another continent over there with different goods?
I did not know this
How many people were originally on the boats and how many of them died?
There is no way that this is true. That sounds absolutely sickening
I would like to know who thought that it was God’s will to enslave people? What happened to loving your neighbors?
I thought exactly the same thing I in regard to how many various languages were spoken.
I then realized how many different tribes there were and it seemed to make more sense to me.
[bridged more than ten thousand years of geographic separation, inaugurated centuries of violence, unleashed the greatest biological terror the world had ever seen] This particular section I feel was so well put together that it almost gave me chills due to the fact that it genuinely did unleash the greatest biological terror on these poor unsuspecting people. I have no negative points on its contents with this section.
Revolutionary- A drastic change. In this context a change that is rather sad an unfortunate because it did permanent damage on the natives in every horrible way.
Self-Sufficient economies- This is when an economy such as the natives had was fine standing alone without foreign interference. another aspect of this is being able to last years and years off of everything from their selves and the land they had.
The New World- This is how the native’s land was seen as by the settlers who came across the Atlantic. The problem is the natives did not see it this way. This was especially true as time went on.
Geographic Separation-This goes hand and hand with self-sufficient economies because they were isolated from the rest of the world. Also, because it implies the rest of the world is not needed for them to thrive even with the separation.
Biological Terror- This particular one is especially sad because the natives had no idea, they brought such ravenous diseases that ended up wiping out 90-95% of all the natives there. I think biological terror was very fitting because I feel the average person would never want to even imagine the misery and loss these poor natives endured. The spread of disease really was the nail in the coffin for everything that preceded it.
Native Americans kept to themselves, but with the arrival of the Europeans and the resulting exchange. The world was forever changed.
It seems that Native Americans were doing well until the Europeans arrived bringing with them people animals, and diseases.
Many years ago a plethora of people migrated to different parts of America with the help of archeology and artifacts, dental they traced this back to thousands and thousands of years ago.
Native groups that hunted and spoke many different languages caused growth in the continent.
the native Americans thrived in the agriculture aspect growing especially corn, and squash beans they used handheld tools to plant the seed, by cutting the trees and burning the underbrush then planting seeds.
Native Americans to communicate used different graphic aspects to communicate like buffalo skin to place or write something on it different tribes used different objects.
The Missisipans populated the Chaco Canyon, and up to thirty thousand America did not reach this until after the American revolution.
At this time the Lenapes thrived and populated with a matrilineal-based social element
Salmon became revered and a source of nourishment for other native American tribes such as Tlingitis Haidas, in the Pacific Northwest.
The arrival of Europeans changed everything for native Americans.
Sugar became a desired commodity but it took a lot of work and labor so the Portuguese introduced slavery.
In 1325 the Aztecs prevailed great population huge temples building large artificial islands and pyramid temples.
Hernan Cortez conquered the aztecs and montezuma was killed.
[There, three crops in particular—corn, beans, and squash, known as the Three Sisters]
I wonder if this offended the Native Americans. Hearing someone refer to land that they had already made home as a “New World” almost as if taking claim to something they had no business claiming.
I find i so perfect that they grew the three things that covred all the bases as far as what our bodies needed. I think its incredible that the land there just so happened to be an excellent location to do so.
500 perecent! How does that happen?
I didn’t realize sugar’s origin. Pretty neat.
how sad to turn on a group of people he just spoke so highly about.
I am beside myself. Native Americans were here and doing fine and then they were overtaken and amounted as nothing but slaves. It is quite sad how we turn on people.
Just reading the intro shows how much the Americans know that world and they basically know exactly how their World is . The Europeans had a completely different World they came from so thats why they came up with the new world name. This text is definitely already intriguing … now lets see how the World starts to change .
They had to start somewhere , just like if you were to go to a new place now, it will be a “new world” but then once you learn what they’ve learned and do what they do then it becomes something just like you adapt to their world.
This showed how society had to learn how to adapt to certain things. Even though agriculture wasn’t good for peoples health, it still helped so much and brought benefits for more of the people and thats what mattered during this time. It was about the labor and opportunities it gave them.
Im not entirely sure this is right, there is evidence of Norse influence on the Native Americans, but there is no evidence that the Norse is their ancestry. There is also evidence of Norse trade with the Natives, which only further proves that their ancestry is not Norse, and they were there before the vikings ever visited the Americas.
Furthermore, if you do more research there is evidence that the Native Americans came from an ancient group called the ancient paleo-Siberians. They may have migrated from ancient east asia/siberia.
The use of the word “milder” as it relates to any form of slavery, abuse or abusive punishment comes off as highly inappropriate. Especially when being written from the perspectives of historians and not people who actually experienced the traumatic and abusive experiences. Abuse is not comparative. It is all unacceptable.
Why was the south in ruins ?
Im thinking what could have happen for a person to think omg its so unbelievable what happen and I have no idea what happen in their own place that they live
“barely good roads”
missing ending parenthesis at the end of paragraph
You see, the thing about wars….
[These so-called Lincoln governments sprang up in pockets where Union support existed like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Unsurprisingly, these were also the places that were exempted from the liberating effects of the Emancipation Proclamation.]
Emancipation Proclamation was more of a blow to the rebelling states, not to actually abolish slavery. The less rebellious states were rewarded by getting to keep their slaves.
It looks like Douglass delivered this speech in 1878, not 1877. The title of the selection says 1877 and so does the sourcing note at the end.
is that a typo for level
Should read “the behavior of Blacks…” It’s is an offense to refer to African-Americans as “black” and not “Black.”
the civil war?
Freed people sought out to find family members that had been sold when they were enslaved. So they can gain control over their own family.
In this paragraph, when you read it on the website and not on this section, it says “When lack Americans” when it should say black Americans.
Black Codes should be capitalized in last sentence.
Why frame this whole chapter from the perspective of white Southerners? Wouldn’t it be better to start from the perspective of a freed slave?
While it says, “black Americans” here, it still shows up on the web version I am reading as “lack Americans.”
In the sentence that begins when black Americans, in the reading, it says when lack Americans…
This paragraph is quite dated, still reflected the basic interpretation advanced by C. Vann Woodward in his 1951 Reunion and Reaction. A series of essays by historians in the 1970s and 1980s, including Michael Les Benedict and Allan Peskin, demolished Woodward’s basic argument about the quid pro quo of the supposed Compromise of 1877 (and Woodward himself later acknowledged that he was wrong).
There are several problems with some of the basic assumptions of this paragraph, particularly the sentence:
“Democrats conceded the presidency to Hayes on the condition that all remaining troops would be removed from the South and the South would receive special economic favors.”
1) Not all of the troops were actually removed after 1877, which Greg Downs as recently demonstrated.
2) None of the supposed economic favors for Democrats ever actually materialized.
Moreover, the claim that the compromise allowed Southern Democrats to act without fear of reprisal ignores the reality that Democrats had already been doing so for some time, and also implies Northern Republicans gave up on Reconstruction after 1877, which is also untrue.
While it is true there were likely some sort of conversations between Democrats and Republicans about Democrats conceding the election to Hayes, the specifics of this supposed compromise have been disproven now for nearly 40 years. Moreover the key actors in ending the filibuster that allowed the votes to be counted and granted Hayes the presidency were not Southern Democrats, but were actually Northern Democrats in Congress, which turns the entire premise of the compromise upside down.
The published version capitalizes “black” in the “Republican officials opened… on a segregated basis.” which is grammatically incorrect given “black” is not a first or last name.
As mentioned before it says, “black Americans” here, while it still shows up on the web version as “lack Americans.
Did ONLY South Carolina and Mississippi pass Black Codes?
Is it that only they use a specific phrase? Because certainly other states had them
I also wonder this, I believe every story has 2 sides and I have not yet read the rest but only including the story told by white southerners seems like it would be quite a bias story.
No, of course not. They were just used as examples of the horror that took place among most of the prior confederate states.
This shows up as ‘lack’ Americans in the text.
I believe to give this paragraph justice and its respect it deserves. The sentence should read as “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” If it is not included I feel that we are only cherry picking the Declaration of Independence.
What were the first steps in rebuilding the states and the first steps in bringing the states back to the union?
I thought it was crazy how long Black Americans didn’t have rights and weren’t seen as citizens in the South for almost another century.
How was president Abraham Lincoln able to piece back together the United States?
What else did the Emancipation Proclamation ensure?
Did the 13th amendment get rid of slavery as a whole?
Is no one going to address this? What’s the point of it being a collaborative text then?
I did not realize the Civil War did so much property damage the affected daily transportation.
Because of the Civil War.
What does Yawp mean?
I was thinking more along the lines of like county commissioners they were over the levee like for water, to help prevent the over flow.
Change anti-racist politics to pro-black politics. The modern idea of anti-racism includes remedying discrimination against all races, genders, and sexual identities. The reconstruction era black organizers were not fighting for rights and benefit of Native Americans, Chinese, Jews or oppressed white races like the Irish. Using the concept of Anti-racism is not a historical term and is confusing for a reader of the 21st century where the anti-racism was developed as a system to identify and combat prejudice among many different groups.
I really focused on the line where the South granted African Americans “legal freedom and little more”. Our freedom should come with being seen as equal and unalienable rights, yet back then it seems like having freedom in america, and being seen and treated as a human being, were seen as two completely different things.
The 13th amendment does not “abolish slavery ‘except as punishment for a crime.'” This is an inaccurate statement. The language of the amendment reads: “Section 1. 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.” According to the commonly used “last antecedent rule” the disjunctive conjunction “nor” separates “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” meaning that the latter term “involuntary servitude” is subject to the following qualification and not the former term “slavery.” This interpretation is consistent across existing precedential case law. Slavery, as defined by legally sanctioned personal ownership of a human being, was definitively abolished by the 13th amendment. The use of temporary prison labor without the condition of ownership as property is allowed by the criminal exception clause of the 13th amendment. The South’s use of convict labor to enforce social and legal racial codes and replicate hierarchies that existed under the slave system is a reality provided for by the inclusion of involuntary servitude in the 13t amendment, but it is an inaccurate oversimplification to say that slavery was never fully abolished in the United States.
It seems like the vast majority (paragraph 75 excepted) of Section VI, beginning with Paragraph 70/71, would flow better if used in Chapter 14 with the other Civil War information.
Is interesting to me the way certain things are worded such as “black Americans and their radical allies” this truly frames the picture for the period of reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.
Lincoln’s assassination seems impending just as the conflict that will take place at the end of the Civil War. In paragraph 7th the strategy of issuing a proclamation allowing southerners to take an Oath of allegiance to the Union when they knew how small a percentage the sympathizers were, leaves an unstable foundation to reconstruct without major compromising.
Interesting visual representation of the reconstruction period before it happened. Hierarchies are clearly represented here, while the main conflict is around slavery and the integration of the confederate states, African Americans are almost non-existent in the picture.
These policies of land reinstitution were in effect in all confederate states?
Economic interests are what drove slavery to what it was during the pre-Civil War era. So I see a disconnect between the economic interests of white Americans at the time, social and cultural fabric, and racial justice.
How emancipated Black Americans develop such a strong Christian dogma? I am curious since I am not sure how religion was taught before the reconstruction era and to my understanding, Christianity especially at the time derives from a white European tradition and aesthetic.
Reding this is striking since it explains why some Southerners still fly confederate flags and minimize the horrors of slavery.
the south was in ruins after the civil war
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 7 2 Reconstruction—the effort to restore southern states to the Union and to redefine African Americans’ place in American society—began before the Civil War ended.]
southern states were the only ones in shambles after civil war and they were trying to fix that
Naming Minor v. Happersett as the 1875 court case that limited the scope of what citizenship meant, especially for women voters in this case, would add more specific detail to this paragraph. Related to that, naming Cruikshank and the Slaughterhouse Cases as Supreme Court cases that limited 14th Amendment protections for black people would also better detail the role that the conservative supreme court played in limiting Constitutional democracy during this time period.
Basically a modernized slavery?
Slavery becomes modernized so it can be legalized
The following sentence is incorrect: “Susan B. Anthony was one of them and was arrested but then acquitted in trial.”
This caption is slightly misleading because it references the Fifteenth Amendment, but this amendment would not be ratified until 1870. This print, however, was published in 1867.
I think DaBaby hit pop rap artist is the best, and 1877 republicans were L ratio bummies am i right?
Oh I thought it was the name of that pokemon eevee
Somewhere in here, or maybe section VI, shouldn’t there be a nod to the Carpetbaggers (and Scalawags) and how they were received in southern society during Reconstruction? The concept of the Carpetbagger is a pretty bedrock topic for the postbellum South, and it carries meaning in modern society when referring to someone moving somewhere new to advance themselves. There are always choices to be made about what specific topics to leave in or take out of a text, but this seems like too glaring of an omission to not flag along the way here.
It’s like a weird noise.
With a lack of courtesy , freedmen did not gain land from the government, even after the Amendment was passed. Why was this?
This is where we are trying to build back up the freedmen with their families. The search for families wasn’t always a success. There were so many families separated.
That it should .
The confederate flag was just another way to act on criminal thought that was heavily carried on by the KKK.
The south was already in ruins. Especially when compared to the north
[The future of the South was uncertain.]
racial attitudes aren’t exactly something one could gauge and for a length of time.
[a new fight commenced to determine the legal, political, and social implications of American citizenship.]
fight was far from over…although physical detainment was mostly behind in history, social, political, and even emotional detainment hit the ground running during this time.
[the South was transformed from an all-white, pro-slavery, Democratic stronghold to a collection of Republican-led states with African Americans in positions of power for the first time in American history.]
revolutionary concept that catalyzed continual efforts for more permanence in change
[“we were promised Homesteads by the government. . . . You ask us to forgive the land owners of our island. . . .The man who tied me to a tree and gave me 39 lashes and who stripped and flogged my mother and my sister . . . that man I cannot well forgive. Does it look as if he has forgiven me, seeing how he tries to keep me in a condition of helplessness?”]
powerful quote of former slave speaking out on the brutalities of being a “freedman”
such a natural, god-given right…heartbreaking that this is one they had to fight for (reunification of family and children)
must catch up educationally (literacy rates)
so, Lincoln only promise freedom to those enslaved in the states that did not like him- but if you like him, you can keep the slaves? wow
[In nearly every conflict, white conservatives initiated violence in reaction to Republican rallies or conventions or elections in which black men were to vote. The death tolls of these conflicts remain incalculable, and victims were overwhelmingly black.]
death toll incalculable- noone took the time because they were black to give their death a number.
The sentence, “In churches, women continued to fight for equal treatment and access to the pulpit as preachers, even though they were able to vote in church meetings.” reads as though the women shouldn’t be preachers and should be grateful that they could even vote.
I suggest changing the sentence to something like, “In churches, women had won the right to vote, but they continued to fight for equal treatment and access to the pulpit as preachers.”
It reads less condescending, while still giving the same information.
There is an extra A at the beginning of this paragraph
The last sentence seems to have a flaw, all that is needed is to add the word “do”.
“…should ask themselves what they could __ to enact the kingdom…”
The last sentence of this paragraph refers to “Carnegie’s U.S. Steel,” implying that Andrew Carnegie was running U.S. Steel when Taft was President. I don’t believe that was the case.
It is the National American Woman Suffrage Association not the National American Suffrage Association.
You have it wrong here again: It is the National American Woman Suffrage Association
It should be U.S. Steel not Carnegie’s U.S. Steel.
Rose Schneiderman. Not Ruth.
It seems that you misspel led disenfranchisement unless you were intentionally saying disfranchisement.
[National American Suffrage Association]
It’s the National American Woman Suffrage Association.
The 4th sentence has no predicate verb; should perhaps be “However, the writings of Rauschenbusch and other social gospel proponents [were/had] a profound influence on twentieth-century American life.”
What does having a wealthy background have anything to do with pushing for antitrust legislation and regulations. Even more unrelated is the fact that he couldn’t rely on courts to break up trusts. This sentence doesn’t tie back to itself, instead stating unconnected facts.
I would have appreciated an explanation of what it means to “cast your bucket down”. It means to make the most of whatever situation you are put in. Basically, he didn’t think that leaving the south and going to the north was any more sensible in trying to achieve economic independence than simply staying in the south.
The gilded Age was a time in the United States where the economy and industrialization boomed
As the economy grew so did tensions between politics and the people
The progressive Era:
Women fought for their right to vote
Black Americans fought for Equality
Labors demanded a higher wage and work spaces
What Are Mobilizing For Reforms?
First Paragraph: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in manhattan Caught fire because manager held the keys to prevent unauthorized breaks. building caught on FIRE Side ladder of the building broke down. Women went to the roof and Jumped off for freedom or died on in the building.
The photograph demonstrates policeman placing the corpses in the coffin. This incident called for a lot of attention
A year after the Triangle Shirtwaist. factory in Manhattan caught on fire workers had gone on strike demanding:
Higher wages, and better Safety Conditions
One of the girls who worked in the factory said that every week one of the girls would be dead
Business became more sacred than the lives of humans
Owners of the Triangle factory were charged with manslaughter and two hours later where freed
Inequality grew and living conditions worsened it became difficult to make a change
The Triangle shirtwaist fire moved many Americans to Reform
Reform: Make a change
Everyone: journalist , religious leaders, politicians ETC
Reformers used book and magazines to spread the corruption of business men
coined term for corrupt businessman are Muckrakers Theodore Roosevelt
Jacobs Riis was a journalist who documented the Urban Poverty with videos and Photographs
Jacob Riis published How the other half Lives
Sinclair was another journalist who wrote the Jungle
The jungle was supposed to be a way to support socialist Movement by exposing the brutal labor in the meatpacking industry
Slaughterhouses where growing so quick for consumers the work place became unsanitary & Unsafe work conditions
Edward Bellamy’s 1888 Looking Backward was a national sensation
This novel was about a man who falls asleep in 18887 and wakes up in 2000
The man is confused because the world has altered: Disease and poverty grew, Industries grew as well to build a Utopia of social harmony and economic prosperity
Bellamy’s vision of a reformed society persuaded readers (Youth Readers) to reform on the STREETS
Charles Sheldon a congregational minister in Topeka Kansas Published IN HIS STEPS: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
His book was a best seller but moved multiple people because it addressed that if we worked as how Jesus would everything from economic, social , and Political issues would be reduced ti a MINIMAL
This turned into a movement called the SOCIAL GOSPEL
Women Clubs flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
Women suffrage groups where segregated at the time as well
Addams and Kelly worked together to push towards a better way of living for the communities
Such as 8 hour shifts for women and children, They also pushed legislator to pass other bills concerning the people
The growth of industrialization brought environmental problems Reformers began to create environmental protections
Rose, not Ruth Schneiderman
National American American Suffrage Association???
National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA)
Women demanded the vote might better be worded Women demanded to vote.
This fir in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory led to much needed reform. One of the biggest reasons being because Francis Perkins, the first women to serve on a cabinet, happened to be walking by at the time of the fire. She was so traumatized by is that she decided to try to aid in the reform. In turn some better conditions came to fruition such as regulating doors so they can’t be locked incase of emergencies.
To be more specific it touches on how corporations that controlled industries were shaping economics and politics and thereby working conditions.
Shouldn’t the date be 1890, when How the Other Half Lives was published?
There is an extra quotation mark before the quote: “This is not the first time…”
I realize you can’t include every aspect of Progressivism, but a bit more on public health would set the stage for the Influenza pandemic:
faith in experts
importance of prevention
importance of women, esp. nurses
using the state to achieve ends, etc.
although it is clearly more than an urban issue.
Grammar: “Hull House began exposing conditions in local sweatshops and advocating for the organization of workers.” should read “… conditions in local sweatshops and ADVOCATED for the…”
More insidiously, perhaps, reformers also associated alcohol with cities and immigrants, “unnecessarily” maligning America’s immigrants, Catholics, and working classes in their crusade against liquor.
“Many suffragists adopted a much crueler message. ” provides a value judgement and misses the opportunity to put the issue in context. change to “Many suffragists adopted a white supremacist messaging.” Also this “cruel” misses the fact, mentioned in previous chapters, that black leaders including Fredrick Douglas resented suffragists attempting to connect their issue with civil rights for black men. This text should attempt to avoid emotional language, especially when more precise language can help elucidate connections and rivalries between historical groups and events.
Could some of the specific reforms supported by the WCTU be noted here, instead of just mentioning “do everything” and “social welfare” ?” Home protection,” urban poverty, prison reform, 8-hour workdays, child labor, Christian Socialism– these would illuminate the contributions of the WCTU to the Progressive Era without taking up too much space in the text.
A small matter perhaps, but would it be worth it to mention, for the sake of capturing the tension existing then, that McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist? Just saying he died is a little understated. As I write this, I realize I skipped over Chap. 19, so maybe it’s there.
Yep, the assassination is mentioned in Chap. 19. Never mind, I guess. Though plenty of other topics in Yawp are repeated in multiple chapters.
Am surprised that throughout this entire chapter there is not a single reference to a Black woman Progressive or clubwoman other than brief mentions of Ida B. Wells. Perhaps could spend more time on Black women in the Progressive movement, the slogan of “lifting as we climb,” and cut some of the Washington/Du Bois debate as you have parts of it in the primary sources anyway.
Some suggestions: Mary Church Terrell, Jospehine St. Pierre Ruffin, Nannie Burroughs, Margaret Murray Washington.
I’m surprised there isn’t something about political reform in here. Perhaps in the prelude to reform section adding two paragraphs on direct election of Senators, income tax, city manager governments, referendum and recall? Or reorganizing the whole thing to discuss different pathways to reform electoral, regulation, social and then having them come together in the women’s movement to get the vote.
Make mention of the development of the National Parks System under Wilson, to give reader a sense of how preservation principles were evolving during the Progressive Era?
For the sake of synthesis, bring back the New South concept from Chapter 18 in order to connect Grady and Washington?
It is absolutely astonishing that this description of Du Bois’s philosophy does not discuss the “talented tenth” concept.
By any measure and as is evident in all the literature on the anti-liquor movement, the Anti-Saloon League had by far the greatest effect on achieving liquor control legislation. It needs a more prominent place in this discussion.
The description of Wilson is misleading. He did argue for strong anti-trust action in 1912, and pushed for stronger legislation. That was achieved in the Clayton Act. Where he moved closer to Roosevelt’s position was in supporting the Federal Trade Commission, which had regulatory powers.
Women opposing suffrage should be elaborated on as well in a paragraph in this section to create a more holistic history.
Fixed in 2021. Thanks!
Date updated in summer 2021. Thanks!
Updated in previous edits. Thanks!
Thank you. A paragraph was added on this, but much more can (or, needs to) be said. We would welcome submissions or suggestions for a fuller paragraph than the one posted now in the main text.
Added to the main text along the lines you suggested here. Thanks!
Fixed in the text during prior edits. Thanks!
Fixed during prior edits to the main text. Thanks!
Should be fixed in the main text. Thanks!
Thanks! Updated on americanyawp.com during previous edits.
I think you have done a wonderful job of scholarship on what you have in this chapter, but I believe that there are some key aspects that shouldn’t get left out. H.W. Bush’s Panamanian invasion and the ouster of Noriega is missing here. I believe that it fits in with the long shadow of both Cold War anticommunism, globalized economics, Latin American foreign policy and the Drug Wars. I would be happy to provide content if you wished. My feeling was that it belonged somewhere between paragraph 10 and 11.
Should be “Katherine Harris” instead of “Kathleen Harris”
I would suggest less on Clinton’s attacks on Iraq while being sure to mention that a key cause of the Iraq war (besides WMD)was the false allegation that Saddam was allies with al Qaeda. Thank you!
“his narrowly passed 2017 tax cut continued the redistribution of American wealth toward corporations and wealthy individuals.”
This is a highly opinionated statement in the absence of any citations, as it erroneously implies that there were no benefits to low and middle income earners. Provisions of this law included elevating the standard deduction and increasing the child tax credit; items that would have benefited many families.
As an example, the NY Times published a tax cut calculator in 2017 describing the impact of the tax law:
Per the calculation, a married couple filing jointly with annual income between $75-100K, 2 children, and using the standard deduction a would receive a tax cut between $2,260 and $2,690.
“The tax cut exploded the federal deficit and further exacerbated America’s widening economic inequality.”
So should the reader’s conclusion be that higher taxes would lessen the economic divide? Econonomic inequality is a complex, multifactorial issue with many possible causes. For example, affordability of higher education, personal health, individual motivation, offshoring of jobs, replacement of workers via automation, etc. Claiming that the tax cut worsened economic inequality is a dramatic oversimplification of a complex issue, and should be avoided.
Also, I think “exploded the federal deficit” should be altered, as “exploded” pushes an opinion without factual data.
In closing, I suggest changing the wording as follows:
“his narrowly passed 2017 tax cut returned wealth to individuals and provided incentives to businesses, but did so at the expense of increasing the federal deficit.”
That’s a more neutral treatment of the subject and allows the reader to form their own conclusions.
self-described “DEMOCRATIC socialist”. There is certainly a strong distinction, especially considering Sanders’ brand of democratic socialism could be more accurately described as social democracy, in the vein of the Nordic countries.
Perhaps something should be added about the partisan nature of the #MeToo movement, in regards to centrist/moderate Democrats using it as a tool against Republicans, especially in light of how quickly these same Democrats who were #MeToo advocates in 2018-2019 were suddenly nowhere to be found when presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden had accusations against him. Meanwhile, Democrats and independents on the left who were #MeToo advocates continued on, even against a moderate Democrat like Joe Biden.
I think you meant “beat Reagan” not “best.”
The Republican’s choice of Donald Trump should be amended with the word “alleged,” to read “…nominated a real estate developer, celebrity, and alleged billionaire …”
The change should be made since Trump’s billionaire status is in question.
Definitely agree with the addition of the false allegations of Saddam Hussein having WMDs and allying with al Qaeda.
“In 2014, Latinos surpassed non-Latino whites to became the largest ethnic group in California”
Should be changed to become.
“best” can be used as a verb meaning “beat” and is appropriate here.
I believe the word “after” should be added to the sentence about Willie Horton (after being released).
You should mention Jimmy Carter started aiding the Mujahideen during Operation Cyclone.
On the latest version, there is no citation of the Jan 6th Insurrection image.
Agreed! This page needs to take a more neutral stance! The intro paragraph now showing is not up for edits and it needs a lot of them. Just because the writer claims a view does not mean that is the view to be claimed. Give the claims of both sides, and then let the reader do his/her own research to take the side they believe. Don’t pollute this one good source.
It doesn’t show in this view, but when viewed in the website, the second half of this paragraph is duplicated in a new paragraph.
The opening few paragraphs on January 6, don’t naturally flow into the rest of the chapter. It stands out and will cause many students to stop reading. There is a way to incorporate it, but that is not effective.
But WHY did al-Qaeda/bin Laden attack? That’s an important part that was left out of this.
This implies that Obama was President when the Great Recession hit. Obama was not sworn in until 2009. Then the Tea Party. Then Occupy Wall Street in 2011. This chronology of this whole section is jumbled and confusing.
In light of the events in Afghanistan over the last few days, there needs to be an update of the situation and clarification of the timeline of our total withdrawal. A comparison to Saigon is not unwarranted, IMHO.
Starting with section VIII New Horizons-
you have two different versions
The Version that one would read from the table of contents has a chapter titled “American Carnage” which has a paragraph that is slightly edited and repeated (first 2 paragraphs after picture of Trump-not in this section, so I don’t have paragraph numbers).
When you come to the comment section, VIII New Horizons is a completely different section on LGBTQ, #Me Too, and BLM.
Both need to be included in the actual text.
I hope someone will read this and improve this section.
The title for the section on Trump’s presidency is “American Carnage.”
This is extremely biased and misleading. There was no “carnage” or increase in deaths as a result of Trump’s presidency. War deaths were down. The economy was up sharply until the Pandemic as a result of Trump’s policies.
A better title would be “A Populist President.”
Funny how the current intro talking about the January 6th incident isn’t available for us to leave feedback about. Since I can’t leave a comment regarding that specific paragraph, I will have to use this one. That intro is full of lies and, you leftists’ favorite word: misinformation. The January 6th incident is still under investigation with lies still coming out about what actually happened and who were actually involved. Same goes for the election. If you don’t have 100% facts about either incident yet (as both are still being investigated), probably best to not include it in your history book. This makes me question the accuracy of any and all of this textbook if you are so willing to publish something so fresh that still isn’t 100% reported accurately, especially with biased journalists and media. Do you want to include all the nonsense about Covid too? Mask? No mask? Vaccine? No vaccine? This is ridiculous.
I feel like replacing “#policelivesmatter” with “#bluelivesmatter” more accuratly reflects the times, as #bluelivesmater was used much more than #policelivesmatter.
The part that I cannot comment on is what I have a suggestion for. I am a “one way or the other” voter. Not a TRUMP supporter per se. However, the first paragraph that we cannot comment on, is complete “misinformation” and up to opinion. It’s correct to state that these things happened, as it is in fact history. However, “…fueled by an onslaught of lies and fabrications and conspiracy theories surrounding the November 2020 elections…” is a matter of opinion. Purely and simply an opinion. IF this had been written by a conservative it would say the opposite which I would also oppose because it is still an opinion. Opinions, without being stated as such, do not belong in history books. History is neutral. Viewed from BOTH sides. Don’t make a history book about one side’s political agenda. There are blogs and social media platforms for that.
I am *not a “one way or the other” voter.
For some reason, the paragraph in the online textbook is not here. But I must mention something extremely important. In the seventh paragraph under “New Horizons”, George Floyd is quoted as saying, “I can’t breath.” This is probably a typo and it is supposed to say, “I can’t breathe.” For something that is so significant in our lifetime, I feel that this is a crucial detail!! Please fix!!!
Concerning movements during the past decade and past couple of years, it would seem appropriate to discuss the March for Our Lives movement in response to the Parkland shooting and the context about mass shootings in the United States during the 2010s
It is not shown in this version, but upon reading the final paragraphs regarding the Trump presidency on the main site, the 2nd impeachment concerning January 6th was mentioned, however, there is no prior reference to the former president’s first impeachment concerning his communications with the Ukrainian president a year earlier.
Why would you call the first African American president a lame duck? In my opinion that’s very racist and prejudice to compare him to a weak creature, because he is not. If he became President that means every act he did before the he was President was phenomenal, because he was destined to be an African American.
This doesnt talk about the all time low unemployment rate under President Donal Trump. 3.5 % the lowest it’s been in 50 years, since 1969
Yeah that’s the crucial detail.
This paragraph and the one with the January 6th “insurrection” disproportionally depicts the right wing as the “bad guys,” there was no talk about the 20 people that died and the one $1 Billion dollars of personal property damages that was cause due to the #BLM riots.
Although it looks alright here. Part of this paragraph is repeated in the next paragraph when normally viewing it. It is a few identical sentences around “He began ordering the deportation of so-called Dreamers—students who were born elsewhere but grew up in the United States…”
Third party candidate Ross Perot should be mentioned as a contributing factor of the 1992 election outcome? Perot received nearly 20 million votes – votes that would have likely otherwise gone to Bush. This affected the outcome in several states that narrowly went to Clinton.
The intro is an untrue left leaning smear. You really need to get your facts straight and stop spreading your opinion because that’s all it is, is YOUR opinion, nothing factual.
How is Ross Perot not even mentioned? Perot received 19,743,821 votes that were mostly Republican votes. Perot is THE reason that Clinton won the election. In many states, Clinton won less than 40% of the popular vote but received ALL the electoral votes because of the third party candidate. Clinton also secured the Presidency with the lowest percentage of the popular vote since Woodrow Wilson in 1912.
What you have written in the first paragraph about Trump is untrue. I have a feeling this chapter is going to be liberal left written. I haven’t even finished this chapter yet. Shame on you YAWP. You should have waited for the truth to come out instead of writing this chapter. Your credibility is questionable.
A lot of this stuff said about Trump is super, super biased. Also, I think that, concerning the 1/6 event, you should discuss how so many people claim that none of that actually happened- because they were actually in DC at that time. You should also think about how so many people say that the left actually did that white house storming.
Also, discuss how TONS AND TONS of ballots were “randomly” found buried underground? what about that? As a side note, wouldn’t you be upset if you worked so hard to win an election, and then it was stolen from you through compromise and fraud, and literally every person in the gov. was against you?
All the conspiracy theories are coming true.
Do your research and don’t just say what everyone else is saying…
Concerning the covid talk in the 3rd to the last section, I think you should discuss how many of the “positive” cases were given to people who didn’t even die from covid.
Sorry not sorry but you’re incorrect.
There is no evidence to corroborate that the 2020 election was “stolen”. In fact, it was one of the most secure elections on record.
Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and Joseph R. Biden won the presidency.
The jury is still out on the conclusion of what actually happened, you have drawn a conclusion right from the start without all the facts. I am reluctantly reading this liberal one sided view of history. States such as Arizona are working to decertify their election vote, and still more to come.
Updated. Thank you.
Thank you for your feedback. Any specific stylistic suggestions would be welcomed.
Thank you for the suggestion. We’ve updated the text to reflect America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Thank you for your comment.
Updated in an earlier edition. Thanks!
In the contributors section for the second part of the book (with the last substantive chapter on the recent past), on p. 443, my last name is misspelled. It should be “Daniel Burge,” not “Daniel Birge.”
Font size does not match the rest of the chapter. Besides this paragraph, the font size is not consistent in other parts of Sections 1-3 of Chapter 2. Please fix for readability, especially for visually impaired readers.
Puritans were stereotyped as killjoys, Puritans did not succeed. Puritans would not stay away from alcohol or sex based on their religion or life style.Puritans believe that the European church was to close to Catholicism.
I feel that you should include the term iconoclasm here as this was the name given to the abolition or ornate churches, and that the definition should be expanded upon a but to show the full breath of reforms that the Puritans were attempting to achieve.
There needs to be a section dedicated to the explorations of de Soto.
Not sure where you are getting your information from, but Oñate cut off the foot of every male above the age of 25. He enslaved everyone between the ages of 12-25.
Diseases wiped out entire civilizations
nutrient rich foods help European population
Spaniard slaughter acoma of 1500 inhabitants
Black legend – drew on religous diff, and political rivalries
Middle ground The great lakes had lots of success
Labor shortages crippled the Dutch
the puritians commited to reforming the church of england
Did they really only import eleven slaves?
Why didn’t the Spanish try to keep their discoveries to themselves to gain advantage over their competition?
if the youngs kept dying why didn’t the french try to come up with solutions and try separating themselves from giving one another diseases?
The French were able to come to terms with this new society, why couldn’t the competition do the same instead of murdering communities?
if the dutch bought into democracy, could they have gone further in their financial organizations?
The Spanish did try to control access and information as best they could, but that was a tough thing to keep secret! One key is that Spain’s Hapsburg kings also ruled much of what is now the Netherlands, Belgium, and adjacent areas of Germany. When the Protestant Reformation spread to the Spanish Netherlands, Dutch printers such as Theodore de Bry translated, illustrated, and printed Spanish accounts of the conquest in order to inform their anti-Catholic propaganda.
Maybe a quick note that Spain had a vast European empire, and fought for decades to defend its interests against the rise of Protestant powers informed these processes could go here. (The Spanish rivalry is noted).
paragraph 76–with citation for Winthrop, gives the date of 1830 for the Modell–I think you mean 1630.
HOWEVER the new book by Mark Peterson _The City-State of Boston_ totally complicates the matter. It does not appear that Winthrop delivered the talk on the Arabella–and there is no contemporaneous references to it. He MAY have delivered in in England. But it does not gain traction until the 1830s.
Regarding the lost colony of Roanoke, the word found carved in the tree was “Croatoan,” not “Croatan.”
Because of the existence of the British East India company, the text should mention that the Dutch East India company is separate to avoid confusion
[Fears of racial mixing led the Dutch to import enslaved women, enabling the formation of African Dutch families.]
ah yes the dutch fear racial mixing, so they bring in enslaved women, which enable racial mixing
it all makes sense now
[ Jean Calvin]
I know Wikipedia is a reader contributed site so I’m not sure if my info is correct, either. I’m curious about your use of the word, “Hapsburgs.” Wikipedia calls it Hadsburg and says the Netherlands was in an 80 year war from 1568-1648. I’m wondering about your “officially broke away from the Hapsburgs…” statement as to its accuracy? Thank you for you input to this inquiry. Lloyd F Barb
JOHN Calvin, not Jean
Would some details about the 1680 Pueblo Revolt help students better understand how Southwest Indians contributed to the shaping of the colonial New Mexico’s identity?
Surprising lack of any reference to the first settlers of New England (the colony of Plymouth) and the parallel Separatist movement that fueled the first settlement. Should definitely include something about the Pilgrims in 1620 and their journey.
[Spain benefited most immediately as the wealth of the Aztec and Incan Empires strengthened the Spanish monarchy. ]
Seems as if
Do we know around how much gold and other valuables the Spanish took from the Aztecs? Do we know how many Aztecs died as a result of this?
As a college student and enthusiastic book-lover of all genres, this is the worst history book I have ever read. Yawp is the perfect word for it. It’s incomprehensible yodeling; American Yawp exasperates me. Despite the fact that the history of America is fascinating, this book basically collects each important name, something those people did, and the year they did it in and drops those facts onto the page in a manner that tries to sound intelligent. Where is the STORY in hiSTORY???
I am disappointed that my college chose this textbook… how do I survive a whole semester with this? Now I am going to have to double my assigned reading each week because I need something to supplement what American Yawp is refusing to give me.
More context for almost every topic mentioned in this book is needed. Please stop jumping around all over the place. And I’m begging you; please make it more memorable. Your readers need to be at least 1% interested, or the book is worthless and the information unhelpful. Historical information is already hard enough to memorize. Please don’t leave me wondering what on earth I just read after every chapter.
“Divine Wind” is invoked for Kamikazes and the old storm that saved Japan from Kublai Khan, whereas “Protestant Wind” is typically the go-to phrase for the storm that engulfed the Spanish Armada.
new empires merged
Hearing about the casualties that Onate caused was hard to read, especially about the 15 year old boys that got their foot cut off for surviving.
The paragraph on the Portuguese/Spanish is really misleading. Treaty of Tordesillas did not occur AFTER the riches from the New World started flowing to Spain. The Aztecs were not conquered until 1519. Also, the Doctrine of Discovery did not instruct Portugal and Spain to “treat the natives with Christian compassion.” Instead, the Pope said that they can do whatever they want to non-Christians: “They are to put them in perpetual slavery”. This becomes the legal argument to expand conquest and the US Court later uses this to argue that white Americans had the right to seize all indigenous lands.
I remember this in school, they taught us how spain ruled over a lot of countries especially after the European diseases wiped millions of people. Weakness was in the air.
[ Spain used its new riches to gain an advantage over other European nations, but this advantage was soon contested.]
I think they thought this was a good idea up until it actually was not.
I would have to agree with you. This is something I feel has stuck with me because Spain was so powerful over others.
This was completely the fault of the new colonizers because they brought unknown diseases to a group of people who couldn’t fight it.
That is actually insane that someone could do that to people.
I think it is insane and disgusting that people could commit such acts against each other. This was acceptable in that time and some people even encouraged it.
Why did onate even do this to the people? Was there a real reason?
I think this is probably the primary reason Spain grew so large in this time. I mean when your greatest competitors are too busy fighting themselves your free to win alone.
This is absolutely disturbing to know that they slaughtered half their population including the children.
I would have to agree with you, it’s like free game.
So the French would make profits off different trades? Or make the Huron people really convert to Christianity?
I feel as though the Dutch could have gone further , but it’s like they were almost comfortable where they stood because they had enough power so why even continue it states them being the most “advanced capitalist” in the modern world.
[The colony’s first African marriage occurred in 1641, and by 1650 there were at least five hundred African slaves in the colony.]
This is quite interesting to know. To know that exactly five hundred African American slaves were brought into the colony in little over 9 years shows how drastically things changed or developed.
In what way exactly was this helpful for them? Were they able to gain more wealth than others?
I bet this really made them a great profit. This is how wealth is pretty much formed back then.
There is evidence of an African presence before the slave trade and it’s not mentioned here. Columbus even described the color of the people here but yet it is omitted from most texts, including this one. There’s no accurate reporting of history without telling all relevant information.
At the time that the French man were traveling, would it have been important for them to emigrate if New France didn’t criminalize protestantism?
How did the head right system work, and why was it so important that a lot of new settelers join into it?
Columbian brought in foodstuff that was exchange, with that exchange it did kill the people with disease. Also helped out the Aztec and Incan Empires to get stronger. With that being said they took advantage over the European nations.
with Native Americans THAT was typical among the Spanish and English.
“Comprehending Japanese motivations for attacking China and the grueling stalemate of the ensuring war are crucial for understanding Japan’s seemingly unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii”
Is the word “ensuring” supposed to be “ensuing”?
Yes it was. It’s fixed now. Thanks!
Not a criticism but more a request. I didn’t see much or any mention of the lend-lease program championed by Roosevelt preceding the U.S. entry into the war. This chapter would benefit from a section on it as this was vital to Roosevelt’s attempt to bypass the rest of the country’s isolationist perspectives.
Reintroduces and re-explains material introduced in paragraph 63.
The most plausible response for the U.S. military was to bomb either the camps or the railroads leading to them
(remove the first instance of “was”)
Japanese troops surrender on June 3, 1943.
From June 5th, 1942 till May 30th, 1943, a Japanese garrison occupied the Aleutian Islands of Attu and Kiska, which are a part of Alaska. The “Battle of Attu” took place there, and that was the first and only battle to be fought on U.S. soil during WWII.
I feel like that’s a pretty important thing that is not mentioned here at all.
[conference at Dumbarton Oaks, outside Washington, D.C.]
Dumbarton Oaks is in Georgetown a part of Washington D.C.
It would be helpful to include more information on appeasement policies. I feel this issue is extremely important and a lesson we need to focus on so that we can learn for the future. It is referenced but briefly.
I feel this page would benefit from information on American Neutrality prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Lend Lease program and the “great arsenal of democracy” while the US specifically passed bills to attempt to stay out. Our involvement in the war prior to Dec. 7th, 1941 seems to be brushed over as well as the American desire to stay out of another European war.
The United States did send aid to China in the form of groups of airmen such as the Flying Tigers.
Doesn’t mentioned that the Soviets attacked Poland from the East in addition to the German attack from the West
The casualties from the Bombing of Pearl Harbor were closer to 2,600
The “Army Air Force” wasn’t called that, it was called the Army Air Corps, and there were still air raids that were flown without fighter escort, but used a different tactic instead of flying straight to the target cities.
Also doesn’t mention the first bombing strike against the Japanese capitol a few months after Pearl Harbor, which is very important, The Doolittle Raid.
True, but this was not until after the Lend-Lease Act when the United States was already on the road to war. The flying tigers, for instance, were not formed until the summer of 1941, only a few months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and after the invasion of French Indochina, a point of contention between the United States and Japan.
You are welcome as well
Alan Turing is the name of the man who cracked Germany’s enigma code. Alan Turing created the Turing machine, which cracked the German’s code, which changed every 24 hours. By cracking their code, the war ended much quicker and so many lives were saved. Alan Turing’s Turing machine was actually the foundation for modern computers. He is a genius and a hero and deserves to be recognized. He is often left out of history, due to the fact that he was gay and found out. He was deemed a criminal for being a gay schoolteacher. He took his own life due to this. The queen of England pardoned him but it wasn’t until the 2000s I think. Remember the name Alan Turing because he stopped the war and saved countless lives.
“At home, Japan was driven…” not riven. Grammatical error.
Misspelling, 2nd to last sentence: should be “inflamed” not “enflamed”
May want to specify that it did NOT affect the military.
I am not sure students understand what “defense industry” means–shouldn’t it mean the armed forces?
defense industries or companies with defense contracts
might be clearer.
The line the But while the U.S. denounced Japanese aggression, it took no action is misleading. It overlooks the U.S.S. Panay incident and the steel and oil embargo placed on Japan on July 26th 1941. It also overlooks loans and arms sales to China in 1940 and 1941 and the formation of the American Volunteer Group.
Oversimplified, the Nationalists were still pursuing the Communists until Chiang Kai-shek was kidnapped by his generals and forced to establish an alliance during the Xi’an incident in 1936 to recognize Japan as the ultimate threat.
Misleading first 2 sentences, the Nationalists were also engaged with fighting the CPC during 1935-1936 which was why they were in dire need of people and supplies following the Long March in Shaanxi in the first place. Additionally, phrasing of “stubborn communist insurgency” downplays the many violent purges Chiang Kai-shek carried out during the White Terror to eliminate communist threats. Overall the way this paragraph is written inaccurately portrays the sides of the Civil War with the KMT in an overly glorified light as some sort of hero being subverted by the Communists. This is particularly apparent with the introduction “As Chinese Nationalists fought for survival, the Communist Party was…” Paragraph should be rewritten to not portray either side in a biased way.
It should be addressed that Howard Miller’s ‘We Can Do It‘ poster would not have been widely recognized at the time as it was only posted inside Westinghouse Electric Corporation factories and only for two weeks at that – as it says on the bottom of the poster. Because of its internal posting it also was never intended to bring women into the workforce, but instead motivate those who were already working.
The poster only achieved fame when it was ‘rediscovered’ in the 1980s and used as a feminist icon.
The actually well-known Rosie was Norman Rockwell’s ‘Rosie the Riveter‘ published as the cover of the nationally circulated Saturday Evening Post on May 29, 1943.
Howard Miller’s ‘We Can Do It’ was only posted inside Westinghouse Electric Corporation factories and only for two weeks at that – as it says on the bottom of the poster. Because of its internal posting it also was never intended to bring women into the workforce, but instead motivate those who were already working.
(Similar comment on par.68)
Definitely needs it.
It alludes to it slightly with the ‘splitting with nonagression after,’ but then avoids poking at why France and England didn’t also declare war on Russia. Given, that is a quagmire of treaties, empty promises, and an interwar tradition of politically ignoring Russia.
I agree about lend-lease, as well as adding in the 1937 Neutrality Act. Chamberlain should be mentioned by name.
The Korematsu case would clarify how something like this could happen in America.
I’d be happy to add a few sentences or a short paragraph from my new book, Enemies Among Us, dealing with the relocation, internment, and repatriation of German, Italian, and Japanese Americans during the Second World War– it just came out through the University of Nebraska Press… could you please add the book to the bibliography for the chapter?
Enemies among Us : Nebraska Press (unl.edu)
“Homosexual men and those thought to be homosexual”
Men accused of homosexuality carried a hegemonic tone.
Homosexuality is not a crime to be accused of.
Due to its brevity, the point you’re trying to make here about culturally-bound understandings of honorable warfare comes across as essentialist and reductionist. My students will read this to mean “Japanese soldiers committed atrocities because they were Japanese.” I’m quite sure that’s not what you mean to communicate. Please reconsider — I’d really like to keep assigning American Yawp, but this may be a dealbreaker!
Since this is a US History text, this paragraph (or an adjacent one) needs to integrate Roosevelt’s Quarantine Speech and his tacking towards readiness and intervention amid the prevailing isolationist mood in the US.
Somewhere in here, it would be good to integrate the progression form the Neutrality Acts to readiness and alliance, such as Destroyers for Basis and Lend-Lease.
The last sentence of this paragraph marks Germany’s retreat from the Soviet Union in December 1941 while it sources Beevor’s book with the title, Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942-43. Beevor’s book title is the correct date.
Hi, I’m a student, and I noticed an error. The G.I. Bill was not “the brainchild of William Atherton.” There seem to be two mix-ups here. The bill was the brainchild of Henry Colmery, the former head of the American Legion. Atherton was the current head of the Legion, but it was the former head who actually drafted the legislation. Atherton just advocated for it. That’s mix-up one. Mix-up two was that Mr. Atherton’s first name was Warren. William Atherton is an actor, best known for playing that guy in Ghostbusters about which Bill Murray says “that man has no dick.”
I totally see how this mix-up happened, and I find it hilarious. But please get this fixed so people don’t get confused. The ghostbusters guy had nothing to do with the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944.
I’ve been experimenting with my use of Yawp this year as an AP text, but I’m leaning back towards my hard copy textbook next year. The best parts of Yawp are better than my text, but Yawp is so uneven. For instance, the lack of discussion about Lend-Lease seems like such a bizarre omission.
Clarified the implied timeline under discussion in the official text during our summer 2021 edits. Thanks!
Thank you. We’ve inserted a clarifying statement to, hopefully, reduce any such reductionism. But we will need to explore this in much greater nuance and detail. Suggestions and possible submissions welcome!
Any mention of the MR pact should be preceded by the fact that the USSR offered a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany to France and the UK multiple times, all being rejected by France and Britain.
The Battle of Whitestone Hill took place from Sept. 3-5. Although the bulk of the fighting occurred on the 3rd, there were engagements on the 4th and 5th. Also, estimates of Sioux casualties range from 100-300. Might want to mention the name of the battle as well.
Annie shot apples off of her English Setter, I can’t find any information about a poodle.
Titling this chapter “Conquering the West” perpetuates a triumphalist view of westward expansion and valorizes the perpetrators of genocide against Native peoples during the nineteenth century.
I strongly disagree. The title is cynical is can be used as a talking point in class what “Conquering the West” really meant, themes that the chapter certainly doesn’t valorize.
For example, I title one of my lectures “The Wild West” not because I wax poetic on duels at high noon, but because it provides a jumping off point to describe the mythology of the Wild West and why Americans engaged in myth-making.
Should say “President Lincoln commuted all but thirty-eight of the sentences.” Missing a hyphen (-)
Should be Native American, not Indian.
Brigham Young did not become the leader of the Mormons after the death of Joseph Smith. On the westward movement they split. Brigham Young (the original leader) had a vision of the mountains in Utah but Joseph Smith and some of the other members wanted to continue on to California, which they did.
Several parapgraphs back the text mention the Dakota uprising and massacre.
I can guarantee most students are not going to connect back to it–in part because “troubles of 1862” is oblique–unless like the Troubles in Ireland, it is a phrase that means something in this context. So you need something more specific.
I think it is worth noting it took place in the Centennial year of the US.
It is worth noting that some military leaders were critical of Custer’s actions (I don’t know how much that was professional jealousy or defending their own reputation).
But a lot of Custer’s reputation was due to efforts of his window Elizabeth Bacon Custer–and reflect rising interest in celebrity as well as the “cowboys, soldiers, and Indians” in popular culture.
Suggestion to change “had” in the first sentence to “have.” Though I know that past-tense is typical of textbooks, changing this sentence to present tense is important as it showcases the continued existence of Native Americans in the United States to present day. Many students of US History are unaware that indigenous communities still exist. Changing the language can highlight the importance of indigenous communities in the present day.
I was under the impression that the west was already being colonized prior to the civil war. Is this passage just explaining how although colonization had moved west native Americans still had plenty of land to live on or did people not travel west of the Mississippi before the civil war?
I feel like the wording of the textbook would have gone right over my head if you hadn’t pointed that out. I agree that it is necessary to acknowledge native American’s continued existence in our country. I know that I personally live only about 30 minutes from a native reserve so I can connect with this comment.
It is interesting how the gold rush actually was beneficial to the growth of America despite the lack of profit for miners. I wonder if the people who created rumors of gold actually knew there was gold or if they were just trying to populate the west. (kind of a conspiracy theory however I thought it might be interesting to look into).
It is interesting how the government encouraged settlement westward by rewarding “free” land. I think that this may have appeared to be a good deal to a lot of people however I anticipate that several families found life to be difficult because they did not have strong support from any established communities.
I find it interesting the textbooks continue to refer to Native Americans as Indians when that is not the case. Although natives were thought to be Indians by Christopher Columbus, we have since known that was not the case.
Natives were able to maintain controll while America was busy with the civil war and had its focus elsewhere.
This goes to show how the American government didn’t really care about the native Americans and that the reservations were basically a dump of land to dispose of people that were in the way of western settlement.
The end of this paragraph shows how tired the natives were of conflict and how even the toughest would give up eventually. This is saddening to hear despite it being a part of the history that lead to the United States today because our prosperity today was dependent on the suffering of these native people.
I like this picture because it depicts the first cross-continental transportation system in the U.S.
The poor pay and dangerous nature of work reminds me of the life of people during the industrial period of our country where there were unrealistic work hours in the factories.
Turner had a very interesting view that was welcomed by many during the time that a frontier line was important in the development of westward expansion. He feared losing the frontier however there were new technologies and government influences that would make life without the frontier a non-issue. I feel like there are some parts of this I don’t understand so if anyone could further clarify this part of the reading that would be great.
I thought it was smart of Buffalo Bill to monetize the romanticism of western culture even if he didn’t agree with the depiction because as a business major it showed me an example of taking advantage of the opportunity.
did the prophets foretell a better future for natives or did they simply fight back against western expansion by Americans?
That is interesting how during that time they were able to determine that bison skulls provided an ingredient important for fertilizer.
This name is misspelled across the site. Should be “Hornaday.”
Why is ‘Indian/Indians’ used so often during this chapter? Every other chapter I’ve read(which isn’t all of them, mostly just those in Volume 1) has used Native American, or even better, Indigenous Peoples. It’s insulting to Indigenous Peoples, it’s insulting to actual Indians, and it certainly should insult everyone else. It’s super inaccurate, we should know that the Indigenous Peoples of America are NOT Indians, they have no relation to India and they are not from there, etc.
PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!!!!!!!!
Sioux is an outdated term. Unless you give context to how the Dakota received it (through the bastardization of an Ojibwa word that settlers began to use) it would be more appropriate to use the term Dakota.
I noticed there wasn’t a conclusion for this chapter
Uses of “Indian” to refer to Indigenous peoples or Native Americans have been replaced with Native American or Indigenous peoples in the updated text of the chapter. The use of “Indian” remains in the titles of books, government bodies, and Indigenous organizations. Please provide further feedback on the updated text to note any missed instances or any terminology not in line with contemporary practice. Thank you.
Updated in text during summer 2021. Thank you for your feedback!
Thank you for your feedback. This should have been corrected in the updated text in the summer of 2021. Please flag any additional discrepancies you notice in the posted text on Americanyawp.com.
Fixed in summer 2021. Thanks!
Text updated in summer 2021. Thank you!
The current digital version of the textbook refers to a Civil War general named “William Sheridan.” I believe this is an error, and that the book is meaning to refer to General Philip Sheridan (later announced in this chapter). While I do not see the problematic text here, it is still in the current digital version of the textbook. The sentence I refer to is “…celebrity Civil War generals such as William Sherman and William Sheridan exploited and exacerbated local conflicts sparked by illegal business ventures and settler incursions.”
I am certain that the reference to “William Sheridan” is an error and that the authors mean to refer to Philip Sheridan.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not believe Americans to be exceptional. We are all children of God, and none are better than others, so Americans were not chosen specifically to spread the Gospel.
The term “Mormon” is incorrect. We worship God, not Mormon, so we shouldn’t be called that. We can be referred to as the LDS church, or as Latter-Day Saints.
I am surprised to see no mention (not just in this chapter, but other, related, chapters) of the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). The act and its context provide an important point for discussing AAPI experience as well as the legal structures of American racism.
I see that the Chinese Exclusion Act is named in Chapter 19. It would helpful to add reference here as well, including that it is discussed in greater detail later on.
I believe Bryan served in the US House, representing Nebraska, not “the Nebraska House of Representatives.” Similarly, he was unsuccessful in his campaign for the US Senate, not “the Nebraska Senate.”
typo: poise should read poised
In the reference material section, the Industrial Workers of the World are mistakenly listed as the “International” Workers of the World.
“In the summer of 1886, the campaign for an eight-hour day, long a rallying cry that united American laborers, culminated in a national strike on May 1, 1886.” What kind of sentence is this? It’s like a run-on sentence made of sentence fragments. Should “long” be “rang”?
Nevermind. I get it.
should there be a comma?
The artist’s name is misspelled – should be Snyder not Synder
Paragraph 1 seems to have an editing error, as the second sentence does not make sense.
It should possibly read as follows:
“That year, mired in the stagnant economy that followed the bursting of the railroads’ financial bubble in 1873, rail lines slashed workers wages even as they reaped enormous government subsidies and paid shareholders lucrative stock dividends.”
Honestly the sentence should possibly be broken down into multiple sentences, as it seems like a run-on sentence.
Didn’t laborers at this time work roughly 16 hours a day, 6 days a week? This would calculate to over 90 hours a week, not 60.
From it’s beginnings in the early to mid nineteenth century during the Industrial Revolution to the modern era of today, the labor movement has fought hard forming labor parties and labor laws to give the American worker the rights they deserve. The scene in this chapter shows the defiant labor movement(armless) being chased out by armed soldiers to quell out their demonstration.
[A month of chaos erupted. Strikers set fire to the city, destroying dozens of buildings, over a hundred engines, and over a thousand cars. In Reading, strikers destroyed rail property and an angry crowd bombarded militiamen with rocks and bottles. The militia fired into the crowd, killing ten. A general strike erupted in St. Louis, and strikers seized rail depots and declared for the eight-hour day and the abolition of child labor. ]
I think , the use of armed men to deal with the railway strikers is not the best and killing of innocent people; the best way however is to use dialogue between the workers union leaders’ and the government representative to make tranquility and sanity prevail
The Federal government actively promoted industrial and agriculture development. It enacted high tariffs that protected American industry from foreign competition, granted land to railroad company to encourage construction, and used the army to remove foreigners from Western land by farmers and mining company’s to pave way greater achievements.
Replace “committed suicide” with “died by suicide” or “took his own life.” https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/09/health/suicide-language-words-matter/index.html
Isn’t this five years? 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902
Just a grammatical error. On sentence #4 it should be “among” investors, manufacturers, and retailers, not “between.”
Missing word “it” at the end of the second to last sentence: Republican dominance maintained a high protective tariff, an import tax designed to shield American businesses from foreign competition; southern planters had vehemently opposed this policy before the war but now could do nothing to prevent.
This appears to be the first reference to the Gilded Age, and the term shows up a lot. How about defining it?
I see the error about Bryan has STILL not been fixed. The sentence “He soon won election to the Nebraska House of Representatives, where he served for two terms. Although he lost a bid to join the Nebraska Senate,” is incorrect. He was a member of the US House of Representatives, and was unsuccessful in his bid to be elected to the US Senate. Also, there is no such thing as a Nebraska “house of Representatives” as they have a unicameral legislature.
Industry has its place, but the rich only became richer and the great divide if inequality continues today. Donald Trump.
Social Darwinism is rough, but someone has to be on top.
Social Darwinism should be encouraged, but their should be a limit
[“It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.” ]
Mary Elizabeth Lease
Its scary that they will resort to killing their citizens because of them protesting
Something about this picture makes me uncomfortable…
I’m not sure if anyone can ask this question, and this is not the right place to ask it, but since we’re trillions of dollars in debt with no hopes of paying it back, can we just keep building a debt and forget about it forever with no consequences? If not, is the nation just going to implode? Man, I gotta get outta here.
How can a campaign “in the summer of 1886” “culminate in a national strike on May 1”??
The comments on the 1894 election are inaccurate: their representation in the House declined while Republicans made enormous gains. At most the Populists were threatening the major party status of the Democrats. And why, given the vast literature on Populism since the 1960s (and in just the last 25 years), why rely on Hicks’ very dated work?
Fixed on the website during previous summer edits. Thanks!
Thank you! Fixed in text during previous rounds of edits.
Fixed in text during previous rounds of edits. Thanks!
Changed in text during previous rounds of edits. Thanks!
Thanks, Phil! We have tempered the concluding language here.
Fixed in text during a previous round of edits. Thanks!
a a = remove one of them
In fact, the South experienced a a greater rate of urbanization between 1820 and 1860 than the seemingly more industrial, urban-based North.
independant = incorrectly spelled
The link to University of Virginia doesn’t work, or at least didn’t work for me.
Found a typo, I believe there should only be one “a”
Didn’t work for me either. I googled “The Atlantic Slave Trade and Slave Life in the Americas” and found an archived version of the page at the LOC.
Slaves had become more valuable and expensive.
This paragraph, following Johnson 2013, misidentifies Petit Gulf as Gossypium barbadense. It was G. hirsutum. See Olmsted and Rhode 2018. Petit Gulf was, in turn, bred and hybridized into many other forms – it’s more accurate to state G. hirsutum rather than Petit Gulf became the typical “American” long-staple cotton. G. barbadense does not need to be saw-ginned (roller ginning is still preferred today) and saw gins damage the fiber.
See botanical as well as historical literature for evidence documenting this point (for example https://books.google.com/books?id=CvEhAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=petit+gulf+g.+hirsutum&source=bl&ots=a5PZtJZ9qi&sig=ACfU3U17HVi4LDMyIDDSZ6Qm0iVTKcDP_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMpLC5vbzjAhUBQ80KHbc3BlIQ6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=petit%20gulf%20g.%20hirsutum&f=false
It seems as though this section indicates that the rise of American cotton is directly responsible for the advent of the modern fashion system, which is not the case. “Fashion” – where styles change for change’s sake – has been present since the 1400s. People have been wearing decoration on their apparel that goes beyond utility since apparel was developed.
The use of the word “honest” seems disingenuous as well – all clothing has a function (to cover the body; to differentiate gender, age, status, etc; to protect from the elements…). What does “honest” refer to?
Morgan — and others, including John Thornton — show that those first “20 Negars and then some” were not exactly unfree. Or if they were, they were as “unfree” as poor white indentured servants from England were. Virginia colonists baptized those first 20 men from Africa (who were traded for food). According to English law, a person who was baptized could not be enslaved. This would change, of course. See “The Terrible Transformation,” part of the PBS series, Africans in the Americas.
The story of Anthony Johnson is instructive. He arrived in the VA colony somewhere around 1619. He was baptized and he somehow managed to survive his term of servitude (unlike most in the first generations of the colony — the colony was a death trap). Johnson got his freedom dues and at some point he purchased “head rights” so that by 1655 he owned a modest plantation on which he grew tobacco. That was the year that one of his servants, a black man from Africa named Cesar, sued Johnson for his freedom. Cesar lost. Significant is that the local magistrate not only heard the case between two black men, but less significant is that he ruled in Johnson’s favor.
When I teach Morgan and I pull out this primary source it doesn’t take long for my students to figure out why the magistrate ruled in Johnson’s favor: he was a landowner.
Colonists were still working out how racial inferiority and slavery was going to operate in the colony (and also neighboring colony of Maryland). You begin to see this gradually; but after Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 planters begin to move toward racialized slavery faster and systematically for a variety reasons, not least of which was that they wanted to continue to exploit workers to produce cash crop and at the same time mitigate the possibilities for interracial uprisings against the ruling elites.
[The world was slowly but surely coming closer together, and the South was right in the middle.]
The students in my class at Lehigh University felt that this sentence did not fully communicate how the brutality of slavery underwrote the dawn of globalization.
Replace “violent” with bracketed phrase.
“Of course, tobacco is, and was, an addictive substance, but because of its (violent) [inconsistent, if not diminished,] pattern of growth,”
“yields” instead of “pattern of growth”
“Of course, tobacco is, and was, an addictive substance, but because of its inconsistent, if not diminished, yields,…”
“reduced” for “diminished”
I know…angels on heads of an editorial pen:-)
There is no end to this quote. Where does it end?
The second sentence in this paragraph doesn’t read correctly.
It should be Selina, not Celia, in the paragraph.
The second sentence of this paragraph is incomplete. “Fashion trends no longer required an honest function—such as a broad-brimmed hat to protect one from the sun, knee-high boots for horse riding, and linen shirts and trousers to fight the heat of an unrelenting sun.” Might I suggest changing it to, “Fashion trends that no longer served their original purpose—such as a broad-brimmed hat to protect one from the sun, knee-high boots for horse riding, and linen shirts and trousers to fight the heat of an unrelenting sun—lost popularity at an astonishing rate.”
The second sentence should say “The revivals of the Second …” instead of “The revivals the Second …”. As it is currently stands, the sentence does not make sense.
Should be one “a” instead of “a a.”
You need an “of” see above.
If the value of land is static, it would not increase. The next sentence contradicts this as the value of the land increases from $600 to $100K over 25 years.
The sentence “This, most importantly, allowed for the maintenance of cultural traditions, such as language, religion, name practices, and even the rare practice of bodily scaring.”
I believe the author meant “bodily scarring” or “scarification” it was probably a misspelling.
Also I was unable to find other references to this “rare practice” and suggest that it be cited or removed from the text.
This sentence closes a paragraph that is focused on the power balance of global trade, and not a statement on the moral values or brutality of slavery.
A good fix would be changing “Fashion trends no longer required an honest function…” to “Southern fashion trends no longer required and honest function…”
I agree that the original senetence was overly broad.
I think you are confusing Robert E. Lee’s slave in the photograph (paragraph 60) with the slave “Celia” who was raped by Robert Newsom as described in paragraph 59. I think the original text is correct.
Please ad the word “of” in the second sentence as described in previous comments.
This comment applies to Paragraph 45.
The statistic on the percentage of enslaved people in the South appears to be incorrect. The total population of the South (free plus enslaved) was 12,240,293. This means that enslaved people (3,950,511) made up about 32% of the total southern population. The figure of 45% in this paragraph seems to have been derived by dividing the enslaved population by the free population, not by the total population.
As the other person has stated, the word should be “scarring,” not “scaring.”
In the America other natural significant is paddy.A wee authored yap_i mean a gammae having to do it” is India Kerala. Where ther is no ion or money a sun- and some signs man abod these ways in the state.Serfiklin asks+this” I open to you a boat and rouym: Ask how Parker you bet troug this pebble as if it’s missisipi.Monoree I say. Often.. you play ibe it’s even rhymne..
So it’s mustard.. an ellocine seems while you fill from West therse torries that may spin top”!.. How you Phillip a word of premlinece to take me purse?(now the American sleeps)/ Since I say capinmcee” you bother your brother and not me mud .Jin in th cark”_₹….
However margenitly who is wit ever even say brother: gets bothered and we meet.
The revivals OF the Second Great Awakening established the region’s prevailing religious culture. –This sentence needs the word “of” added.
[Led by Methodists, Baptists, and to a lesser degree, Presbyterians, this intense period of religious regeneration swept the along southern backcountry.]
This sentence is out of order as well. Along and the need to be switched.
I noticed the word scaring, which should be scarring. There are no references for this sentence, however, so either the text should fix the spelling, or remove the reference to scarring in its entirety.
[and the South was right in the middle.]
On the text book version it say, “and slavery was right in the middle.” This creates confusion. Did you mean “slavery” or “the South?”
Please fix this typo.
textbook* and says*
This paragraph fails to note that Gavrilo Princip was a member of Black Hand. It also suggests that Austria-Hungary was aggressively seeking to annex Serbia, but ignores the expansionist “Greater Serbia” ideology of Black Hand, as well as the role of Austria-Hungary in supporting the Obrenovic dynasty over the then-ruling Karadjordic Dynasty.
This here says that Lodge’s opponents managed to block entry into the League of Nations. How can this be so if Lodge himself was an opponent?
Should it be: “Wilson’s opponents successfully blocked America’s entry into the League of Nations” not Lodge’s opponents but Wilson’s?
“Victor Huerta” should be “Victoriano Huerta”
It should be the “Austro-Hungarian Empire,” not the “Austrian-Hungarian Empire.”
should be: “Lodge’s supporters” not “Lodge’s opponents”
It says that Pres Wilson was the First to travel overseas while in office. This may be misleading, as Teddy Roosevelt traveled to Panama in 1909 during canal construction.
While he didn’t cross an ocean, “overseas” is commonly understood to mean outside the country, especially if it involves water travel.
consider replacing “overseas” with “to Europe” or “outside the western hemisphere” or “across an ocean”
“be” should be inserted between “a” and “fatal” in the following sentence: “Although much of the equipment still needed to make the transatlantic passage, the physical presence of the army proved to a fatal blow to German war plans.”
There needs to be a section in this or the next chapter on the Red Scare. It astounds me that there is no mention at all of Abrams v. United States (1919), and the great dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
[The army and navy chose to appoint them instead, which left the status of professional medical women hovering somewhere between the enlisted and officer ranks.]
Appoint them to what? The sentence is unclear.
Lodge’s opponents successfully blocked America’s entry into the League of Nations,
I think you want to say “Lodge’s opposition”
I love American Yawp but this chapter is a little disappointing. The Introduction and Conclusion suggest a leap directly from WWI to 1929 and WWII. I think that it should reference the US emerging as a world power as a creditor nation and the immediate post-war prosperity of the US.. The chapter should mention resistance to US entry and the draft by Eugene Debs and others. What new countries emerged in Eastern Europe? What were final casualty figures in Europe (not just France)?
Thank you for all your work.
Surgeon General of the Army be capitalized.
And the sentence needs to make clear these numbers are for American soldiers
Reports from the Surgeon General of the Army revealed that while 227,000 U.S. soldiers were hospitalized from wounds received in battle, almost half a million suffered from influenza.
This last name is spelled incorrectly. It’s correct way is Zimmermann.
Yes, José Victoriano Huerta Márquez
Perhaps a word is missing from “But in the 1880s, as Americans embarked on empire…”
Reading about this chapter was very interesting but different in contrast to ww2, the chapter regarding ww2 talks about the mass genocide of jewish people enacted by the nazis, but in the chapter regarding ww1 it never talked about the genocide of nearly 1.5 armenian people by the ottoman empire, which needs to be talked about.
The word “the” is written twice in a row:
As part of the the armistice, Allied forces followed the retreating Germans and occupied territories in the Rhineland to prevent Germany from reigniting war.
At the end of the paragraph. one thousand National Guard members(?), soldiers(?). Definitely not units.
What about the draft in the Civil War? I don’t think “solely” is the best choice of words here. 🙂
I have two concerns with this paragraph.
1. The connection between the second and third sentence makes no sense if you don’t explain how the restrictions on Black soldiers were framed. Since you don’t make that clear, there’s no reason for the reader that restricting privileges of Black soldiers would be connected to soldiers being “tempted by European vices.”
2. My students won’t understand the reference to what I assume you mean by “the traditional recreations of soldiers at war.” (Do you mean soldiers forming romantic relationships with local women? Paying local women for sex? Sexually assaulting women? It’s truly unclear.) I recommend a more straightforward (and less retrograde) approach.
Decimated millions? I think the text should specify that World War I decimated the populations or caused a massive loss of life across the involved nations and their neighbors.
I feel it is significant enough to mention in this paragraph that the ultimatums given to Serbia from Austria were intentionally impossible to fulfill.
Thank you for pointing out the odd transition there. Fixed. Thanks!
Fixed in text in summer 2021. Thanks!
Thank you. Fixed in text during earlier edits.
The sermon was delivered in Enfield, Mass/Conn., not Northampton.
The line “15 to 20 percent of Pennsylvania’s colonial population was enslaved by 1750” is not supported by the reference, which shows that approximately 2% of PA residents were enslaved.
I believe the two women are named “hypocrisy” and “deceit”
My students have been pretty confused by this paragraph b/c it makes little distinction between trade regulations pre-1764 and post-1764. Seems like there should be at least some mention that the Sugar Act was in large part about better forcing existing duties through Admiralty courts, etc.
Unclear which of the particular regulations listed were passed in 1705 and which came earlier.
Georgia was founded by a philanthropic group, known as the Georgia Trustees. Oglethorpe was just one member and it is incorrect to label him the founder. The Georgia Trustees banned slavery.
I noticed a small error in the American Yawp version of Gibson Clough’s War Journal.
Here is a short quote from the current Yawp version of Gibson Clough’s War Journal:
“Here begins the New Year 1700”
The actual version on the Essex Institute Historical Collections in the Internet Archive cited below the online version on this cite reads:
“Here begins the New Year 1760”
The last sentence repeats the House of Burgese’s Slave codes and I find the last sentence redundant.
This is really quite vague and dated. First, Fred Anderson’s excellent Crucible of War has become the go-to book for the French and Indian War. Second, there has been much recent scholarship on American colonists — both wealthy speculators and their agents (Washington was one of these agents) — giving land grant in the Ohio Forks region. These grants were what spurred the French to build forts, and this in turn provoked the English to respond. The Yawp text here is grossly over-simplified; especially considering that conflict between British administrators and American land speculators and squatters will be one of the major reasons for the Revolution. And we know this because it says so in the Declaration of Independence.
Alan Taylor, American Revolutions.
Colin Calloway, The Indian World of George Washington.
While I have enjoyed reading the information provided, I believe that Queen Anne’s War (1702-1713) and King George’s War (1744-1748) also need to be included into the text. These two wars not only assist in laying the foundation for the French and Indian War and showing continued conflict between the two empires, but also shows growing frustrations with the colonists and the British crown. The treaties of Utrecht and Aix-la-Chapelle could both be seen as a slap in the face of the colonists who fought hard to win territory, only to have to return it to the French.
Wow Now I am starting to understand how we as americans became the worst at creating a society of consumers who love to create waste.
This is a generally nice chapter, but the key concept of “salutary neglect” is notably absent. The concept is particularly relevant when considering the consequences of Britain’s imposition of taxes following the Seven Years’ War.
The British were subjects until 1948, not citizens.
This whole section is confusing. My students are coming away thinking that the Seven Years War was about religion. Which it wasn’t.
The colonists were not calling themselves Americans at this point, at least not in the sense that modern students interpret that word to mean. What about the Catholics in former French areas? Native Americans? “British colonial subjects in the Americas” would be more accurate here.
Being able to produce their own goods probably made it easier for them to survive.
[Britain relied on the colonies as a source of raw materials, such as lumber and tobacco. Americans engaged with new forms of trade and financing that increased their ability to buy British-made goods. But the ways in which colonists paid for these goods varied sharply from those in Britain]
So having these goods the colonist had to pay based on trading other goods? Is this how financing started?
The slave trade which took affect as The Act Prohibiting the Act of slaves was legal and took place as cargo ships were being shipped across to give permission to seize any ships and confiscate cargo.
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 15 1 Beginning with the Sugar Act in 1764, and continuing with the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts, Parliament levied taxes on sugar, paper, lead, glass, and tea, all products that contributed to colonists’ sense of gentility. In response, patriots organized nonimportation agreements and reverted to domestic products.]
The Sugar Act of 1764 was commonly disliked by colonist when they raised taxes on this because it helped make rum which they favored which was a trade export in their country. I would consider this fair because I mean when you have a popular item its all about supply and demand. You must raise prices to keep stock.
Very interesting catch.
Oh wow this is something I did not know. I wasn’t born in Georgia, but have grew up in Georgia and feel like I have learned about Georgia history and this is something I probably overlooked to know if it was taught to me.
Even back then a woman did not have control over her own body. The rituals of having to marry young and be a housewife is mind-blowing that at a point in time women had to be okay with this. I’m glad eventually more and more women were able to assert control.
This was a major war known as French and Indian war. I believe it ended as the Treaty of Paris. To know this was a costly war that eventually lead to trading to keep up.
Until I read this i unknowingly assumed paper money became when “jobs” formed. Knowing the system of notes were developed first is interesting. So was .this like a “book keeping” or was it just a note the person was given and whoever they gave it to it just took their word it was good? Anyone know?
I agree with you here and in the same breath I feel they could have put a limit to the amount each consumer was able to buy. We resort to constantly raising pricing to keep supplies coming, but then we have greedy three person household buying in bulk when supply is low. I think about the toilet paper shortage in 2020 and I recall reading a facebook post of a woman who had over 200 PACKS just stored in her garage just for HER!
This was in response to Gabrielle Smith’s comment, I apologize.
This section in particular is confusing to some students. It discussed the Seven Years’ War in the section discussing Pontiac’s War. Furthermore, the final sentence discusses the excitement of newly acquired lands west of the Appalachian. However, because of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, settlers were restricted from settling these regions. Earlier in this paragraph, this proclamation is mentioned as sparking discontent, but then the final sentence seems to disregard it. This is rather confusing for some readers, especially students.
I don’t think Among Us existed in colonial America
yes it did.
“Nuclear” is misspelled. In addition, the sentence might be better structured by writing as follows: “J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory…
Soured should be soared – first sentence
Please ignore this. I’m studying for a final and forgot that “soured” is actually a word.
Paul Robeson was an American Actor and singer, not signer.
Same as above comment. Typo
Wernher von Braun should not be referred to as a “former top German rocket scientist”. Instead, he should be referred to as a “Nazi rocket scientist”. This reference is more conducive to maintenance of the truth.
The end of this paragraph mentions “containment” for the first time. What that means is never defined anywhere in the chapter.
the cold war grew out of failure to achieve a durable settlement.
The political landscape was altered drastically by Franklin Roosevelt’s sudden death in April 1945, just days before the inaugural meeting of the UN. Although Roosevelt was skeptical of Stalin, he always held out hope that the Soviets could be brought into the “Free World.” Truman, like Churchill, had no such illusions. He committed the United States to a hard-line, anti-Soviet approach. ((Harbutt, Yalta 1945).))
potsdam conference- discuss fate of soviet occuped poland.
*manhattan project- learn atomic bomb sucessfully tested. truman told stalin.
atlantic charter- churchill and roosevelt issue a joint declaration for post war peace. Established the creation of the united nations. (Soviet union, US, britain, frnace, china)
This plan also set in motion the p-lanning for a recognized globl economy. The societs rejected these ideas.
United States invested $13 billion toward reconstruction
Unless inflation adjusted historic sums are not that meaningful. For instance, the AIER cost-of-living calculator shows that $13 billion in 1950 would be the equivalent of $137 billion in 2019.
[To avoid the postwar chaos of World War I, the Marshall Plan was designed to rebuild Western Europe, open markets, and win European support for capitalist democracies.]
The Marshall Plan was designed to avoid the postwar chaos of World War II, not World War I.
When including words from foreign languages; I believe the actual translation of the word should be included. In this case “détente” is translated by google drive as “relaxation”.
Should be World War II here, not World War I.
There is absolutely no such thing as “Fusion Explosives.” I suggest either dedicating a full paragraph to the distinctions between fission and fusion, or, the removal of this subject altogether rather than providing false information.
I think more clarification is needed for your total deaths number of 1.5 million. This may be too low. I was always taught that this number was likely closer to 3 million and have seen estimates as high as 5 million. I know how difficult this can be (and unfair in most cases). However, if you could add more clarification (based on your source listed – Elizabeth Stanley) on how the 1.5 million number was arrived this would be most appreciated. Thank you. Professor Andrew J. Klosterman, History 1620, Rhodes State College, Lima, OH.
Insert space between NAACP and “and the ACLU.”
Insert “pact” after “Hitler’s and Stalin’s 1939 nonaggression”
This chapter would be much improved if it addressed the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The latter represents a high point of the Cold War and was a central cause of detente.
Nuclear is misspelled. This was first noted on December 4, 2018 and still has not been corrected?
In “the cold was a global political and ideological struggle between…” the author forgot to add the commas. In a list of 3 or more concepts, there has to be 2 commas.
WWI is correct – though it is oddly phrased.
It is implying that the Marshall Plan was created as a way to ensure Europe would not see the same issues that had occurred after WWI.
WWII would only be correct if ‘to avoid’ was changed to ‘to fix/rebuild.’
This sentence is confusing and hard to read. The quotations make it difficult to decipher how the beginning and end of the sentence connect. A simple fix would be to remove the “as” in the phrase “as U.S. officials…” and insert a when at the beginning of the phrase “fighting erupted in Korea.”
The sentence “One of the most well-known Americans of the time, African American actor and signer Paul Robeson…” should read “…actor and singer…”
This conclusion (graphs 78 & 79) is not really effective, given that it discusses a phase of the Cold War that isn’t even adjacent to the time period discussed in the chapter. If you’re going to look forward, why not focus on what’s right around the corner with the Vietnam Era, which has important foreign policy and domestic dimensions, just as this chapter bounced the foreign and domestic develops off each other from the end of World War 2 to the late 1950s.
There have to be other spots later in Yawp for a broad assessment of the Cold War’s end.
History teacher from Maine here. I think Senator Margaret Chase Smith and the Declaration of Conscience deserves mention somewhere within the story of Senator McCarthy. Especially in the context of a woman in politics speaking out.
Signing the affidavit would have indicated he was not communist
There appears to be no mention of the Suez Crisis in this chapter. Adding some commentary might be helpful.
Thank you for a great textbook!
Ted Curtis, Syracuse NY
Fixed. Thank you!
Fixed in summer 2021 in the main text. Thanks!
typos: James Peale’s name and “responsible” are spelled incorrectly
Should say: roles as wives and mothers, not as mothers.
Additionally: typos as listed above.
Shouldn’t the Republicans actually be called the “Democratic-Republicans,” since the actual Republican party wasn’t started until the 1850s to combat slavery?
“White supremacist” – presentism
“white supremacist” wasn’t a title/term used during that time period, should be changed to “white superficial beliefs/assumptions” or something of the sort
Replace with was
David, the verb should be the 3rd person plural “were.” It should agree with the subject “some,” which refers back to “changes” in the previous sentence. The verb should not agree with “victory.”
It sounds as if Lawrence is commanding his men to surrender, and the sentence must be re-read to be understood.
This is clearer: Yet the Americans did not give up. Lawrence commanded them, “Tell the men…
Did the authors mean to use the United Kingdom in this paragraph?
[As the decades passed, white Americans were forced to acknowledge that if the black population was indeed whitening, it resulted from interracial sex and not the environment.] I think it is immoral of this textbook to call it “interracial sex.” It was rape and sexual violence perpetuated on Black women.
Every time Federalist is mentioned, it should be replaced with Democrats, or Liberals. They’re basically the same.
No – “were” is correct, since the subject (“some”) is plural.
George Catlin’s surname is spelled wrong in the second sentence (Catlin instead of Caitlin).
Awkward first sentence. Tecumseh convinced people from the Northwest and Northeast probably.
The above errors persist two years on.
“Not soon thereafter, Tecumseh fell…” soon probably be “Soon thereafter…”
Wasn’t William Henry Harrison the territorial governor of INDIANA and not Illinois, as is stated in Yawp?
The read aloud version uses “Democratic-Republican” instead of “Republican”.
Rape between two different races is still interracial sex.
Shouldn’t this colon be a comma as the clause the precedes it is dependent?
I’m glad they were able to actually consider freeing people of color. The punishment seems cruel and unfair. I wonder what exactly made them want to limit these restrictions after so long.
Why did it fail in Haiti? Exactly what could have been a different outcome for this?
I never knew Haiti was so inspirational to African Americans. I think of Haiti as a poor country that literally had nothing so to learn that they were inspiring makes me feel happy that blacks had someone to look up to.
a term that defines as a term whites heard as a mispronunciation by African Americans.
So how did they go about this overtime? If he was originally black then was he white to them or did they have any limitations for him? The changing of the color of the skin reminds me of what Michael Jackson had happen to him. So even back then this was something that occurred during the time.
That is exactly it. The medical condition that I’m sure has occurred.
Women being able to teach their children the true value of independence was very important. I think it would be good for every mother to teach their child the importance of growing up and learning survival skills.
[Impressments, the practice of forcing American sailors to join the British Navy, was among the most important sources of conflict between the two nations.]
Many Americans were fond of the British army. If many Americans joined then why was it so hard to release them? What was so hard about the Royal Navy?
That is a huge drop in numbers. In just a matter of a year Jefferson putting many people into the deep depression must have really had a major impact. How did they overcome the depression? What was some ways or what was affected during the depression?
I read where it said in 1812 that US went into war with Great Britain for the first time…Is this correct? Or was the declaration itself just signed and they officially declared war.
Roads being built was the best decision ever created. This probably created many opportunities for Americans. How long did it take before they were to start and be done with this project?
The inclusion of the phrase “salutary neglect” in this paragraph or in paragraph #9 of the same chapter referencing British colonial policy would be helpful. The phrase can help students name the colonial policy more succinctly and provides a utilitarian short form for them to use in writing/referring to the time period.
Thank you all–the Yawp is everything good about academics!
Just a style thing: “throughout the colonies” appears twice in quick succession and three times in this paragraph. 11 times in the chapter total.
This paragraph is confusing. The previous paragraph says, correctly, that the Tea Act exempted the EIC from having import duties applied to its Tea. So the the phrase “colonists would be paying the duty” needs clarification.
In other words, needs clarification that EIC did not have to pay import duties but purchasers of tea still had to pay standard duties on their purchases.
[in the colonies]
This seems redundant as the sentence begins with “Colonial”
“Colonial political culture in the colonies”
This is redundant, it should be “Political culture in the colonies” or “Colonial political culture”
This and the first sentence of Para 48 that the duty had to be paid when the ship was unloaded are confusing. Para 46 says the tea was without duties; para 48 said duites had to be paid.
There doesn’t seem to be any mention of the indigenous peoples who sided with the Americans during the conflict. This perpetuates the misinformed notion that Native Americans only aligned with the British, which effectively wipes them out of American history, as well as those peoples’ claims to helping shape American history. By including that Native Americans also sided with the Americans (which included members of the Oneida, Narragansett, Passamaquoddy, and Wappinger communities and tribes, among others) it presents students with a more complicated version of the past. The fact that the new nation did not honor its wartime relationships with those tribes, and the fact that some of those communities remained along the east coast and endured to this day adds further complexity to our understanding of the past and its legacy on the present. See Colin Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country, and Eric Grundset (ed), Forgotten Patriots: African American and American Indian Patriots in the Revolutionary War for more on this
“with almost fifteen million pounds of it *in* stored in warehouses” typo in this sentence. First “in” does not belong
In the second quoted phrase from Benjamin Rush, the first person should be eliminated and replaced with third person with verb agreement in order to maintain pronoun consistency within the clause.
Replace “emotions that I cannot describe” with “emotions that [he could not] describe”.
“The founding fathers instigated and fought a revolution to secure independence from Britain but they did not fight that revolution to create a democracy.” That was probably the primary reason they fought. To have a democracy. What other reason did they fight except to get free from Britains tyrannical rule and set up their own democracy? That statement is just nonsensical.
britain isnt real :/
Typo in caption: “as as”
What did Benjamin Rush mean when he said, “Upon seeing the King’s throne in the House of Lords, he felt as if he walked on sacred ground, with emotions I cannot describe”?
Publication date is in the future:
Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. New York: Knopf, 20056.
[legislative resistance by elites, economic resistance by merchants, and popular protest by common colonists.]
The America revolution did not occur, life is a fallacy.
“Age of Revolution” the time era where a mixture of social, cultural and economic occurred in Europe and some parts of America.
Britons? Are we talking about Britain’s or was there some form of different spelling?
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a document that was issued by King George III to claim British territory after they had won the seven years war. This was considered valuable land .
Every time I have read about the Stamp Act it has mentioned that it applied “even” to playing cards.
Could we either leave out the “even” or explain it in a bit more detail?
“The American Revolution was a global.”–Sentence fragment.
This paragraph says: “The ladies of Edenton were not alone in their desire to support the war effort by what means they could. ” But here there is not yet war. This is just after the Boston Tea Party and before the Coercive Acts.
How did nonimportation and nonconsumption help forge colonial unity?
Why were the four acts referred to as the Intolerable Acts?
Why Howe wanted to capture the new nation’s capital.
What made the British believe that the South enjoy more popular support?
What was the goal of the Revolution?
There is no conclusion for this chapter. All of the other chapters so far, have one.
This chapter absolutely needs a detailed recounting of Jackson’s Indian Removal policy, culminating in the trail of tears. It’s a huge whole in what is presented in the chapter.
The Trail of Tears is mentioned later in chapter 12, but I agree with Ryan that it would be far better to include that information here. Perhaps it could be briefly recapped in chapter 12 but presented in depth here?
I’d love to add a sentence either here or in paragraph 10 that connects to the image in terms of the rise of political parties and, well, partying and campaigning.
Is this the place to mention the spoils system/rotation in office? Postal clerks were generally the only source of hard currency, especially in the frontier so the democratization of gvt. work regardless of qualifications sets up the bank war.
Can I make a suggestion for an additional entry to the Recommended Reading section? Stephen Campbell has recently published a monograph on the Bank War with the University Press of Kansas. It is one of the few monographs to come out on this subject in the last forty years and it is also one of the most detailed. I do believe that reading this monograph closely will improve the section on the Bank War for this chapter. Thank you for your consideration.
The date range in the title of this primary source should read “1819-1820,” not 1920 as appears here and on the page with the document itself.
[ He defended the impulsive general, arguing that he had had been forced to act.]
Her first husband never committed suicide, an autopsy later revealed he died of pnemonia.
The members of the Boston and Lynn Female Antislavery Societies were hardly considered “respectable.” They were mobbed, ridiculed, and race-baited. New England clergymen disputed that “both men and women” should speak out against slavery, as did many abolitionists. In emphasizing the middle-class status of some abolitionist women, this paragraph misrepresents the movement as part mainstream “middle-class culture,” which was not at all the case in the 1830s.
AY chapter alludes to some of these issues and cites much of the relevant literature. This paragraph contradicts that information.
AY chapter 10, that is
I realize that the topic is Democracy in America, but a major section on the Jackson Administration is missing. I am referring to the section dealing with the Native Americans. I believe that the topic should be included in Chapter 9. Jackson’s interactions with the Native Americans does show his character of the times, and his conflict with John Marshall and the Supreme Court, his concepts for the executive branch and his dealing with judicial l branch.
The rest of the chapter is very well done and useful in class. The documents, especially the veto message is important.
The year is incorrect on the source as well as the document. It should read 1819-1820.
This is the most messed up and negative textbook I have ever read. It is full of opinions and not the professional technical writing expected of a textbook and tries to tell the reader how they should feel about certain subjects. It hardly covers any positive aspects of american history while filling the reader full of negativity as to the dark past of the US. We get it. The past had a rocky and not so great foundation.
JQA’s election and presidency needs more than a passing glance. At least, mention that he named Clay as S of State, which was essentially designating him as the perceived successor, hence the “corrupt bargain.” Also – Martin Van Buren and the Tariff of Abominations are directly linked to the Nullification Crisis. Why no discussion of how he used is position in the House to completely derail Adams and set-up Jackson?
Jackson was a transformative president, for better or for worse, but I think this is rather… much. And yet, not enough. The fact there is no discussion of his Indian Removal policy and his reaction to Cherokee v. Ga is disappointing.
My previous comment was supposed to be on Paras 32 and 33. 🙂
When the Missouri Compromise was engineered, largely by Clay, he was a member of the House of Representatives and speaker of the House. He was not a senator at the time, though he was a senator before and after his terms as representative and speaker.
I feel like the text should be more formal and specific when refering to the duel between Jackson and Dickinson in 1806. Saying simply “that backcountry Kentucky duel” seems more informal and takes a stance of the situation, which a historical resource arguably should not.
Is there anything constructive that you would like to add, Bob?
Dawg did you just plug your own book 😭
whats good raymond
Sometimes the truth hurts Bobby Boy.
The Whig Party only “elected” one more president– Zachary Taylor. He died and was replaced by VP Fillmore. In the context of discussing the limited success of the Whigs, this hairsplitting matters all the more.
This first sentence is factually wrong: “the Whig coalition drew strength from several earlier parties, including one that harnessed . . . The American Party was the recipient of the later Whig demise, not a party from which the Whigs “drew strength.”
Live long comrades and rid the world of there nazi Ukrainians.
I was wondering why there wasn’t a conclusion for this chapter
There is no mention of the Indian Removal Act or Trail of Tears, which is infamous during Jackson’s years as president. There should at least be a mention of it somewhere.
Yes, please. Include a conclusion for consistency’s sake.
it didnt even work…smh
maybe please don go
In an open-book exam, I asked students to describe the difference between indentured servants and enslaved workers, and many students went to this paragraph to seek an explanation. The inclusion of “tithable” is confusing to students, and while this point in the legal history can be clarifying for scholars, it makes no sense to readers in an introductory survey course. Also, I never found a clear statement of the distinctions between indentured servants and enslaved workers, but maybe I have missed it.
It might be more useful to include this specific reference to the notion of an African woman being “tithable” in a footnote, but to state the legal status of enslaved people more plainly.
The Old Plantation has been attributed to John Rose, and is more closely dated to 1785-1790.
I think the Gallay reference should be in an endnote?
Unnecessary “the” before “even the Welsh”
The Quinnipiac River and the Connecticut River are entirely separated by the Metacomet Ridge. They are not part of the same valley.
Super weird that we say “powerful planters” for black people. pretty high key racist, also weird in the text it says “enslaved laborers” but when I click the edit feedback section it says “slaves” as it should. they were slaves. call them slaves, dont try to rewrite history so it isnt as bad. this is not history
The first paragraph is confusing. It talks about all the eighteenth century wars, and then in a later paragraph says, “By the eighteenth century, colonial governments discouraged the practice…” Is there a better way to write this so we can delineate the point you’re making?
How is there any difference between “enslaved laborer” and “slave”? The only difference there is a matter of syllables.
I think, Snyder, Christine. Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. would be a great addition to this section!
I see two others have already made note of this error, but as it has yet to be removed, I feel that it is necessary to point it out once more.
“or the even the Welsh”
“or the even the Welsh”? “or the even the Welsh”??? Shouldn’t this be, “or even the Welsh?” Or perhaps just omit the “even” entirely.
The Glorious Revolution was not a peaceful coup d’etat. It gave rise to intense warfare in Ireland, part of the imperial metropole, between James II and William III of Orange. Can this be amended?
[manufactured as pretenses]
I think high school students will have trouble understanding what this means.
[By the eighteenth century, colonial governments often discouraged the practice, although it never ceased entirely as long as slavery was, in general, a legal institution.]
Unclear what practice is being discouraged. Can easily be misinterpreted that claiming land is the discouraged practice…
The term enslaved laborer could be confused with indentured servant. An indentured servant is not the same as a slave.
I would have to agree with you on this statement. It’s history so of course the terms didn’t make much sense.
If this were the proper term, why even have them? If they were good for nothing obviously they were good for something.
[I can’t think there is any intrinsic value in one color more than another, nor that white is better than black, only we think it so because we are so.” ]
One of the best quotes I have come across. No matter the color whether black or white one is not better than the other. We are all equal in each others eyes.
The government was once controlled by King? If so how was that able to work when we have different forms of government to successfully succeed.
I did some research on your response it seems like the Quinnipiac river is located entirely in Connecticut BUT it’s about 153 miles from the Connecticut river. So about 2 hours in travel time.
Being able to pay for their own land and gain as much for each family member I’m sure gave them minority to create a family farm and access to gain and grow crops to sell and make profits.
Slave ships were the main course of transportation for African Americans. They were chained like stated and often very crowded due to the amount of slaves they have had aboard.
This plan was created as a separation of land. It was like a peace offering for colonies that William Penn created.
I remember learning about this in high school. I believe it was a time where settlers were trying to get rid of Native Americans in Virginia. It lasted about a year. I do not know why a pig would have been something to argue over, but I guess it made sense to them.
I’m confused so are we also correcting grammar in the text? I see other responses regarding “welsh” and how its placed.
Mormon should be changed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This was and still is the real name of the religion.
Spelling correction: runaway
honestly taught me nothing, horrible website, never to be used again. #disapointing
This is a very shallow summary of the life of Joseph Smith and the impact he had on religion in America.
A few clarifications—the rites he instituted in the temples were not “secret” as it says. They were held very sacred to members of the church, and were not to be shared outside the temple because of its sacredness.
When this mentions polygamy, it mentions nothing about why it was instituted among members of this church —the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (not the “Mormon Church”). Polygamy was very distasteful to most members of the church. They were only willing to participate in it because they believed it was a commandment that god restored once again—a commandment which he had given to many other biblical prophets. Joseph Smith never claimed ownership of the idea of polygamy, but that he received divine revelation and commandment from God to institute it among the people for the purpose of accelerating the growth of a righteous people. This is why they did it, not because they were experimenting sexually.
The way this paragraph is worded is mildly offensive
Also, Joseph Smith did not borrow the idea of sending out missionaries from the Methodists. He was a prophet who drew upon revelation from God, not from existing religious organizations. He also drew inspiration from the New Testament, The Book of Mormon, and from revelations given to him (since he was a prophet) which are now compiled and known as the Doctrine and Covenants.
It is Mary Lyon
NOT Mary Lyons.
Please show more respect towards The Church Of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. There are many things people say about the church that are not ture. I hope you don’t want to be like those people.
Yes the churches name never started as the name mormon.
Please add at the end of this paragraph that polygamy is NOT practiced by Mormons anymore. It is widely misunderstood that past polygamy practices by Joseph Smith and his followers are still popular today, when they are not. It is actually forbidden in Mormonism. It is specifically stated in the Mormon document “Family: A Proclamation to the World” that marriage shall only be between one man and one woman.
Thank you for this, Tyler. I strongly agree. I think this paragraph was offensive, and it made it seem that polygamy is still being practiced by Mormons today. Many people nowadays have the misconception that it is, when it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN against. You are right about Joseph Smith. He was confused and lost before he went into the forest and received revelation from God. The Godhead gave him the knowledge that he needed, which he used to found Mormonism.
Please include in this that polygamy was not practiced by Joseph Smith or any other member of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for SEXUAL REASONS. Polygamy was only practiced by said members in order to help and provide for sisters in need. ALSO, as asked by current prophet Russell M. Nelson, it is asked that Mormons be referred to as “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” because, we are christians and do not worship Mormon.
“Many of these different types of response”
CHANGE TO: “Many of these different types of responseS”
or “Many of these different responses”
–> Add and -S to “response”
Voluntary should be an adverb –>
BTW, I’m a big fan of the textbook and all. I use it for school. Do you have a merch shop online? If not, I highly recommend that you should open one.
“Increasingly, for example, abolitionists aided runaway slaves established international antislavery networks to pressure the United States to abolish slavery.”
Should be an “and” in between slaves and established? Or somehow indicate they’re two different things.
Mary Lyon! Lyon not Lyons! Anyone who visited Mount Holyoke will know this.
Hello to another historian product of Mount Holyoke?!
In addition to the others’ points, I would like to add that most early members did not have multiple wives. If they did, they usually only had one extra wife and that was because the church asked them to take another. Also, the people who had lots of wives did not necessarily consummate all of their marriages, they only had children with a fraction of their wives. The other marriages were for caretaking.
Also, the others have said this, but please add something in here about the fact that plural marriage has been discontinued for over a century in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which does not include the split-off sects, which are not part of the Church. This text seems to imply that plural marriage still continues in the Church, which it most certainly does not. I should know since I’m a member.
Lastly, in the following paragraph, the term “sexual experiments” is insulting, designating 1800s Latter-day Saint plural marriage as a sexual experiment when it required immense sacrifices that very few, if any, of us will ever understand. The emotional, mental, physical, and financial stress of caring for so many family members is likely impossible for the average modern American to understand.
Please view and address the comments for paragraph 14.
I think it would be more accurate to say “human decisions” here rather than “human action.” Methodists, Baptists, and most other Protestant groups emphasized the role of belief, not behavior, in salvation (though behavior was seen as a product of belief) — the conversion experience or moment of commitment was prioritized over actions.
“Mormon” is a nickname created by the public for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In recent years they have reinforced their correct name to the public and I think that it would be wise and respectful to change from “Mormon” to their full name.
I agree to what everyone else has said. Please make it correct as other forms are VERY DISRESPECTFUL to us and our beliefs.
At the end of the paragraph it is mentioned that “in their understanding resort lost” BUT IT IS TRUE. Please do not assume we are wrong. it is rude and does not belong in a history book
ALSO JOSEPH SMITH was a Prophet, but he is not the FOUNDER of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jesus Christ is. That is why we ask to be called by the true name of our church and not a nickname given to us originally by those who persecuted us. Thank you.
Worship in the temple is not secret, but rather sacred. Please do not make it seem like we are a cult. We are not
Again, as stated, ‘sexual experiments’ is DISRESPECTFUL AND DEMEANING. Please do not refer to something you don’t understand as such. We did not use Polygamy for that purpose. Just like Abraham in the Old Testament did not. Please make this correction.
The last sentence of this paragraph has a typo. explained that the residents of this area had experienced so many revivals by different religious groups that that there were no more souls to awaken to the fire of spiritual conversion
The term “Mormon” began as a derogatory term for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While in the past it has been embraced for convenience, yet does it detract in an unfair way to the beliefs of those people, namely that they are Christians attempting to worship in a way that the surrounding culture opposed, primarily for reasons such as enabling blacks and women to hold positions of authority.
Mahan was arguably the most influential American strategist of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. It would be helpful to include a selection from his work, “The Influence of Sea Power upon History” in the primary sources for this chapter.
This paragraph basically reproduces the content of paragraph 39.
“For instance” used twice in close proximity. Consider revision.
Perhaps: “In spite of their christian motivations, some Missionaries worked alongside business interests. American missionaries in Hawai’i, for example, obtained large tracts of land on which they started lucrative sugar plantations.”
I think the topic of Hawaiian annexation needs to be addressed with more detail. Sanford B. Dole, King Kalākaua, The Bayonet Constitution, Queen Liliuokalani and other details deserve to be discussed.
The separation of Panama from Colombia took place in 1903, not 1901.
Could put the time period of when the chapter takes place in the introduction. Ex: 1990 – 2000
Please consider adding more information about Puerto Rico. In this and most other history books, it is simply listed along with Guam and the Philippines as the spoils of the War of 1898. It ignores the fact that unlike the Philippines, Puerto Rico has remained connected to the United States, with a proscribed citizenship since 1917. The US-PR relationship has left the island in limbo since the Insular Cases defined as being “foreign in a domestic sense,” and it faces the same problem in academic history. It is neither claimed by Latin Americanists, nor by United States historians. It is time to acknowledge the intrinsic connection between the US and PR, its imperial nature, and its catastrophic consequences.
I HATE this picture! Just tired of constantly having to see this!!!!!
Caption is misleading (or just wrong): Although Philippines, Porto Rico (i.e. Puerto Rico) and Cuba had been controlled by Spain, Hawaii and the Isthmus of Panama had not been. Hawaii was an independent country before annexation and the isthmus was part of Colombia and we intervened so that Panama could be independent of Colombia (but beholdened to the US). The date of the cartoon, 4/26/1914, places it shortly after the completion of the Panama Canal on 4/1/914.
Navy And Military titles are supposed to be capitalized.
All branches of military are to be capitalized.
I agree that more on Puerto Rico. My students get a lot out of the Philippines information and documents. I would love to see similar inclusions for Puerto Rico, either here or in a later chapter.
It seems somewhat relevant that the US ambassador to Mexico before Woodrow Wilson came in office was a supporter of Huerta/tacitly encouraging Madero’s removal due in part to Madero refusing to listen to US orders.
[the United States expanded on a long history of exploration, trade, and cultural exchange to practice something that looked remarkably like empire. ]
… and provided nitrogen compounds that were required to manufacture explosives for military and industrial uses.
. . . had a competent but lackadaisical managerial style that allowed Roosevelt a great deal of freedom, which he used to network with such luminaries . . .
Eliminating the repeated use of “Roosevelt” hear makes the sentence smoother and easier to read.
Just noticed a typo here: should read, “Expansionism” (vs. Expanionism).
This would be a good spot to drop in information about the Platt Amendment.
If not in section III, then this would be the place to drop in the Platt Amendment. It’s pretty standard history for the post-War of 1898 Cuba.
A document from the Congressional inquiry on how the Filipino-American War was conducted would be a nice addition here.
It feels like a massive oversight or lie by omission to discuss the impact of American trade with Asia without mentioning Perry’s gunboat diplomacy in Japan during 1853. It’s an explicit example of the fusion of American trading policy and American military power and it’s completely on topic for the idea of the roots of America as an empire. Please consider adding this topic to the text.
Updated during previous edits. Thanks!
Fixed in text in summer of 2021. Thanks!
Updated in text during earlier edits. Thanks!
Great suggestion! We’ll consider that when we next update the reader.
The bibliography seems to have been pasted twice.
Americans goal was coming true: “that the United States would become a diverse but cohesive prosperous nation”
new nation was having difficulties and tried to resolve them by putting emphasis on “unity and cooperation”
Even the Constitution was controversial and tried to strengthen the government to help resist internal conflicts
farmers were in a great debt in western Massachusetts and was increased by weak local and national economies
farmers were afraid of getting shut down by their creditors so they fought for their property
soldiers helped fight as well
The farmers and soldiers were named the “Shaysites”.
They were led by a veteran named Daniel Shays
They resorted to tactics used by the patriots before the Revolution
governor, James Bowdoin believed that the Shaysites ere rebels who wanted to rule the government through mob violence.
Didn’t we learn that Abraham Lincoln made thanksgiving a national holiday??
I believe you need to expound more on the New Jersey plan to the students. After all, prior to the Great Compromise the delegates debated for two weeks over a bicameral (Virginia Plan) and a unicameral (New Jersey Plan). At least give the credit to the person that presented it to the Convention, William Paterson.
This would be a great place to discuss more of the Bill of Rights. All in all you have barely provided a sentence to what Rights the Bill protects. Especially in today’s political climate and the fact that a majority of High School students do not understand the Bill of Rights, namely the ninth and tenth amendments.
what was the illuminati scare?
The final statement, “this compromise also counted a slave as three fifths of a person for representation and tax purposes,” does not accurately represent the Constitution. This “compromise” counted three-fifths of a state’s enslaved population, not three-fifths of an individual.
Technical error – Unnecessary parentheses at the end of paragraph
On paragraph 20
Jewish Americans did not have rabbis yet in the early republic.
This needs to be reworded. The Constitution expressly says that the slave trade will end in 1808, but the paragraph claims it ended for those reasons. The way it is worded makes it seem like the writers of the Constitution had some prescient knowledge of the future, i.e. “These three things are going to happen in 1808, so we will allow the slave trade to continue until then.”
Shouldn’t this be “imprisonment?”
I believe your right they came about the 19th century.
Very thankful for these holidays and a time where most can spend it off work and with family.
[In 1786 and 1787, a few years after the Revolution ended, thousands of farmers in western Massachusetts were struggling under a heavy burden of debt.]
Shays Rebellion was the cause of all farmers debt crisis. This gave an opportunity to collect taxes and trades on individuals. Farmers of course were not happy of this.
So each state had to pay back debt? I wonder how much debt each state initially were in.
[The Virginia Plan, therefore, proposed that the United States should have a strong federal government. It was to have three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—with power to act on any issues of national concern.]
I feel like U.S needed a strong federal government because this could help the national government regulate fair trades through the nation.
Women did not have rights to vote or have a say because they weren’t considered citizens. This would be a very hard time for me to live because I am indeed a women and I’m a human whose living just like any male. This was intentional and unfair, but I guess back then you really did not have a choice.
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 92 0 By 1800, therefore, President Adams had lost the confidence of many Americans]
Having to be disappointed in Americans shouldn’t really be their fault. Didn’t John Adams have many health problems as well..
I believe there were many conspiracies’ to the illuminiti scare that no one really knew what was true and what was not. This lead to fake stories being told nor having to trust others.
George Wallace did not by any means embody conservative views, he was a typical, racist liberal democrat. This needs to be changed immediately. This skewing of history books to fit an agenda bullshit needs to stop. Write the history as it happened. Stop being assholes, thanks. The democrats are the true racists from the beginning. They always have been and will continue to be.
The most prominent pre-UFWA Latino rights group after WWII was the GI Forum led by Hector Garcia. They first broke into national prominence by their support for Felix Longoria, a WWII fatality whose family was denied waking rights in the local chapel in Three Rivers, Texas. This greatly expanded their reach as they organized Latino vets all over the country to fight for GI Bill and voting rights. They were successful in these fights and even got the first Latinos appointed to high office as a result of their political support of Kennedy and Johnson with the Viva Kennedy and Viva Johnson clubs.
They should have a paragraph of their own in the 1950s chapter, but at least a meniton in the line in front of MAPA and MALDF.
Paragraph 68 and 69 are in a smaller font size than the paragraphs that follow.
In the recommended reading list there are no books about the Vietnam War.
I think to point out that this was likely part of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage. Women’s Strike for Equality– Aug. 26 is not a random day,
See comment above
Part of a nationwide protest to mark the 50th anniversary of women’s suffrage.
Women’s Strike for Equality.
Aug 26th is not a random day
caption to picture:
I am not sure it makes sense to refer to
represented different civil rights strategies
black activism? efforts for racial justice? The wording implies Malcolm X was part of the CRM.
I would Black Freedom Struggle, yes.
CRM was a specific movement — so no
With the introduction of Malcolm X already as “the late Malcolm X” it would be helpful to give birth and death dates immediately in parentheses after his name, or at least add something like “Prior to his assassination in 1965” in place of “prior to his death.”
If you are going to include a document by Goldwater (which I think you should), you need to mention the 1964 election in the text.
I know there is a passing mention in the previous chapter–but students aren’t going to find it.
You probably also need to describe Wallace’s victories in 1964 and 1968.
What about a document from Young Americans for Freedom?
Is there a reason not to refer to this wing as “liberal”?
Is there a reason not to refer to this wing as “liberal” and taking a page from the NAACP?
I meant this for paragraph 70. You need to mention the creation of NOW in paragraph 70–otherwise we don’t know what it is in paragraph 73.
In this paragraph, (72), I think you need to introduce the term “radical feminist” AND refer to activism and groups–like Redstockings or Miss America protest or rape crisis and anti-domestic violence centers—otherwise they sound like all talk and no action
I respectfully suggest that your characterization of the work of the PCSW, which was the brainchild of progressive Democrat Esther Peterson, not Eleanor Roosevelt–who was appointed its head because of her work on the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN CSW, as designed to “ameliorate the types of discrimination primarily experienced by middle class and elite white working women” is inaccurate and more reflective of the ideas and goals of the minority feminist group at the time–known as “equal rights feminists” whose most well-known organization was the National Woman’s Party. Most of those tapped to serve on the PCSW were progressive labor feminists and civic activists concerned with helping ordinary American working women and had long track records of support for the labor movement and Black civil rights. Prominent among them for example were historian, civic activist, and Howard University professor Caroline Ware, Pauli Murray of the NAACP, and Dorothy Height of the National Council of Negro Women. The work of Landon Storrs and Dorothy Sue Cobble among others is of note on this front, as is the collection of letters between Ware and Murray by Ann Firor Scott. Even Flora Davis, cited here, does not claim that the PCSW ignored the concerns of working-class women. I’d be happy to work on a rewrite of this paragraph to remedy this mischaracterization if my efforts would be welcome.
I’m considering adopting this resource in place of the traditional textbook I’ve been using but this paragraph gives me pause. Mostly I very much like what I’m seeing so far.
Associate Professor of History
Piedmont Virginia Community College
I don’t think the immigration laws of 1965 and subsequent changes are addressed at all in this chapter or anywhere else in late 20th century chapters. Please include at least a paragraph!
What exactly was the Bay of Pigs Invasion and why was it considered such an embarrassment for the Kennedy administration?
[Bay of Pigs invasion did much to legitimize the new regime and was a tremendous embarrassment for the Kennedy administration.]
[The tone of the modern U.S. civil rights movement changed ]
There was a new direction of the Civil Rights movement being led by activists and advocates of the movement. From the Greensboro sit-ins, Freedom rides, The Albany Movement to the Christianity Faith. That faith led to a call to action for many black Christians. Pushing the movement from a law bearing to a moral movement against evil.
[Violence served as a reminder of the strength of white resistance to the civil rights movement, particularly in the realm of education.]
The fear of seeing blacks educated was astounding. To keep someone from the desire to learn is inexcusable.
[King’s national reputation and featured powerful photographs and video footage of white police officers using fire hoses and attack dogs on young African American protesters. It also yielded an agreement to desegregate public accommodations in the city: activists in Birmingham scored a victory for civil rights and drew international praise for the nonviolent approach in the face of police-sanctioned violence and bombings.]
A showing of force and evil towards those without resistance shed a different light on what was going on and what peaceful marchers where up against and the was unprovoked hatred towards a group of people with reason or cause.
Some formatting inconsistencies with text size. The paragraph “American environmentalism…nuclear pollutants.” appears smaller that the the rest of the type. This issue appears only when visiting the webpage, and not when viewing the text through the feedback feature.
Septima Clark? Fannie Lou Hamer? Bernice Robinson? Ella Baker?
I understand the movement must be shortened for brevity but surely ONE female civil rights leader could be mentioned in something other than the supplementary reader.
It should be clarified that “Vietcong” is not the actual name of the National Liberation Front. The term “Vietcong” is seen as offensive by some, as it is often used derogatorily. In the Yawp, the official names of nearly all groups is used for them. This should not be any different for the National Liberation Front. Nonetheless, it may be helpful to note in the passage that the National Liberation Front is sometimes referred to as the Vietcong: “…South Vietnam stumbled before insurgent National Liberation Army ([known by some as]/[often referred to as] the Vietcong).
Somewhere in here, a discussion of the immigration reform would be helpful, given its impact on American identity and politics in the late 20th/early 21st C. There is also no mention of environmental reforms made by Johnson admin.
The 1937 strike at GM in Flint, MI was not “the first instance of a ‘sit-down’ strike.” It’s debated which was the first sit-down strike in US labor history, but many cite a brewery workers strike in Cincinnati in 1884, or Akron, Ohio rubber workers strike in 1936. The 1937 sit-down at Flint was probably the most historically significant sit-down strike, but not the first use of the tactic.
Honestly, this needs to be two chapters – one on the Depression and a second one on the New Deal. Combining them doesn’t allow sufficient emphasis on either.
During the New Deal, the Immigration and Naturalization Service — under the jurisdiction of Frances Perkins’s Department of Labor — halted some of the Hoover administration’s most divisive practices…”
It would be more organized and easier to understand had the information been kept in chronological order as it is confusing that it swings back and forth to different years and it would be helpful to state years in parameters such as “Between the years 1929 thru 1940’s” The Great Depression ….etc at the intro of the chapters. Have a section on Key points of the chapter would be ideal as well.
The section on the New Deal is displaying as one lonnnngggggg paragraph in the static version. Some one needs to check the code and insert some<p>s. It is an an overwhelming amount of information with lots of acronyms that are confusing in and of themselves.
23. The Great Depression
On the sentence beginning “he spent the months,” in the online version there is an aside about the Twentieth Amendment. It reads “the twentieth amendments, ratified in 1933, would subsequently the inauguration from March 4 to January 20.” I believe the word move should be after subsequently.
Incorrect organization title–it was the International Labor Defense.
thats it? theres 2 mentionings of the supreme courts effect on fdrs plan on this page (one later), not nearly enough. dont half ass it.
The text in this chapter is displaying in different font sizes, and it includes in-text citations. The citations in themselves aren’t bad, but are a departure from your convention elsewhere in AY.
Just a comment on font size for this chapter. The font sizes are all over the place. Would be easier to read with standardized font sizes. Thank you.
It seems that there might be multiple versions of this chapter accidentally and simultaneously published. For example, there are two paragraphs in the “Lived Experience” section that repeat the same idea about women in the workforce. The font size changes throughout the chapter. Finally, the chapter as published doesn’t match up with the chapter as it appears on this feedback page.
The font changes sizes like 3 times throughout the page.
The introduction I’m seeing here to the left is different than the one in the regular text but, in any event, this sentence has a typo:
Soon they all were depleted. Unemployed workers and cash-strapped farmers could not defaulted on their debts, including their mortgages.
The name of the organization was the International Labor Defense, not Legal defense.
Some mentioning of how unpopular FDR’s court packing was within his own party, especially in the Democratic-dominated Congress, would serve as a refreshing reminder about how distinct checks and balances were in an earlier age, and how, despite the political power of one party, and the popularity of a president, democratic norms were abided.
Updated. Please let us know if you notice the problem again!
I suggest a word change in this sentence:
Immigrant communities published newspapers in dozens of languages and purchased spaces to maintain their arts, languages, and traditions alive.
Either remove the word “alive’ or change the word “maintain” to “keep.” Such a change will improve the readability of the passage. Thank you.
This paragraph should mention and define patronage so students reading this will wonder why in the world machine bosses engaged in these types of “mutual aid” activities.
There is a typo towards the end of the paragraph:
“A Russian Jewish family persecuted in European pogroms…” should be programs.
“Pogroms” is the correct word here. A pogrom is an organized riot/massacre. I’ve only ever heard the term used in this specific situation, where Europeans planned the wholesale destruction of a Jewish community.
The supposedly “new South” grew in industrialization but remained heavily segregated giving the worst jobs to African Americans
Lynching was fine in the South if members believed that an African American made a crime they would publicly kill them
Presented the KKK as vigilantes that assist the community -> romanticized the KKK
The South grew in constructing Railroads
John D. Rockefeller was the richest man in America but also hated & mistrusted because many believed that he got his money illegally by immoral business Clergyman Washington Gladden protested to accept the 100,000 Rockefeller donated to the American Board of Commissioner for Foreign Missions because he didn’t trust his dirty money
The board president Samuel Capen did not defend Rockefeller but he did say it was a gift and they can’t asses the origin of every donation but the debate shook Capen
The tainted Money debate that Gladden had with the board of commissioners and the rising income inequality rose concerning questioning about the morals of the new industrial United States
Religions were confused with who they would support either the or the disempowered?
Steel Magnate Andres Carnegie popularized the idea of a “Gospel of Wealth” which was the rich to donate to charity to make up for the inequality of of income between the rich & Poor.
Eventually American Churches adapted themselves to the new industrial order Even Gladden who debated against Rockefeller’s money started to accept it
Meanwhile many churches questioned the COMPATIBILITY of large fortunes with Christian Values
The economic and social changes of the late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth centuries challenged traditional norms
the increase in urbanization,immigration, and advancements in Science and technology, patterns of consumption and the new availability of goods and awareness of economic inequality brought a drive to make change traditional gender and sexual norms
Many women carried campaigns that lasted long int the past fought for equal rights
Many women became activist and targeted municipal reforms, launched campaigns and above all HIGHLIGHTED the suffrage movement
Urbanization and immigration fueled anxiety for old social mores and created tension for these old policies and so called “norms”
The unpredictability of urban spaces created opportunities for in particular female sexuality and for both male and female sexual experimentation. Along with this a spectrum of orientations and gender identities
Young women who went against social norms such as premarital sex where considered feeble minded: they lack the normal ability to make conscious decisions. Some women would even be considered clinically insane rather than them making a decision willingly
Woman fashion changed as well by loosing physical constraints like corsets and ad hemlines rose (Length of dresses)
While many women fought for equality others worked to uplift each other. Women’s work against alcohol increased the temperance into one of the prominent moral reforms of the period
Middle class typically protestant women dislike alcohol because of their feminine virtues,Christina sentiment and protective role in the family and home.
Jane Adams and settlement house workers sought to include a middle class education on immigrant and working class women through the establishment of settlement homes
Other reformers shared a “scientific motherhood”-> the science of hygiene was deployed as a method of to both uplift and moralize particularly of working class and immigrant women
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s shorty story “The Yellow Wallpaper” challenged the social role of women and she criticized( the Victorian psychological remedies: the ways doctors practice therapy)
While women are working towards equality man are worrying about their masculinity and their role in society neurologist George Bared even coined a medical term “neurasthenia” for a new emasculated condition that was marked by depression,indigestion,hypochondria and extreme nervousness
Churches worried that women would influence the church and change the image of Jesus as a strong carpenter to a mushy and sweetly woman like man this was said by Walter Rauschenbusch
Muscular Christianity sought out to strengthen young man. churches even created gymnasiums to strengthen their boys. Young Men Christian Associations who coined the term bodybuilding and other invented the sports of basketball and volleyball. These organization were built to strengthen young man.
I think it’s to increase there’s ego or “Masculinity”
Muscular Christianity was about even more than building strong bodies and minds
Age men were encouraged to embrace a particular vision of masculinity connected with rising tides of nationalism,militarism and imperialism
During the Spanish American War in 1898 Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough riders idealized the image of a tall,strong, vile, and fit American
Roosevelt and others believed this image of masculinity would preserve the American Race’s superiority against foreign foes and the effeminizing effects of civilization
Luna Park one of the original amusement parks on Brooklyn’s famous Coney Island Attracted Amusement Hungry Americans
Between 1880 ans 1920 Vaudevillla featured comedians,musicians,actors,juggler and other talents that could captivate an audience
Vaudeville was considered a family friendly entertainment even though the made racist jokes on African American and immigrants
The renowned Palace theatre in New York City signaled true stardom for many performers Charlie Chaplin and Magician Harry Houdini made names for themselves on the Vaudeville circuit
Edison pioneered two technologies the Phonograph and motion pictures. It revolutionized the world. it became a device for music and other factors
Edison thought it was going to be used for dictation,recording audio letter,preserving speeches and dying words of great men, producing talking clocks, or teaching elocution
By the turn of the century American were purchasing phonographs for home use
Phonograph parlors were places where people could pay a nickle to heard a piece or music
Edison decided in 1888 to develop an instrument which does for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear
The inventions are called a kinetograph and a viewer a kinetoscope. Many entertainers purchased this device all over the world. It drew many from arcades to movie theaters.
Most of the content that was displayed was boxing,baseball, and even Indian dances. The content only last for a couple of minuets
Designers of the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago built the White City in a neoclassical
This type of style for the buildings, walkways, and landscapes brought more than 27 million people to Chicago helping to establish the ideology of American exceptionalism
After enduring four bloody years of warfare and a strained, decade long effect to reconstruct the defeated South, the United States abandoned itself to industrial development. Businesses expanded in scale and scope.
during this time the US started to change socially. Industrialization took over. The South Jim Crow Laws decreased the US started to change and create more opportunities
Spellling error. In 2nd part of sentence, ‘ Rose Cohen was born in Russia in 1880 as Rahel Golub. She immigrated to the United States in 1892 and lived in a Russian Jewish neighborhood in New York’s Lower East Side. Her, she writes about her encounter with the world outside of her ethnic neighborhood.’. It should be ‘Here’ not ‘Her’
I’ve already posted this but it seems to disappear. Anyway, it seems a bit strange that a site sponsored by Stanford seems to be snubbing the most recent work of one its most talented historians, Dr. Richard White. Although you have included the Middle Ground in Chapter 2 and It’s Your Misfortune in Chapter 17, Railroaded and The Republic for Which it Stands are essential reading for Chapters 16-18.
I feel that in this paragraph, that along with the mention of the film Birth of a Nation, that it should also be mentioned that it was the first film seen in the White House. Just to show how high up the KKK got in this country at the time.
“Former one-term Georgia governor Jimmy Carter…”. This is true, but it implies that Carter lost his run for a second term. He was term-limited so he couldn’t run. I would strike the reference to one term.
Robert F. Kennedy was killed, not Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his son.
The paragraph ends with the word detente” with a closed quote sign. Just a typographical error.
Would be useful to mention the Equal Pay Act specifically.
The last 2 sentences read “Americans cringed at Nick Ut’s wrenching photograph of a naked Vietnamese child fleeing an American napalm attack. More and more American voices came out against the war.”
Surely the photograph in question should be included, at the very least, in the Primary Sources that accompany this chapter.
In regard to the photo “The Soiling of Old Glory,” Ted Landsmark was not a black teenager. He was a civil rights lawyer. His assailant was a white teenager. Consider: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/03/12/soiling-old-glory
In regard to the “Soiling of Old Glory,” please note that the victim, Ted Landsmark, was not a black teenager but an adult Civil Rights lawyer. His assailant was a white teenager.
outlaw motorcycle club
To my knowledge Ted Landmark was a civil rights lawyer, and 30 years old when the picture was captured. The protester could possibly have been in his teens.
Robert F. Kennedy was killed in June of 1968, not Robert F. Kennedy, his son.
Not Robert F. Kennedy, Jr* typo.
The final sentence in this paragraph implies that the Stones knew that Hunter had been murdered and that they played on anyway. There’s no need to make the situation worse than it was. They did not know that Hunter had been murdered. Even flipping the clauses would help some: “As the Stones played, Angels stomped Hunter’s body into the ground.”
Nixon visited China in 1972.
Merle Haggard’s “Okie from Muskogee” is likely satire and should be treated more like it is in this passage. Mentioning Haggard as confronting the counterculture through this song would not be fair. Haggard said that “We wrote it to be satirical, originally, but then people latched on to it and it really turned into this song that looked into the mindset of people so opposite of who and where we were.” The first line of the song says “we don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogee” and this is coming from Haggard, who was known to smoke marijuana. If Archie Bunker is accurately said to mock revolutionary middle-aged white men than Haggard’s satirical song should be treated in a similar tone.
This paragraph is a different size font than the rest of the page.
The end of the paragraph should be fact-checked. Wasn’t it a South Vietnamese napalm attack? I’m not an expert, so I’ll leave it to someone else to verify that, but if that was the case, the text should be clarified in some way.
A sentence about US v. Nixon would help bring in the Supreme Court’s role in the Watergate investigation. An additional sentence about the how the system of checks and balances, as well as that of the press, corralled the abuse of executive power would help highlight the significance of the event, especially as readers engage in the material having lived through two Trump impeachments.
You are right! Thank you for the correction, which we’ve applied to the text.
Last sentence doesn’t make specific reference to Haiti. Might be confusing for some…keep up the great work!
Please add John Brown’s first name and some short description of him to the caption beneath the painting of him.
[white men regardless of status would gain not only land and jobs but also the right to vote,]
“Regardless of status” should have commas around it, as it is an appositive.
This reference to antiquity — with no qualification — obfuscates qualitative differences between ancient slavery (based on frequently ephemeral war booty) and modern race-based chattel slavery. It is as if a discussion of the Nazi Holocaust began by noting that there has always been mass murder.
It ought to be made explicit that the balancing act specifically concerned the number of states in the Senate.
The clause, “pandering to appeals to white supremacy,” incorrectly conflates our modern idea of racial views with the past.
Many pro-slavery voters and abolitionists agreed that whites were inherently superior to other races. Therefore “pandering to white supremacy” does not add a distinction. I think this sentence is unnecessary and misleading by suggesting that abolitionists and republicans believed the races were, or should be, equal.
This sentence should be removed as it blurs the distinction between what the republicans advocated (anti-slavery) and modern views of racial equality. The sentence also does not add historical context or substance to the article.
“stole” on sentence 4 should be stolen
it is correct grammar
This and the next several paragraphs repeat far too much of what was already covered in chapter 9.
This misses most of the Democratic agenda, which was crucial in building the party and attracting supporters — limits on the federal government’s economic role, pushing for hard money, supporting immigration, etc.
“aided by gag rules” – by a gag rule first passed in the U.S. House in 1836
This paragraph and the next overlap — in fact repeat one sentence.
This and the preceding two paragraphs mis-state the process by which the Free Soil Party was formed. After the Democratic and Whig conventions, dissatisfied elements from both parties (Conscience whigs and Barnburner Democrats) joined to create a third ticket. They attracted some of the former Liberty Party supporters.
“Antislavery feelings continued to run deep, however, and their depth revealed that with a Democratic Party misstep, a coalition united against the Democrats might yet emerge and bring them to defeat. ”
This is a gratuitous and ex post facto type of statement.
This paragraph claims that “Douglas had a number of goals in mind” but only mentions the railroad. Beyond this he believed that citizens deserved statehood, rather than territorial status. He also believed that popular sovereignty had solved the conflict over the Mexican territory and thought it would do the same for the Nebraska territory. the result was a disaster for the Democrats, causing the birth of the Republican party and huge losses in the 1854 elections.
This is a very misleading description of a complex back-and-forth. “Kansas voted”? There were competing constitutions and legislatures. Then the federal government attempted to bribe Kansans to accept a slave constitution. This was a fundamental violation of democratic norms.
No – Buchanan didn’t talk with Taney; he had written earlier to Justice Catron.
The decision was not just that blacks couldn’t be citizens, it was that they were therefor property, and thus could not be prevented from being transported.
This is a very thin description of a vital and complex debate. Douglas “pandered” but he emphasized democracy and opportunities for whites. Moreover, he created the Freeport Doctrine as a salve to antislavery forces. To say that Lincoln was “on the defensive” is both inaccurate and completely neglects his bold assertion about a divided house and for the economic equality of all men. His arguments here made him a viable candidate for the presidency.
The important point is that Douglas’s arguments in the 1858 senatorial campaign made him unacceptable to southern Democrats.
fix “InIn” in the beginning of paragraph 67
At the beginning of the paragraph, there is an extra “In” at the beginning of the sentence.
There are two “In”s
I’m writing on behalf of an undergraduate class of students at Rice University, who suggest:
“We would suggest elaborating on the final phrase ‘in the hands of those who opposed it.’ It’s an incredibly nebulous phrase that fails to identify the full scope of massive resistance to desegregation, and leaves it to the reader to assume who the opponents of integration were. The photographs demonstrate resistance, but one way to incorporate it into the text would be to cite the Southern Manifesto. Several high profile political figures including all but three southern senators were a part of the aforementioned massive resistance, and they should be identified (for details on this and their names, see James Patterson, Grand Expectations, Page 398). This will improve the narrative by telling a more accurate picture of how Brown v Board was received by the country.”
In paragraph 67, there is an extra “In” at the beginning.
Recommended citation for this chapter is incorrect as it reads-
Recommended Citation: Edwin C. Breeden et al., “The Cold War,” James McKay, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).
[Boiling v. Sharpe ]
The case that is referred to is not Boiling v. Sharpe, it is Bolling v. Sharpe.
[ InIn the 1930s, the economic ravages of the international economic catastrophe knocked the legs out from under the intellectual justifications for keeping government out of the economy]
The inclusion of two “In”s at the beginning is a typo.
[InIn the 1930s, the economic ravages of the international economic catastrophe knocked the legs out from under the intellectual justifications for keeping government out of the economy.]
A suggestion I have is to include the word “the” between keeping and government.
I know you have to careful not pack too many names in, and I think it wise to include Joanne Robinson and the Women’s Political Council.
From wikipedia, quickly, the point that she “stayed up mimeographing 52,500 handbills calling for a boycott of the Montgomery bus system with the help of the chairman of the Alabama State College business department, John Cannon, and two students.”
Including this event allows for a discussion of “social media” of the 1950s, establishing women at the heart of organizing the movement, AND emphasized how many people were involved (I would include the estimate of the number of people who boycotted the buses and stress they were average people: maids, teachers, janitors).
Double “in” at the beginning of this paragraph
Link is broken
Browder v. Gayle was decided in June 1956–so the connection between the Court decision and the end of the boycott is a bit more complicated
The citation should read:
Recommended citation: Edwin C. Breeden et al., “The Affluent Society,” James McKay, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).
and not have “The Cold War”, as that is the previous chapter.
Great suggestion. We added Joanne Robinson’s work into the text.
Updated. Thank you!
[In 1919, the UNIA announced plans to develop a shipping company called the Black Star Line as part of a plan that pushed for blacks to reject the political system and to “return to Africa” instead.”]
I see that there is an unnecessary quotation after Africa at the end of this sentence, but please let me know if it is there on purpose.
In the 6th paragraph of the primary source, on the 4th line, the word “the” is not spelled correctly. There is also an “s” in the middle of the sentence, where it is supposed to be attached to the end of the word “it.”
Secretarty of the Navy Edwin Denby was never convicted and was never sent to jail. Please reference the Denby Family Papers in the Library of Congress Database.
This chapter does not mention anything about Native Americans becoming citizens of The United States for the first time ever.
If mentioned, please disregard.
Caption is wrong. It should be National Woman’s Party not Women’s. Plus it it is pretty poor caption. They implies ws was won by the NWP alone. What is the purpose of the tea party?
last line: an America (not American) riven
I think it would interesting to have a section on the Buck v. Bell (1927) case, as well as the eugenics movement more broadly. It’s hard to know where to put it, but my best thought is here, right after the paragraph on immigration quotas.
Eugenics always fascinates my students, especially because it was embraced by people on all sides of politics, who were in favor of all types of causes. It’s hard to decide whether it was the darkest manifestation of social Darwinism or the darkest manifestation of progressivism.
Remove the final quotation mark.
Remove the last sentence, that is 100% opinion and not history.
Did anyone ask? No. No one cares about bias. Darrow did eloquently fight for academic freedom, and you can’t do anything about it. Too bad so sad!
This paragraph would be more useful to students in Chapter 18 with maybe an extended discussion of Wanamaker’s and Macy’s. It could be substituted here in Chap. 22 by a discussion of Helen Landon Cass (“See them their dreams and you won’t have to worry about selling them goods”) and Bruce Barton/The Man Nobody Knows in order to cover an update of consumerism for the 1920s.
Nickleodeons were gone by the 1920s.
The Ku Klux Klan is still an active terrorist organisation in America that did not dissolve after any of the periods listed here. Even if this paragraph doesn’t explicitly state otherwise, I think it’s important to be clear that groups like the KKK are not relics of the past.
Fixed in text during earlier updates. Thanks!
Fixed in the official text in an earlier update. Thanks!
Is this what’s now called Oregon State, or the Oregon Territory?
Verb tense should be changed in sentence #2 of this paragraph. It should read:
“This treaty ceded lands in Georgia for $5 million and, the signatories hoped, would limit future conflicts between the Cherokee and white settlers.
In paragraph 29, there is an extra word that should be removed. It says:
“Not every instance was of removal was as treacherous…”
The first “was” in that sentence should be removed.
In the sentence that begins “Not every instance…” in paragraph 29, the transition “while, on the other hand,” does not seem to fit well. This sentence might be better divided into two sentences, with some minor changes also made to the sentence that follows. Perhaps:
“Not every instance of removal was as treacherous or demographically disastrous as the Cherokee example. Furthermore, tribes responded in a variety of ways. Some tribes violently resisted removal. Ultimately, over sixty…”
The periodization with this is awkward. Manifest Destiny is best dealt with as a Western phenomenon. Indian Removal should be dealt with earlier under the Age of Jackson. Placing it here makes this chapter longer than it need be, and confuses the issues here.
Change “America” to “the U.S.” for political and cultural correctedness.
The purpose of manifest destiny was to move people out west. It was needed to further America.
Seizing the native Americans land was very wrong. President Jackson and the government forced them out.
I thought that ‘familial responsibilities were a great addition to the romantic vision of life they discussed We associate selfishness and greed with the westward expansion, and there were some terrible things that occurred like the driving out of the native Americans. Yet, this gives us insight and empathy into those moving west for a greater life.
o sullivan, a man with big balls; and larger breasts was quite fond of scat
The sentence, “On January 24, 1848, James W. Marshall…” would make more sense if it were placed after the first (1st) sentence of the previous paragraph.
“If the great draw of the West served as manifest destiny’s kindling, then the discovery of gold in California was the spark that set the fire ablaze. On On January 24, 1848, James W. Marshall, a contractor hired by John Sutter, discovered gold on Sutter’s sawmill land in the Sacramento Valley area of the California Territory. Most western settlers sought land ownership, but the lure of getting rich quick . . .”
I agree, but nobody ever said it was right (in the book). This is a history textbook. History is ugly, we just have to learn from our mistakes from the past.
It makes no sense to include Coeur D’Alene and Tombstone — which developed in 1883 and 1877 — in this section dealing quite clearly (and reasonably) with the pre-Civil War period.
I fully agree
[dozens of slates]
minor typo – should be “slaves”
Text Says Tauten, Maine (which I don’t think has ever existed). The referenced source clearly says Tauton, Ma.
Correct to “and a new, more-commercial”
The 5th sentence should read, “through institutions such as the House of Refuge in New York City…”
Which period? Perhaps provide a date or timespan, as that would help give context
‘They earned cash for what they had previously consumed; they purchased the goods they had previously made or went without.”
They earned cash for what they had previously consumed; they purchased the goods they had previously made or gone without.
Change But to However,
The initial vestiges of industrialization appeared in the United States in 1790, when Samuel Slater opened a British-style textile factory in Rhode Island.
While most historical accounts place the start of the full-scale American industrial revolution at either 1820 or 1870, factory labor and entrepreneurial innovation, such as the Slater Mill, were the driving forces of industrialization.
Second to last sentence, locus should probably be replaced with focus.
“Prostitutes and con men could look like regular honest Americans.”
Equating sex workers to con men is distasteful in our current social state. Sex work is still work and should be respected as such. Making sex workers the antonym of “regular honest Americans” is distasteful.
I would suggest just saying con men and leaving “prostitutes” out so you don’t disrespect sex work in order to get the point communicated.
Sex is good
Most sex workers have been trafficked and coerced. It is illegal in most states. There are several organizations that work to help men and women (and children) to escape this industry.
I know talking about “liberalism” is alway going to be imperfect, but the phrase “economic liberalism” here is especially apt to be misconstrued. Instructors like myself take the time to peel back common (and historical) misuses of the term liberalism, and usages like this have the potential to undo some of that work.
This chapter should be titled “THE TRIUMPH OF THE CONSERVATIVE” or “THE TRIUMPH OF RIGHT-WING POLITICS” or something similar. The current title implies the correctness of those who triumphed, by labeling them merely “RIGHT.” I realize this is not your intent, but when writing for general audiences, it is important to consider how particular words and phrase might be misinterpreted.
Par. 20 line 9: “County” should be “country.”
This paragraph ends with a close quote which is not matched by an open quote, or part of a quotation. I recommend deleting the close quote.
Speaking to Detroit autoworkers in October 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described what he saw as the American Dream under Democratic president Jimmy
This chapter should be called the Resurgence of Conservatives, Triumph is final and implies a judgement.
I do not see how this is a slim majority for Reagan, he wins overwhelmingly in the electoral college and wins the presidency by 10 percent. I think it is unfair to call this a slim majority and reeks of political posturing
Small nit-picky thing, but in the last sentence, “headwinds” seems confusing. The domestic and foreign policy catastrophes in question may have been headwinds to the Carter administration, but syntactically the “ship” they’re supposedly aiding here is the conservative movement, bringing it to shore. But headwinds would hinder, not help a ship reach the shore. Suggested revision: “After years of mobilization, the domestic and foreign policy storms of the Carter administration provided the tailwinds that brought the conservative movement to shore.”
I realize this may sound like nitpicking but the formatting of multiple AY chapters in the post-1877 section is inconsistent. Font sizes and spacing change over the course of the chapter, this one included. Sometimes it’s obvious that a paragraph has been cut and pasted in because it repeats content from a previous paragraph (in addition to having different formatting). The point is that this visual disruption makes the whole text seem less professional and less trustworthy. I love AY and want to support you in making it as excellent as possible — thanks for your attention!
Please clarify that sovereignty over the canal was returned to Panama in 1978 but control over operation remained in the US’ hands until Dec 31, 1999. Current emphasis enforces conservative bias that Carter “gave away” the canal.
The last two sentences are misleading. Black household income increased 84% from 1980 to 1990. White household income increased 68%. That’s a greater increase for African Americans; however, your second sentence makes it seem like the disparity increased rather than decreased.
Thank you. We have tried to fix this wherever it occurs. If you find any instances we missed and can identify them specifically, that would help. Thanks!
You’re absolutely right! Great catch. Fixed.
Thank you for the clarification!
I don’t think this is a “photograph” like it says it is.
the south was right
You just need to insert the opening parentheses before “Peace Democrat” at the end of the paragraph 🙂
The characterization of Douglas as pro-slavery is misleading and confusing. While Douglas’ personal position on the slavery question remains up for debate (see Graham Peck’s Making an Antislavery Nation and Adam I.P. Smith’s The Stormy Present for contrasting perspectives) the fact that mattered at Charleston in 1860 was that he had taken a moderately anti-slavery stand over Lecompton– thus alienating Southern Democrats. The Douglas Democrats failed to adopt an explicitly pro-slavery platform at Charleston and stuck to popular sovereignty (with all of its ambiguity). For clarity in this paragraph, I would simply label Douglas as “a champion of popular sovereignty” rather than “a pro-slavery moderate.”
Why isn’t there information about Native Americans fighting as soldiers in the Civil War?
I love the addition of the “Cornerstone” speech and Mississippi’s letter of secession, but with all of the misunderstandings regarding the cause of the Civil War in modern America, the addition of the rest of the Southern statements on secession would help teachers that use this textbook more accurately portray the primary cause of the Civil War. Adding the other states’ memos regarding slavery and secession would strengthen the message that academic historians have no problem understanding and that high school and college textbooks should be underscoring to ensure that people that read this book have no doubt that the perceived threat to slavery was the cause of each Confederate state’s intent to leave the United States in 1860-’61.
This section is written clearly and well, but adding the other states’ declarations, even as footnotes, would benefit readers (and, thus, the rest of us) immensely from possibly never having to entertain an argument over the cause of slavery when each state made it obvious.
It should be They instead of her
This quote is wrong. It’s “Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter U.S.”, not “Once let a black man get upon his person the brass letters U.S.”
A discussion of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus would bring out a specific way Lincoln maintained unity in this critical geography of the Civil War. Habeas Corpus is also a good vocabulary word to bring in here.
The Surgeon General’s name is correctly spelled “Hammond” not Hammon.
Perhaps replace use of “fledging” with “fledgling?” (Unless implication is different from my understanding).
Fledgling: a person or organization that is immature, inexperienced, or underdeveloped.
Some of the paragraphs the text size is smaller then others for not apparent reason.
I don’t know if there is way to fix that but, if possible please try.
It would be fantastic if there were instructor resources (quiz questions, etc.) available as well.
It would be useful to include in the primary sources for Chapter 6, the US Constitution, since so much of that chapter is dedicated to that document. It would also be nice to include a selection from The Federalist Papers so students can understand the framing of the debate over the Constitution. Given the polarized nature of the electorate today, perhaps Federalist 10 would serve the purpose.
It would be great if you could highlight the text and underline it, as if it were a real textbook. Having a toolbar that allows you to take notes like you do in a physical book would be utterly helpful.
Where are the page numbers? I am using the online text for class, and we are asked to site directly from the text. However, unless I am missing something, the online text does not have a convenient way to find the page numbers.
It would be wonderful to have text-to-speech function for the text and textual sources. Many of my students commute, are ESL, or have other accessibility issues. Also, they would learn pronunciations, as well.
Capitalize “Black” the same way you guys capitalize ‘African- American”. “Black” is and can be used to identify an African- American, but being Black is now generally understood as the proper term for Black Americans who can’t trace their roots or, who were born in another country that isn’t Africa. In English, we capitalize proper nouns like Latinx. Asian, Indigenous American, and in reference to a culture or a person should be capitalized.
What does this paragraph have to do with the capitalization of terms describing nationality? Also, the gender-neutral term for “Latino/Latina” is “Latino,” not “Latinx.”
Hi, this is a comment.
To get started with moderating, editing, and deleting comments, please visit the Comments screen in the dashboard.
Commenter avatars come from Gravatar.
October 2, 2022 at 10:38 pm
See in context
October 1, 2022 at 8:34 pm
September 30, 2022 at 8:22 pm
September 30, 2022 at 1:15 am
September 30, 2022 at 1:12 am
September 30, 2022 at 1:08 am
September 30, 2022 at 12:44 am
September 30, 2022 at 12:28 am
September 26, 2022 at 9:32 pm
September 26, 2022 at 7:27 pm
Website content © American Yawp / Feedback 2022. All rights reserved.