LI Blog 3: How, why and in what way did the fight for civil rights lead to conflict & support between minorities?

BLog dialogue

Prior to the trip Level I participants will read the entire text, and read both websites. While doing so they should focus on the role of the Irish in shaping American History, with a specific focus on their fight for Civil Rights both in America and abroad.They will write, and post four response essays related to the chapters referenced within each blog (Blog 1, The Irish Story: Blog 2, Similarities & Differences, Blog 3, Friends & Enemies: ; Blog 4, Past & Present. Participant essays should reflect their beliefs insights, ideas, teaching strategies etc. related to the ideas presented by Egan's novel as well as the internet articles linked below In addition participants will respond to a minimum of five of their peer's posts within the blog.

Civil Rights Reading Assignments

LI Blog 3: How, why and in what way did the fight for civil rights lead to conflict & support between minorities?

1/30/2017

33 Comments

BLog 3: Friends & Enemies

Please review the instructions on the right, when finished write a reflective essay related to the text that presents your ideas, insights, beliefs, and teaching strategies related to the text. The template on the right is provided to assist you in writing your essay; however, bloggers are not required to use the template.

33 Comments

Tasha Salisbury

4/8/2017 09:29:12 pm

When looking for allies in any sort of conflict, the first place most people turn, as should be expected, is to their friends. But once a person has exhausted the support of their friends, where do they go? Well, as the old adage goes, “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the case of the fight for civil rights, many of the alliances forged by minorities were not really based on mutual interests, but rather on a mutual distrust or disdain for other groups. The discord between various minority groups came about because of their competing and endlessly diverse interests. So, while the connections created by minorities in the fight for civil rights evolved or died with the various groups that they fought against, the enmity and disunion of these groups has been an ever-present problem permeating their relationships as they fought for the specific interests of their groups. Furthermore, the fight for the interests of one minority group could exclude the interests of another group – which meant that a person’s identity became uniquely forged with a single minority group, as they were forced to choose which group’s interest best represented their own.
Arguably, the group that was hated by most minority groups and that united them together was the Know-Nothing party. Nativists who believed that only native born Americans (except, ironically, the groups that, in today’s nomenclature, are the Native Americans) should be given all of the privileges of being an American citizen, and who wanted to increase the length of time to gain naturalization, the Know-Nothings were a dangerous threat to minorities. The “Know-Nothings were the second-largest political party in the nation, and the only one ever founded in opposition to a specific ethnic group” (Egan, 151). While specifically founded in opposition to Irish immigrants, the Know-Nothings posed a threat to all minorities, as their attitudes and platform bordered today what we might consider a white supremacist stance. This threat was large enough that minorities saw it in their best interests to band together against the Know-Nothings so that the famous words of Thomas Jefferson did not read, as Thomas Maegher feared, “when the Know-Nothings get control it will read ‘all men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics” (Egan, 151). Together, the minority groups were able to unite together to fight this attitude. While they did not put up a united front politically, the goal to be done with this particular group made them wary allies as they sought to protect and foster the growth of civil rights.
However, a common fight against the attitudes of another group is not the same as fighting together for a cohesive end goal. Once the Know-Nothings began to lose power, the unity of minority groups frayed and then split entirely. Without a common outward enemy, the groups began to focus inward. Instead of tumbling those who they perceived to be at the top of the social order, the minority groups began to play a very dangerous game of social checkers – trying to remove the pieces of other teams from the board in order to gain the power of a king piece – American citizenship. Groups then began to undermine each other as they fought for specific civil rights that they associated with their groups. Perhaps the civil right that was most schismatic was the right to “the pursuit of happiness” wherein happiness was equated more with the Lockesian school of thought, which was property. While the possession of real property in the United States had decreased, wage labor, the ownership of employment, had increased (McPherson, 39). It was for the civil right of employment over which most minorities had the greatest conflict. Although sympathetic and understanding of one another’s backgrounds, many minorities, especially slaves and Irish immigrants, viewed each other as competition rather than cohorts. Frederick Douglass noted, “And no people on the face of the earth have been more relentlessly persecuted and oppressed on account of race and religion than have these same Irish people. The Irish who, at home, readily sympathize with the oppressed everywhere, are instantly taught when they step upon our soil to hate and despise the Negro. They are taught that he eats the bread that belongs to them” (Egan, 167). The Irish and the slaves, the two largest minority groups in the US were pitted against each other by playing to the interests of their own specific group. Publicly, the flames of this discord were fanned further, by politically dividing the two groups with headlines like one in the New York Tribune that read “If Lincoln is elected, you will have to compete with the labor of 4 million emancipated Negroes” (Egan, 170).
While employment concerns served to divide the Irish immigrants and the black Americans, the two largest minority groups, something

Tasha Salisbury

4/19/2017 09:19:26 pm

I'm not sure what happened, but here is the rest of the post:

While employment concerns served to divide the Irish immigrants and the black Americans, the two largest minority groups, something even deeper divided the two groups – race. While Irish immigrants could eventually gain citizenship and therefore could be drafted, “newly freed blacks were not eligible for the draft, for they were not citizens” (Egan, 261). This caused a deep resentment on both sides. Black Americans could not gain citizenship and could not fight for their rights. Irish immigrants could have citizenship but the price was incredibly high – a possible death sentence in the army, the loss of the right to life all in the interests of another group. In crisis, identification with one minority group becomes key to survival. For many Irish immigrants, like Thomas Maegher, it became a choice of identifying with being an Irish immigrant who was fighting to save the country that took him in, and being an abolitionist. Forced to choose between two minority groups, one identity came to the fore. While Maegher still maintained his strong Irish ties, it could be argued that his forced choice of a single identity at one moment in time, would lead to a conflict of interest from which he would never escape.
As the Civil War foreshadowed a civil rights conflict that would be entirely racially based, perhaps, the fact that race would become the main and most divisive issue among minorities could be seen in the anti-miscegenation laws. While the Irish were portrayed as sub-human and even “non-white” they were not forbidden from marrying those who were perceived as white, as proven by Thomas Maegher’s second marriage to Elizabeth Townsend. However, anti-miscegenation laws would prevent black Americans, and Americans of other races from marrying white Americans, at least, in theory (of course, interracial relationships and marriages would take place extra-legally), until Loving v. The State of Virginia in 1966 ruled against anti-miscegenation in a largely publicized way. While marriage as a civil right is still largely debated, the way in which it divided Americans at this time, created a caste in which the Irish were able to distance themselves from other minorities, mainly, those who were not white.
While divided deeply because of race and the specific interests of their minority groups, the Irish immigrants and black Americans did unite when it came to what they were against – the Know-Nothing Party, which stood to prevent their opportunity of obtaining citizenship and other civil rights. However, the fracture between the minority groups based on employment competition, and, ultimately, racial interests, served to undermine civil rights advancements as groups focused more on the inter-minority conflicts that would put them up a little higher on the American social ladder.

Cindy Ness

4/18/2017 10:15:30 am

Tasha, the end of your essay appears to be cut off.... provided you wrote your text in a secondary location, please go back and add (via a secondary post) the end of your essay. Thanks so much, I look forward to reading it.

Julie Smith link

4/23/2017 09:58:49 pm

In 1993, as a new college freshman, I experienced my first encounter with an us/them mentality based around skin color. A friend of a friend, Becky, who was Hispanic, talked with my friend and I about her need to hang out with other “brown people.” Through her speech it was obvious that she felt more accepted within her “circle of brown friends,” than she did with other ethnic groups, although she was obviously still comfortable discussing this situation with two Caucasians. At the time, I had never considered what it would be like to be an ethnic minority. I remember feeling surprised at her desire to be with “them” rather than “us,” and wondered why it was such a big deal for her. I remember thinking that she was the one setting herself apart, and I wondered why she felt like she had to do that. After all, I reasoned, we “white people,” would accept her just fine – wouldn’t we? I thought so, but then I realized that, except for one Asian acquaintance in high school, I had never had a friendship with any one of any ethnic minority. Maybe I really didn’t know how she felt, I reasoned, but I still thought (in my naïve mind) that she was making way too big a deal about “other brown people being the only people who could really understand,” after all weren’t we all just people? Why did minorities feel like their struggle was the only one that mattered? We all struggled, didn’t we? It wasn’t really that bad, was it? I realized that I wasn’t actually sure. Despite taking AP History, I didn’t know much about The Civil Rights Movement at all. I realized I should know more, but didn’t think much about Becky, or the reason why she felt the way she did, until I took a History of South Course at BYU a few years later. Dr. Mary Stovall Richards, one of my only female professors at BYU (another civil rights issue,) enlightened me. As we studied slavery and the attitudes and beliefs of not just Southerners, but those of most Americans, in the 1800’s, my knowledge of, and disgust at, the justification of the evils of slavery, grew. I was furious. I was hurt. The wool had been taken from my eyes. My America had let me down. Gone were the flag waving patriotic visions I had believed, the affectionate view I had had of the simple southern belles saying “y’all” flirtatiously, as they drank lemonade on the long porch, with their hoop skirt swaying in the breeze. What was this America? Were the “greatest people on earth,” as I had been taught, really such monsters? How could we? Why did we? How did it go on so long? I realized that I had NOT understood Becky. Although she was not African-American, I knew enough to know that if my impressions of the black experience had been wrong, I had been truly ignorant of what her “brown people” had experienced too. My white, isolated, Rocky Mountain bubble had been breached. How, why, and in what way did the fight for Civil Rights lead to conflict and support between minorities?
Different minority groups are often pushed into solidarity because they have similar experiences of suffering at the hand of the majority. Before we can answer the question of what the fight for civil rights was and how it led to conflict and support between minorities, we have to first understand people. This question is really a question of why people do what they do. Thus, we have to look at basic human psychology. People like to be surrounded by other people that that see the world the way they do. After the childhood phase of being friends with whomever happens to be around, adolescents, and later adults, both choose friends based on shared interests or beliefs. Is it any wonder, then, that minorities bond together? Although it is not universal that all minorities believe the same way, statistically we can see shared beliefs by looking at the make-up of political parties. Currently, according to a Gallup poll in 2016, the Democratic Party is the party of minorities, with only 57% of democratic voting or leaning people being white. This means that 43% of democratic voting or leaning people were of other races, a sharp contrast to the 14% of people who were republican voting or leaning and were also part of a racial minority. (http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/1-the-changing-composition-of-the-political-parties/) Truly, people join with those they feel that they relate to – both now, as shown by ethnicity makeup and political party, and in the past. So, why then do minorities relate? Why did Becky more closely associate herself with “brown people” than with others?
We can actually find the reason for Becky’s affinity by looking to the past. Shared experience, and especially shared struggle for a common goal, creates a tight bond. Looking at The Immortal Irishman shows us many instances where Thomas M

Julie Smith

4/23/2017 10:02:29 pm

I noticed it cut off again. Here is the rest:
Looking at The Immortal Irishman shows us many instances where Thomas Meagher grew close to others through shared hardship in the fight for justice for others. First, we see Meagher locked up with others and potentially facing execution. The Kilmainham Gaol was described as “a byword for hell,” and of being “made of limestone blocks, which not only held the moisture from Dublin’s porous skies, but emitted it as well. The walls of Kilmainham wept(74).” Certainly the jail was a place where forced suffering created bonding between those experiencing life within it. Meagher’s move to a penal colony in Tasmania did much the same. The prisoners met in a cottage that touched all four of the districts to which each had been banished and, the four whose “names . . .had been bundled in indictments for crimes that called for hanging or banishment, tumbled into a ball of backslapping and gaffawing and cheek-kissing . . . “we laughed till the woods rang around . . .laughed loud and long, and uproariously (017),” said John Mitchel, one of the four convicts. Later, Meagher forms and leads the Irish brigade in the American Civil War, the green flag they carried a symbol of bravery to their foes (279) but a reminder to Meagher of the blood shed that further unified “Mrs. Meagher’s brigade.” Meagher’s life was spent seeking out those whose opinions reflected his own and then suffering together because of them. Becky too sought out those with similar opinions, but rather than for adventure or to right the wrong, as was Meagher’s motive, she simply wanted to be understood. Just as no one who has not experienced it can fully understand the feelings of someone held in prison, banished to an island, or who watched men under their command die unless they have experienced the same, no one who had not grown up discriminated against could really be completely understood except by someone who had experienced something similar. The disenfranchised, through their own actions like Meagher, or through circumstances of birth, like Becky, bond together.
Why then do people, especially minorities who have been ill treated by those of the majority, turn on each other? It may be true that people need other people, but an equal and perhaps more powerful truth is repeated with alarming frequency throughout history: Money talks. This view is seen in Egan’s book when the Irish, a former ally of the free blacks, in New York City, turns against free Negros and ultimately the war that was being fought to free them. Previous to the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation, Meagher and his Irish associates recruited the Irish to fight for the Union as a way of, in part, fighting against the atrocities and cruelty of England. After all, the confederate South was cozy with England. After the Proclamation was announced, the Irish knew the war was being fought to free the slaves. If the war was won with the North victorious, no more would there be only a few free blacks in the area, but potentially droves of now free former slaves, all whom would gladly compete for, and perhaps take, the only jobs the despised Irish could get. Fighting for the North now was choosing to potentially die for your enemy. Money, or that potential lack thereof, changes everything. In addition, this view is seen through the actions of John Mitchel, one of the original Young Ireland seven. In Ireland, Mitchel fought against England and for the poor and destitute of Ireland, yet, almost immediately upon his arrival in New York he seemingly changed sides and threw his lot in with the oppressors rather than the oppressed. “Mitchel had written tough, passionate prose on behalf of starving peasants in bondage to absentee landlords,” but Charles Duffy, a former employer of Mitchel stated that he “tried my patience sorely by defending Negro slavery,” (147). The words of his wife, Jenny, seem to try to explain Mitchel’s about face: “You will find this hard to believe (as I did myself at first) but it is no less true that Negroes are happier in their state of slavery than when they get their freedom (148).” Perhaps John Mitchel was profoundly influenced by a plantation slave holder at some time, but with his family living in New York City and working with so many people who were very anti-slavery, and with his early beliefs being so contrary to his current opinion and something he was, at one time, ready to die for, it seems strange that he so quickly, easily, and apparently permanently, jumped ship. Was there another reason for his defection? Mitchel shared his views with abandon all throughout the south, “He gave the commencement speech at the University of Virginia . . . he found Richmond charming . . . Charleston most welcoming . . . and Tennessee to be a heaven (148).” Could it be that Mitchel

Julie Smith

4/23/2017 10:05:07 pm

And it cut off again. Here is the rest. Could it be that Mitchel just found the South, not only more welcoming of his views but more willing to pay him to share the opinions that incidentally agreed with their own? Was it more lucrative for him to share his views in the South? After all, abolitionists were a dime a dozen in New York City. Thomas Meagher already had the role of Irish revolutionary come to trample down injustice in America. Wasn’t it worth something monetarily for the South to have an Irishman linked to the fight against oppression on their side? Perhaps Mitchel never had a desire to return to his ideological roots, despite the likelihood of his former compatriots attempting to reconvert him, but with a family of teenage boys to feed, a potential desire for the fame that he once had, and an easy and willing southern audience, the likelihood of a defection for the cash to be made from speaking and writing what the South wanted to hear, has to be considered.
What is the fight for human rights? Nothing more than the themes of history being repeated as human beings play out our pettiness over and over again. There are always new situations, but with analysis, the same root causes are there. History may repeat itself, but really that is only because human nature doesn’t change. One thing that I have tried to do in my class is put a human spin on what we are studying. We talk about why people do what they do, how the things that happened in history really can be traced back to decisions people at the time made, and what forces might have influence the people then to have made them. We identify potential historical themes, or “people truisms,” as they come up and as they keep repeating. We see the human of the history. Hopefully, as students are trained to recognize these things they will be smart enough to do what no other generation in history has yet been able to do: to change them. I don’t want any of my students to ever buy into the perfumed ideologies of fantasy that held to until college! It disgusts me now that I never thought more about things then. I want my students to see Becky’s situation in all the pages of history and in the halls of the high school too. Only when we can teach history as a true social science – a true record and analysis of the decisions made by humans then that shaped our world both then, and consequently now, can we truly say that we have educated the next generation. The test of our teaching will ultimately be the shape of our future world.

Gina Dansie

4/25/2017 08:13:22 pm

A civil rights movement often has both centrifugal and centripetal forces. Often times while trying to secure equality under the law it also ostracizes those that are different and not part of the current movement. In order to gain support from the “haves” groups have to separate themselves from the “have nots”. Though it can cause even more divisiveness, it can also bring minorities groups together as a support system. Often times the groups without equality are forced to share a common way of life and create a shared culture, lower on social status than most. Just because a movement has both centripetal and centrifugal forces they are not exclusive. When using the examples of the Irish Americans and Black Americans we can cases of both forces at play.
The Irish Americans and Black Americans were two groups who were in low social standing. Due to their shared experience of low pay, remedial work, social mocking and political oppression the two groups had many opportunities to interact. Egan mentions that in Sixth Ward of New York once housed Baptist churches, mixed marriages and share social nighttime entertainers (162). Both groups were considered uncivilized, and in some cases, unhuman. African Americans were property, commonly seen as incapable to govern themselves or live independently. The Irish were susceptible to “drinking, debauchery and riotousness,” and in order to save the children, a proposal from the Know-Nothings wanted Irish children to leave their homes to join non-Catholic homes. Both groups were clustered at the bottom, lumped to suffer together in shared misery, often times being a support system for the other group.
Although they had much in common, the fight to climb up the social ladder caused them to also separate themselves. The Irish began to see the beginning stages of assimilation into the traditional white America, this partially based on the continued racism against the African Americans. Frederick Douglass stated “Perhaps no class of our fellow citizens has carried this prejudice against color to a point more extreme and dangerous than have our Catholic Irish fellow citizens… The Irish, who, at home, readily sympathize with the oppressed everywhere, are instantly taught when they step upon our soil to hate and despise the Negro. They are taught that he east the bread that belongs to them (166-167). Rather than newspaper caricatures of the Irish, it was now based on African Americans. The competition for jobs stiffened prior to the Civil War ripped them apart (162). The press would encourage this separation. The New York Tribune tried to persuade the Irish to vote Northern Democrat, because “If Lincoln is elected, you will have to compete with the labor of 4 million emancipated Negroes” (170). In regards to the Civil War, the divisiveness carried over into recruitment, or the lack thereof. In Irish neighborhoods of the East coast, banners proclaimed “We won’t fight to free the nigger” (215). The Irish did not initially believe in the cause, a cause which they were led to believe would be a detriment to their own struggles.
Although the Irish Americans and African Americans had a similar history, the constant drive towards equality did separate the two. The differences were apparent and magnified in the social events of the day. Although the differences pushed them away, it would not necessarily end that way. During the Civil War Thomas Meagher changed his views on slavery and the fight to free the slaves. He began indifferent to slavery and fighting to preserve the Union. While he had experienced the two groups living peacefully together, he had also heard all of the reasons to keep the Black Americans down. Near the end of the war he was against slavery and was in favor of Black American liberty and citizenship (255, 262). The conflict and support between minority groups was fluid, it was not set in stone unwilling to adapt to current events or the individual needs of the people.

Christopher Jones

5/9/2017 02:12:59 pm

Gina, I like the idea of fluidity. Reading your essay made me think about how the oppressed group (s) are often manipulated by the oppressor to hate one another, and if you want to advance in the United States, you can't work together. Personal interest is very real in the United States, even when it comes to Civil Rights. "One group at a time", sort of thing. But, the idea that it is fluid is attributed to the fact that the oppressor is able to prey on one oppressed group in order to use them as a buffer between them and the 'super oppressed'. There is a link between my argument, and how slavery became racialized, and how poor white indentured servants would work with black indentured servants. The wealthy planters then delineated between the two, making blacks slaves, and whites indentured servants. They did this so the indentured servants would focus their attention on keeping the African Americans oppressed, because they could continually identify with the fact that, even though they may be poor, at least they are not an African American Slave. I don't really have any proof of this, but I swear I read it somewhere.

Ashlee Karpowitz

4/26/2017 09:46:03 pm

There is a glaring example of how the fight for civil rights led to conflict and support within their own minority group and social circles. I think the best example of this is the relationship between Thomas Meagher and his father. I found it so interesting that despite Thomas Meagher’s obvious opposition to England’s rule over Ireland and impending execution, his father remained a member of the parliament and did not step down. But I love the contrast that when it came to family, Thomas Meagher Sr., was in absolute support of taking care of Thomas’s young son, and does for the remainder of his life.

Another part of the story that exemplifies conflict within the Irish minority, was the draft that occurred in July of 1863. The exemption for the rich “for $300 you could buy our way out of service to the United States” (page 251) created intense anger in the community. Egan states that $300 was easily one year’s wage for an Irish immigrant and was absolutely impossible for any immigrant to pay that sum to avoid war. This had to cause a massive rift between the wealthy and those just barely getting by. This led to (in Egan’s opinion) the worst riot in American history. After destroying New York City, destroying an orphanage, looting stores and killing innocent people as well as police, one of the Irish rioters wrote this to the New York Times, “You will no doubt be hard on us rioters tomorrow morning, but that 300-dollar law has made us nobodies, vagabonds, and cast-outs of a society, for whom nobody cares when we must go to war and be shot down. We are the poor rabble, and the rich rabble is our enemy by this law…” (page 253). This quote exemplifies the rift created by this law, making immigrants feel as if the rich were their enemies and not their countrymen of the Union. It’s interesting to note that even though the Irish Brigade fought so hard, the Irish New Yorkers were so caught up in this new law based solely on money that they quickly forgot the pride they should’ve felt as Irishman, brothers of those who fought and died in the Irish Brigade.

It’s obvious that war leads to violence, but seeing a society’s fight for civil rights completely destroy the relationship between these Irish immigrants, who had the same objective in mind, is a difficult but valuable lesson to teach our students.

Gina Dansie

5/1/2017 08:46:27 am

I like your example of those who were able to buy their way out of service. I talk about this to my students and we discuss how only the rich could do it, but never really went in depth as to the consequences of that. Though I understand why he didn't, I wish he would have given additional examples of minorities or mid-low socioeconomic groups, their part in the riot and the after effects for those groups.

Jenni Klein

5/15/2017 01:29:29 pm

Very well said. I love that quote from Meagher about the 300 dollar law. We often focus our discussion about civil rights with race, color, and gender. But the 300 dollar law focused even more on the Have and Have Nots-- the rich and poor. While the Irish were not bonded in slavery-- they certainly were persecuted from every angle.

Melannie Pew

5/15/2017 08:02:50 pm

Interesting insight. I would love to hear more about your first point, about the Meaghers. As I totally agree with you point of the socioeconomic division, and it is not directly a racial discrimination it reminds me of the poll taxes that were implemented under the Jim Crow laws, this was an effort to keep blacks from exercising their civil rights. Similarly, here, those who had money were probably those with good jobs, family, and background, usually things most of the Irish immigrants didn't have.

Christopher Jones

4/28/2017 04:25:10 pm

The fight for Civil Rights often studied, one ethnic minority at a time, even though many civil rights movements have run parallel with one another. The mid 1800’s found the Irish conflicted between helping an oppressed group of people who shared a similar history, but by doing so, they worried that their jobs which they had acquired in the North, would now be threatened by the recently freed slave. Conflict arose on the side of the Irish, as they saw African Americans as a potential threat to the already scarce jobs in the North. The conflict emerged because it was apparent that slavery would be ending within the next 50 years, if the political situation did not resolve itself in the Nation’s capital. Once the decision was weighed, many Irish, like Thomas Meagher, recognized that the suffering endured by African Americans was similar to their treatment from the English, and they decided to fight against oppression in all forms.
Economically, the United States was run by protestant Industrialists, with exception to Andrew Carnegie. This would play a big role in the acquisition of jobs for the Irish. Many positions were not open for Irish Catholic applicants. The jobs they were able to obtain were not always satisfactory, or even safe for that matter. Many found themselves working in coal plants or laying rail lines, both of which recorded hundreds of deaths among immigrants because of the unsafe working conditions. Even though they were not the most desirable jobs, after all is said and done, they were still jobs, and the Irish were willing to act violently in order to keep them. The Irish recognized that freeing the slaves could be detrimental to their economic gains they had made within the first half of the 19th century, and with the political atmosphere that existed in the 1840s, it was clear that the question was not, ‘what would they do if they needed to protect their jobs, but when.’
The Irish made a decision. With the help of Thomas Meagher and Frederick Douglass, the decision was made to “help” the slaves out of their situation by fighting on the side of the Union. The Irish recognized that their sufferings under slavery were similar to their suffering under centuries of English rule. They could not bare to stand idly by while oppression existed in the country they had recently started to call home.
Self interest is the focus of the American Dream. If history were to be told honestly, there was personal satisfaction on the side of the Irish when it came to fighting in the Civil War. Meagher was not shy to communicate his message that Irish participation in the war was not for ending slavery, rather, it was “a fight for America coupled with the promise of an eventual fight for Ireland, using a battle-seasoned force to sail across the Atlantic.” (The Immortal Irishman, pg. 175) But, the war was still about ending slavery, and a Union victory would lead to millions of people becoming free from bondage. Because of this, one can attach Irish sympathy to the suffering experienced by African Americans. The Irish became a group of people, who were fighting for their personal interests in the name of civil rights. In fighting for their own civil rights, another group of people would be able to experience freedom, the way the Irish had when they arrived in the United States.

Ashlee Karpowitz

5/9/2017 08:53:46 pm

I'm curious about the thought "it was apparent that slavery would be ending within the next 50 years". I just haven't thought about that before. What made it apparent to you that it would end?

I completely agree about personal interests. If history were to be told honestly, personal satisfaction would be a larger part of the story. I think that's true in all stories.

Ryan Fisher

4/28/2017 06:44:04 pm

The fight for civil rights has done more to bring minority groups together and more to pull them apart than almost any other events in history. When the Civil War was in its early days Irish were drawn into war for multiple reasons. Many such as Meagher saw the fight as a way to prove to Irish born Americans that they had the ability to lead men into battle and to victory. They viewed this as an essential step in leading the Irish to battle for their own independence and to take back their homeland from the English. They were willing to serve as a way to leave the tenements of New York City and try to better their life.
At the same time they were given reasons not to fight. If you free the Negro you will only create competition for yourself at the bottom of the ladder. You will free men who will take over your homes. The Know Nothings who were driving this wedge were trying to use poverty or fear as a way of furthering their agenda of preventing equality among the races in the United States.
Abolitionist were some of the first in the United States to start to see the connection between minority groups. They took the fight for the elimination of slavery to women. Women who were in the process of fighting for their own equality. Strength in number, and strength in influence. Women who fought for equality were able to sway or influence spouses, fathers, and sons who were not deprived of the basic rights that they sought after. Fast forward a hundred years from the Civil War and you see the same collaboration. The Civil Rights movement of the late 1950’s and 1960’s saw a heavy dependence on multiple minority groups fighting for their own rights and the rights of the minority groups who felt the same oppression. You saw groups led by Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Height, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Cesar Chavez feed off of the energy of each other.
Working together and working against each other has been a highlight of the Civil Rights movement from the beginning. The advantages come in strength in numbers, numbers typically will result in results. Working against each other also creates an issue. If the majority can divide the minorities they win. They can ally themselves with one of the groups, sway them, then turn their back on them when convenient. Not only does this tear groups apart, but then they can use these false alliances as a wedge to further divide the groups.

Graham Stromberg

5/13/2017 02:42:15 pm

Ryan,

I very much enjoyed reading your insights. Of particular interest was the portion of your essay where you note the historical pattern of minority groups banding together to create a stronger coalition. It is so interesting to think that abolitionists understood the dynamics of human relationships and were consequently able to work through women's groups to pursue the cause of the abolition of slaver. I also liked how you highlighted a similar pattern that occurred in the 1960s. Minority groups worked together to pursue common goals.

It is predicted that there will be no majority group in the United States by 2040. Because European Americans have low fertility rates, they are projected to comprise less than 50% of the population in the coming decades. I wonder how this will affect political movements in the future.

Graham Stromberg

5/13/2017 02:43:16 pm

slavery

Melannie Pew

4/29/2017 01:09:50 pm

The Irish, both in Ireland and in America, had long fought and waited to enjoy their civil rights. Many Irishmen and women left Ireland when the fight for their rights became vain. They then left for America in search of the land of the free and of promise. Upon arriving, they were no doubt disappointed to find the discrimination against them had followed. They didn’t have all the political and social opportunities they had hoped for. They found themselves low on the social hierarchy. Although, they did and would eventually have the ability to improve their situation, and could become citizens, their initial economic and social progression was stunted. Then the Civil War broke out, and they were called into the conflict. Egan explains the reception of this news. Some, like Maegher, felt drawn to the conflict, but many felt no desire to help the blacks gain their independence from slavery. To them, these newly freed slaves would become their economic, social, and political competition in America. The Irish were attempting to improve their countrymen’s political and social standing, and felt the plight of the slaves were in opposition to their mission.

However, there was a large group of Irish Americans who did answer the call and for differing reasons. Maegher argued that the real enemy in the conflict was England. Although England had outlawed slavery long before the Civil War, England was a huge beneficiary of it, in their own factories and textile mills. As a result, they initially supported the South. The Irish held a vendetta against England, because of the centuries of British control in Ireland, and so fighting with the North allowed them to fight their real enemy.

Another reason I believe motivated the Irish is expressed in the old adage “the ends justify the means”. Essentially, the Irish needed America to be more welcoming and open to minority groups. If jumping on the Civil War bandwagon and emancipating the slaves would open the doors for Irish, then they were willing to join the fight. They argued, that America had taken them in, and had given them more opportunities than what they had in their homeland. To repay their gratitude, they agreed to fight and potentially give their lives for the Union. Many did seal their fate with that decision. The Irish brigades were reputed as being the most feared units on both sides of the Civil War. They were ruthless and fearless fighters, dependable, and resourceful. Some Civil War generals recognized the value of these Irish brigades, including Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln himself.
Did the end justify the means? I would argue yes. Although, there was still some discrimination that existed for decades after the war, prejudices that ultimately cost Maegher his life. However, the Irish were able to shake off their cords of bondage much quicker than the blacks were able to. They assimilated quicker and soon were able to enjoy the rights and privileges that came with being white in America. Their participation and “support” of the abolitionist agenda, to improve the status of another minority group, did eventually improve their situations.

On, a very different side of this discussion, is the plight of women rights. The Immortal Irishman does not deal directly with the struggle women had to obtain their own civil rights. However, as I was contemplating this blog post I was thinking of all the minorities groups in the book. I was intrigued with the women spoke of in the book. Serval women played an important role in Maegher’s life. Egan explains that women were always drawn to Maegher, with his handsome features and electric eyes. However, I argue, it was his disposition towards women that made him so alluring. First, in the example of Jane Francesca Elgee, or Speranza, she was revered by Maegher. He was enchanted by her mind, and ability to write verse that echoed his own thoughts. He viewed her as his equal. Speranza, no doubt, relished the admiration of a fellow revolutionary and likewise deep thinker.

Another example is Maegher’s second wife, Elizabeth. She was of high ranking and status in New York. Her family had money and prestige, yet she willingly denounced her life and family for a man with little to give her. What he did offer was something a woman with an intelligent and capable mind would cleave to. He insisted that she “never, never hesitate to question [him] concerning anything which interests [her],” he valued her input and asserted that she was his equal. He wanted her by him in all he did. He kept nothing from her, acknowledging his dependence on her to strengthen him during the Civil War. He brought her to Montana with him and shared his responsibilities with his more than qualified and adept wife. These two relationships illustrate another example of how different minority groups clung to and worked side by side. During the abolitionist movement, there were many women that

Julie Smith

5/15/2017 01:00:09 pm

I really like that you brought up the women's aspect. I had not thought of that directly with this thread. What a great insight! It would have been interesting to have had more information about other women involved in the revolution besides Speranza. I would like to have heard their stories and perspective, not only on the revolution but with working with the other revolutionaries. Meager's treatment, and reverence of, the women he was involved with was interesting and a testament to the fact that he was a revolutionary thinker in regards to his treatment of women too. At that time period, it would have been unusual to truly see women as his equal, and yet he did. In fact, I would say he even saw more in them (especially in Elizabeth) than he saw in himself. He admired them, but he respected them deeply too - one more reason why Meager was such an unusual man. Great insight! Thanks for sharing.

Melannie Pew

5/15/2017 07:56:49 pm

Agreed, Meagher really was unique, and a lot of aspects. I like that you brought up that he saw more in them, than in himself. I agree with that, as committed as he was to the cause of human rights, it seemed as though he felt inadequate at times. In those moments, he had women to strengthen him...Also, I'm glad that though process made sense!

Graham Stromberg

4/29/2017 10:03:58 pm

It is my opinion that humans are tribalistic by nature - that the average person feels more obligated to take care of the people who are most similar to himself and feels less obligated to take care of the people who are least similar to himself. Consequently, when confronted with an overarching, oppressive majority group, it is often the case that smaller groups will work together for mutual benefit. However, when groups are in competition for resources or jobs, it is the historical norm for such alliances to break down and for conflict to ensue.

With regard to the minority groups mentioned in the second essay (African Americans and Irish Americans), it is clear that cooperation between the groups varied depending on the circumstances. For instance, Egan notes that when Mr. Meagher first arrived in New York City in 1952 he was “stunned to see the mix of races, Irish and blacks drinking together, dancing in the saloons, a born-in-America toe-and-heel tap that was a blend of Gaelic jig and West African Step dance.” (Egan, 132) In the early 1850s, African Americans and Irish Americans could find common cause in being despised by an oppressive Anglo majority group. However, the alliance would not last long.

Fast forward to 1858 when national circumstances had changed, particularly with regard to the slavery question, and Egan makes it clear that the relationship between the two groups had soured. Egan notes that “Irish and blacks, having [previously] found much in common in their shared misery, now found much that ripped them apart. The competition for jobs at the bottom stiffened during the latest of the periodic panics that crashed the economy. Somebody was always willing to work cheaper on the docks, as a maid, a servant, a street cleaner, and that somebody became the hated face of his or her race.” (162)

With the coming Civil War, the relationship between African Americans and Irish Americans became strained. While the newly arriving Irish immigrants would be swept up into the supportive arms of Tammany Hall’s Democratic party political machine, African Americans would place their support firmly behind Lincoln’s Republican party. With New York Democrats becoming closely allied with southern Democrats, Frederick Douglas observed a hardening of the Irish community toward African Americans. Douglas stated that “Perhaps no class of our fellow citizens has carried this prejudice against color to a point more extreme and dangerous than have our Catholic Irish fellow-citizens….And no people on the face of the earth have been more relentlessly persecuted and oppressed on account of race and religion than have these same Irish people. The Irish who, at home, readily sympathize with the oppressed everywhere, are instantly taught when they step upon our soil to hate and despise the Negro. They are taught that he eats the bread that belongs to them.” (Egan, 166-167)

In sum, it might be said that the struggle for civil rights is often focused on advancing the interests of one’s own tribe or group.

Graham Stromberg

4/29/2017 10:05:57 pm

New York City in 1852

Ryan Fisher

5/7/2017 05:21:13 pm

Your view on humans being tribalistic by nature is pretty spot on. When you look at something like eyewitness testimony or identification, studies show that you are much more likely to look for details in someone of your own race. For example Caucasian will look for details such as eye color, hair color, or distinct markings on other Caucasian, but will only identify basic features of African Americans.

Melannie Pew

5/11/2017 03:48:11 pm

Graham, your insights on this issue and human nature are unfortunately true. Your last thought really hits home with how true it is. It all boils down to how you can improve your (or your groups) situation. In the case of the Black and Irish Americans. In the early 1800s the blacks and Irish supported and share the same situation, and used one another to improve those situations. However, like you discussed so well, that common interest change with the on coming civil war. It was then that the blacks lost the support of the Irish. At this point the Irish and the blacks have different agendas. When it comes down to it, people generally do what best benefits them.

Lori Robinson

4/29/2017 11:17:42 pm

Conflict and Support Between Minorities in the Early Fight for Civil Rights
The fight for Civil Rights led to both conflict and support between minorities groups who, ironically, were working toward similar goals of freedom and equal treatment. This is where Civil Rights gets messy—if we are not working together, we are battling separately, making our battles more difficult and less efficient. Similar to Ben Franklin’s cartoon, “Join or Die,” the idea behind the Iroquois League, and Tecumseh’s and Tenskwatawa’s attempts to join the Native Americans together, a lack of unification in a common purpose can result in an unachieved purpose.
Within Ireland itself, the forces working for change illustrate this point. It is a bit sad that the Young Irishman and O’Connell could not find common ground to blend forces, perhaps acquiring support from the older, established, wealthy, and more politically-experienced Irishmen as well as the young, enthusiastic, revolutionaries. Instead they disagreed on the methodology of change—Meagher encouraging revolution and O’Connell calling for a peace resolution. After a crowd-inspiring speech, Meagher shook the Irish “ . . . from a national coma” in Conciliation Hall (Egan 48). “O’Connell’s day was done, his organization broken . . . To save Ireland in its darkest hour would now fall to a handful of young men and women who knew more about sonnets than sidearms, who thought a few well-chosen words and a charge of peasantry with farm tools could blunt an empire” (Egan 48). Perhaps if the two groups had agreed on a common plan, the established Irish class might have been able to provide materials and means for the younger people and Irish masses to implement a successful rebellion. Perhaps Meagher was wise when he recognized that the starving Irish, “Without discipline, without arms, without good, beggared by the law, starved by the law, demoralized by the law, opposed to the might of England they would have the weakness of a vapor (Egan 58).
Another opportunity to combine forces and work for a common change would greet the Irish upon entering the United States where the question of slavery had become a national issue. Taking their place at the bottom of society in their search for jobs, and facing hatred and maltreatment from the Catholic-hating Know-Nothing party that rioted, mobbed, burned homes, and rallied to force new immigrants from the country, the Irish would find themselves in the midst of another difficult choice. Would they support abolition or not?
Since they had experienced ill-treatment at the hands of Britain in their home country, and because of their mistreatment and scorn within their new country, the Irish would seemingly be a sympathetic advocate for the enslaved population. In fact, Daniel O’Connell himself urged, “Irishmen and Irishwomen: treat the colored people as your equal, your brethren” (Egan 162). The crux of the matter, however, was that “The competition for jobs at the bottom stiffened during the latest of the periodic panics that crashed the economy. Somebody was always willing to work cheaper on the docks, as a maid, a servant, a street cleaner, and that somebody became the hated face of his or her race” (Egan 162). The Irish did not want to then have to compete for jobs with freed slaves. The Irish were “ . . . not interested in a crusade that could bring thousands of free blacks north, to compete with Erin’s unskilled workers in the basement of American opportunity” (Egan 165).
Frederick Douglass had encountered an absence of prejudice when he visited Ireland in 1845 which he found “ . . . one of the most pleasing features of my [his] visit . . . “ and yet within the United States found by the late 1850s “ .. . . a hardening of Irish attitudes toward blacks” who, although persecuted themselves, “ . . . are instantly taught when they step upon our soil to hate and despise the Negro. They are taught he eats the bread that belongs to them” (Egan 166-67). Egan states that Douglass himself did not understand this attitude.
What was Meagher’s opinion on the matter, and did it align with other Irish of the time? “I am not in favor of slavery. I am devoted to the Union. The Union accepts slavery,” stated Meagher when questioned by Smith O’Brien about the issue (Egan162) John Mitchell, Meagher’s friend from Ireland, moved to the South and advocated for slavery. Meagher remarks the irony that “Mills in New England and Old England spun fine sheets and soft garments from raw material that had been picked by people whose backs bore the same mark of the lash as those of Irish convicts in Austrialia” (Egan 166). Not only that, but Mitchell encouraged Irish who had the means to buy slaves “ . . .to come

Lori Robinson

4/29/2017 11:18:37 pm

Not only that, but Mitchell encouraged Irish who had the means to buy slaves “ . . .to come South for a living” and started a proslavery paper, promulgating views of white supremacy (Egan 166). When the South threatened to leave the Union over slavery, “Meagher continued to respect the South’s sovereign right to its institution, so long as it was the law of the land, but not to leave the Union” (Egan 171).
In an example of support, many Irish fought during the Civil War. The group had been formed in New York as an Irish militia group and a show of Irish pride. In fact, at one point they stood together in refusing to march at a parade honoring the Prince of Wales. When the war began, they volunteered to fight for the Union. Even though they may have been partly fighting for a cause they did not support (slavery), their effort to fight for the Union did as much as any other soldiers’ to help abolish slavery in the South.
Conflict and support between minorities. The question arises—what makes it difficult for a people to agree in the “rightness” of a cause and support it? I suppose that the answer lies partly in the unique experiences each one of us encounters as we navigate our lives. Surprisingly, people who have had nearly identical experiences such as Meagher and Mitchell can disagree on a subject like abolition. Ironically, it seems as though most of the Irish agreed that fighting to free the slaves was not something they supported, yet they still fought for a connected cause, the Union. In so doing, an entire race of people were emancipated from a system that both the Irish and the enslaved were in a position to uniquely understand.

Eden Ellingson

4/30/2017 05:57:14 pm

Looking at the outcast group of friends from Ireland, it would be easy to assume that they were kindred in thought as well as action, but they were not. To think Mitchel and Meagher were friends and later bitterest rivals because of how they thought of their adopted country and their role in the Republic. Mitchel succumbed to racism and championed the enslavement of a whole minority group, while Meagher at first suspicious of Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation,” later embraced the meaning that “emancipation” gave him. He even championed all black brigades and wanted to give them full military honors and privileges.

Meagher also noticed the Catholic Church itself as both a friend and enemy in the cause he sought to further. One priest from Notre Dame ran before them at Antietam yelling absolution to soldiers he feared would soon die, while others stood by and let New York burn.

After the Proclamation, Meagher knew that he could, “no longer hold to the illusion that they were fighting two enemies—one in the New World, the other a tormenter through the centuries in the Old World.” (Egan, p. 232) He couldn’t use a “hatred of England,” to inspire his men. It had to be about Union and freeing the slaves. He chose Union and emancipation.

Meagher then became hated by many of his own people. The Boston Pilot said, “Irish spirit for war is dead.” (Egan, p. 244) He was hunted for in the New York riots. His portrait was slashed at his dear friends, and fellow military officer, Colonel Robert Nugent’s house, which was sacked by angry Irish immigrants.

As Meagher’s adulthood began he was surrounded by friends and enemies. Some enemies were known and the other was Balfe, someone he thought was a friend. He fought for beliefs his whole life. He fought for Irish freedom from oppression and he was aided in that by friends and finally taken down by enemies. He came to the United States where he again found a cause, his people and his country. Again he was helped by friends in the cause, Corcoran, Nugent, his wife and even at times, Lincoln. He was also hindered by friends, Mitchel as the main example, sometimes his generals—such as Sherman, and his New York Irish.

Even at the end, as he fought for law and order in Montana he found old and new enemies. In Egan’s book it mentions the enemies that found him there, the English Crown, the dregs of the Confederacy and vigilantes like Wilbur Sanders. He also had friends like the Fenian Brotherhood. In this case, the enemies were able to stop his fight for law and order and mostly likely killed him.

Was his fight for honor and freedom and civil rights worth it? Does taking a stand matter? These would be great questions for a classroom project. Where did Meagher fail and where did he succeed—is the process itself a victory? Meagher was honored with a statue in Montana, a final recognition of his service immortalized in the place where he was murdered for what he believed in.

Jonathan B Wrigley

5/11/2017 01:16:04 pm

I loved your comparisons in this blog. I hadn't noticed some of them and found them interesting to contemplate. The split that Meagher and Mitchel had and their feud over racism and the Civil War was interesting for a group of friends who had been through so much together. But the one that surprise me the most was your comparison of Meagher's views on the Catholic church. In New York the Church opposed the war and you could say was somewhat complicit in the riots there. But on the battle field there was the priest from Notre Dame who ran with the troops calling out absolutions for their souls. Its things like this that I think students would really benefit from. Too often they see things as black and white but there can be people from the same organization who view and do things very different.

Melannie Pew

5/12/2017 02:29:08 pm

I really like your discussion on how Meager would spend his life trying to find who it was he could trust. He watched as those fighting with him, turned against him. He was glorified and demonized through out his life, as he stuck to what he believed was the greater cause. Ultimately, he gave his life for those beliefs.

I also like the questions you pose at the end: ultimately, is it all worth it? Those are the type of questions I loved posing to my students. I think it causes them to reflect on the material in different ways. Instead of just accepting the past, questioning it.

Jenni Klein

4/30/2017 08:44:25 pm

Support--- MInorities didn’t have civil rights and by banding together they were allowed a voice saying they deserved equality. Minorities learned very quickly that in order to be successful they needed to have a loud and powerful voice. It was only by putting aside differences and working together they could have a voice strong enough to make a change.

Conflict: The Irish had known oppression and had known slavery. They understood all too well the hardships that black americans were going through. But, they also understood that with the end of slavery came more competition for their jobs. Irish were getting jobs simply because they would work for so cheap. They were discriminated against and treated poorly. But, they knew it would only get worse. The Irish would band together to stop discrimination against them, but had to cut ties to protect themselves. THey had to think about what civil equality would do for them and how would it hurt them.

There are multiple examples of this throughout the book. As Meagher bands his army together under the band of equality. Comparing their lives in Ireland to the life in America. He gets support from the Irish when they are (in some ways) finally fighting the English. They are fighting to keep this union together-- this home they have built. But, after the death toll rises and the slaves are made free-- the Irish start to resist the war. They don’t want the former slaves to come and take their jobs. They refuse to be persecuted even further. The numbers of those that signed up for the battle lowered and New York was one of the few states that didn’t support Lincoln in his reelection. They had to put their family and livelihood first.

Tasha Salisbury

5/13/2017 01:20:29 pm

Jenni, I think you make a really important point that the Irish understood what black Americans were going through, but still had to think of their families and livelihoods first. Sometimes, we try so hard as history teachers to put things in a broader context, that we forget that these events were affecting people on a deeply personal level.

Jonathan Wrigley

5/1/2017 09:59:49 am

Minorities were often pitted against each other in society. They would be fighting for the same jobs or leftovers that society left for them. Factories and industries would go for the cheapest labor and minorities had to compete against each other for these positions and jobs by undercutting one another. This only hurts them while the factories owners became more and more wealthy.
In New York most people were protestant but with such a large influx of Catholic Irishmen and women the protestant power hold over the city was threatened. Protestants passed laws and legislation making it difficult for new immigrants to become citizens and other laws to limit who could vote.
When Lincoln was running for presidents the New York Tribune worked to persuade the Irish in New York to vote against Lincoln because he would free the slaves and that would cause the Irish to compete with hundreds of thousands of free Blacks looking for work.
When the Civil War broke out many Irish refused to fight because they didn’t want to fight for the Blacks who would just become another competitor for jobs. Thomas Meagher had a difficult time trying to convince Irishmen to fight for and preserve a country that hadn’t treated them that well and to fight to free a race that would compete for resources with them. Meagher’s initial success in convincing the Irish to join him was later overshadowed by his lack of success to convince any more to volunteer partway through the war. Initially Meagher tried to convince the Irish to fight so they could get training and one-day return to Ireland and fight for freedom. As the war continued the Irish were hailed as being fierce fighters on the battlefield by both sides but they were put in some of the roughest fighting and had horrific casualties. So with many losses Meagher tried to convince his countrymen to fight for more noble ideals but had limited success in doing so.
But as time progresses we see that much of this animosity between different minority groups begins to dissipate. Minorities begin working together more and banding together to create a more powerful voice for their movement. During the civil rights movement where Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were fighting for equality there were other minorities who joined them in this fight. Caesar Chavez was a Hispanic activist who was fighting for farm workers rights and this was during the same time as Martin Luther King was making his marches. They had similar messages and supported each other’s message of equality and rights.
The LGBT community is another example of minorities banding together to have their voices heard. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The individual groups didn’t have enough recognition and influence to make much of a difference but by combining their individual movements they were able to multiply their efforts and success. This is still an ongoing process but these groups and others have found that in their fight for civil rights they have greater strength in Unity.

Eden Ellingson

5/14/2017 07:00:37 pm

I thought you did a great job of pointing out that the fighting between oppressed groups led to them being oppressed for a longer period of time. It is such a simple thing to note that this only helps the rich and powerful. I liked how you pointed out that it wasn't until groups banded together that they were able to effectively achieve their civil rights. It is true that groups need to define who their real enemy is, or what idea in society is the true problem, and then fight against that together.

d2tEACH wRITING gUIDELINES

1. Write with your readers in mind: Who are they? What do they need to know? What should they know? How will they use your information? ALWAYS be respectful of differences of opinion.
2. Ask questions about the author's suppositions in the text. Be open-ended and open-minded when addressing the topic.
3. Provide links, and/or quotes when relevant/necessary to help readers learn more about your opinion
4. Each participant is required to post a minimum of four insightful posts, i.e. essays related to the text (at least one per blog) prior to May 1st.
5. Participants are required to read and respond to a minimum of five of their peers posts, by May 15th, as such it is imperative that all participants meet their deadlines. Plan ahead to give yourself time to brainstorm, read, write, and edit.
5. Pay attention to copyright. Use other people’s work with respect and link to your sources.
6. Stick to the topic. Don’t write about your weekend plans or gossip.
7. Think before you post. Ask yourself, is this something I want my parents, students , friends, strangers to see? What are the consequences if you post this?
8. Only post information you can verify as accurate. Provide links to your sources.

BLog dialogue