Blog 3, The Players: Chapter 6 THE REWARDS & Costs OF RISK-TAKING: TWO CIVIL WAR ADMIRALS; Chapter 5 AMERICAN NAVIES AND BRITISH NEUTRALITY DURING THE CIVIL WAr: Chapter 2 MEXICO, CALIFORNIA, AND THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR

BLog dialogue

Level II participants will read James McPherson's series of 12 essays in the text entitled "The War that Forged a Nation". They will write, and post four response essays related to the chapters referenced within each blog (Blog 1, Lessons For Our Time: Chapters 12,1 & 11; Blog 2, The Price of Freedom: Chapters 4,3 & 7; Blog 3, The Players: Chapters 6, 5 & 2; Blog 4, Lincoln: Chapters 8, 9 & 10. Participant essays should reflect their beliefs insights, ideas, teaching strategies etc. related to the ideas presented by McPherson in the text. In addition participants will respond to a minimum of five of their peer's posts within the blog. All blogs are posted below.

Civil Rights Reading Assignments

Blog 3, The Players: Chapter 6 THE REWARDS & Costs OF RISK-TAKING: TWO CIVIL WAR ADMIRALS; Chapter 5 AMERICAN NAVIES AND BRITISH NEUTRALITY DURING THE CIVIL WAr: Chapter 2 MEXICO, CALIFORNIA, AND THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR

1/28/2017

36 Comments

Blog 3, The Players: Reflective Post

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.

36 Comments

lisa beard

3/28/2017 07:44:10 pm

Blog #3: The War That Forged a Nation - Chapters 6, 5,2
Lisa Beard - Field Study 2017

In chapter 2, regarding the war between the United States and Mexico, Ulysses S Grant describes it as the most wicked war that was ever waged. He saw it as a most unjust war brought on by a strong U.S against a weak Mexico and compared it to the Iraq War, stating it was not a war of necessity, but rather a war of choice. In this war, the U.S. was expanded by ¼ and Mexico was reduced by half. Fifteen years later, slavery set in motion issues that would almost tear the United States apart. The difference is, in 1845 the American settlers were offered large land grants to settle in the northern province of Texas. Americans brought slaves, and by 1835 native Mexicans were outnumber 6 to 1. American Texans declared independence and, as a result, 187 defenders were slaughtered at the Alamo, amongst other confrontations. Eventually the Mexican commander was captured and forced to sign a treaty recognizing Texas as an independent republic. The controversy continued to be about slavery. In comparison to the Iraq War, the U.S did not enter into the war for more territory. War was brought on by an invasion to our homeland.
Chapter 5 focuses on France and Britain being economically hurt during the American Civil War, because of the loss of the cotton industry from the southern states. Several times, the British government encouraged France to intervene, to mediate peace in the United States. The “cotton famine” caused unemployment amongst workers and broke down the economic trade. Although the cotton industry was a problem, the most important factor was the navy warships built in private British shipyards. In 1861 pressure was put on the British and France to intervene in order to get cotton through. By the time this was realized, getting cotton through was a problem. It did get through however, and as a result, the blockade’s effectiveness was questioned. The true effectiveness was not about how many ships got through, or were captured, but how many tried. This heightened the danger to the Union; potentially turning the American Civil War into an international war.
Chapter 6 opens with a letter from a U.S. Navy Captain to his wife, which was regarded as another “example of boastfulness in the age-old rivalry between the army and the navy.” Argument is that a larger point was being made, crediting the navy for Northern victory. Ulysses S. Grant praised the Mississippi Squadron for the capture of Vicksburg. Grant believed that without the navy’s help, it could not have happened. While this chapter deals with numerous accounts of devastation on water, the bottom line remains, there was a willingness to take great risks. As with any war, if there is to be victory, this is the mind set.
To say one war is the most wicked ever - is profound. Any war is wicked, and whether on land or on sea, it does not matter. War is what it is - devastating!

Patrick Tolman

4/19/2017 02:21:21 pm

Economics seems to be one of those factors that plays a role in every war and so I was surprised to read about France and Britain remaining largely neutral in this war in spite of the economic impact it was having, especially on Britain's textile industry. This economic factor nearly caused Britain to take a firm side as they helped produce warships. I appreciate your final statement however as my opinion echoes yours that even though we have discussions or arguments about what war was worse or was the war a total war or not they are all ultimately devastating.

Lisa Beard

4/19/2017 08:52:16 pm

Yes, totally agree Patrick, war is costly no doubt, so like you, it is surprising that others were able to stay neutral when being affected the way they were industrially. The production of war ships seems it would have forced Britain to take a side. Had that happened, we may have seen a much different war end result. Either way, yes, still all very devastating.

Janica

4/19/2017 02:48:21 pm

- When Du Pont read these words, he wondered what Fox was smoking when he wrote them. - Wow! I must admit that this statement got me a bit off the subject and sent me scurrying to the web to find out what was smoked during that time; I had no idea. I found it interesting to read that Fox could have possibly been on laudanum, cocaine, and even arsenic during this time. Ok, a bit off the subject except it points to the fact that Du Pont was already doubting himself and Secretary Fox. This war proves that risk takers were needed to win this war and I wonder if that still stands today? Case in point, McClellan, who did what others feared could not be done. I liked this chapter, because it really pointed out that the attitude of the commanders really did make the difference. Du Pont spent his time worried about newspaper criticism, while Farragut was busy taking New Orleans and “silencing Confederate guns” in twenty minutes. I could just see him calming watching this dangerous scene as if he were at a summer picnic sipping lemonade to the chagrin of his men worried about his safety. Celerity was truly Farragut’s middle name.
Struggled with Chapter 5. Guess its basic message was that Britain and France were feeling the cotton famine in the old wallet and favored the North. Three factors that decided whether foreign intervention was warranted simply did not hold enough importance to cause interference with from outside powers until it was decided by France and Britain that maybe it would be best to stop the Confederacy from building warships and watch out for their own interests. In my opinion it was still an international event because both countries could see that a lot of trade and benefits in the near future.
I loved the term “wicked war” that Grant assigned to the civil war, because in my opinion war brings out the evil in people. People do things in the name of war that they would never think acceptable in everyday life. Polk trying to cause incidents that would validate a war with Mexico in order to get land and equalize the North and South’s power was a red blotch on America’s history. I did find it interesting that John Adam’s son was one of the few that held out voting for “Mr. Polk’s War”. Possibly because he understood the underlining negative issues with the manifest Destiny or could see the possible slaughter against the untrained Mexican soldier and civilians. Or maybe he was still fighting the slavery issue that his father before him fought.

Lisa Beard

4/19/2017 08:58:40 pm

Janica, You really pointed out some things that I missed here. I guess that is the point of all of this - always learning. I think in most cases the risk taker is what sets everything in motion; without risk, there is no change. "Wicked" war indeed - every war is, but this one, probably more so than most I feel. It is one thing to kill your enemy - another to kill your own.

Janica

4/21/2017 05:32:05 pm

Lisa, I couldn't help but see that you too picked up on the "wicked war" statement by Grant and that you ended it with the idea that war is devastating. This would be a great lesson plan to just throw out the question about if any war is justified? Could the slaves possibly have any different take on that than the Mexican citizens? What was the common denominator in these two situations?

Cindy Ness

4/3/2017 11:45:22 am

When I teach the Mexican American War, I begin the discussion by sharing with my students "Yertle the Turtle" by Dr. Seuss, it allows me to discuss with students the cost of the Mexican American war, both to Mexico and the United States. This is a hard one to teach, because no matter how I shake it I can't justify it. Some years ago I read a text entitled Eagles and Empire. It's a great text on the Mexican American War, in any case the author argues that had the US not aggressively fought for Mexico, it is likely large states in Mexico would have voluntarily fought for their independence and then later been annexed by the U.S. (like Texas) as Mexico's government in the mid-nineteenth century was unable to govern itself. Our invasion of Mexico in 1848, like our invasion of Canada in 1812, basically made the nation. Mexico became Mexico and Canada became Canada, precisely because our invasions forced unity upon them. What if we had waited, and allowed nature to take it's course.....? Another what if of history.

Lisa Beard

4/19/2017 09:03:00 pm

Cindy, Now I am going to have to go search out "Yertle the Turtle" for some more innovative teaching ideas. I often use Dr. Seuss books in my classes. If you find it difficult to teach this unit, I have to say, I am glad I don't have to. I think like everything though, everything seems to get down to "what if"...

Janica

4/21/2017 05:28:29 pm

Cindy,
It is refr4eshing to have someone admit that not all of America's history is all stars and spangles, similes and honor, or justice and birthright. Although, some argue that had the US not acquired Mexico they would have eventually ended up in the Union is not only justifying the fact that America was built on the bones of the African Americans, the Native Americans, and Mexicans, as well. Having said that - it was white America that first decided that slavery was unconstitutional - maybe our way of making things right? Lots of what its - which might be a great topic for class. What if we had never fought the Civil war or Vietnam? Thanks for the idea1

Patrick Tolman

4/19/2017 10:32:39 am

Blog #3 The Players - Chapters 2, 5, and 6
I am the first to admit to my students that as much as I love history there is a whole lot that I don’t know, which is why I continue to be a student of history. Chapter 2 proved to fill a large hole in my background knowledge. Because I teach US History II I do not spend a significant amount of time on the Civil War but I felt comfortable with my knowledge of the players of the Civil War. With that in mind I did not think I would learn a great deal from chapter 2 about the Mexican War. I was surprised that this chapter shed some new and important light on the years leading up to the Civil War. I love that I am always learning new things and framing my understanding of historical events in new ways. I admit that I was not familiar with the Wilmot Proviso and now have a greater understanding of how this played a role in the slavery question leading up to the Civil War. The impact of Henry Clay’s (still mourning the loss of his son in the Mexican War) speech supporting this proviso on new congressman Abraham Lincoln additionally shed light on positions taken by different players leading up to the war. I was intrigued by the arguments given back then that slavery would not be an issue in the territory gained from Mexico and that the Wilmot Proviso was unnecessary. It was also fascinating to consider the role that the gold rush played in this, an aspect I had never learned of or considered. This information led up to the Compromise of 1850, a point at which I begin to feel more comfortable again with my background knowledge. I find that I often simplify or dilute background information like this that ultimately provides so much context for historical events in the name of making it easier for students to digest. Whether I present all this information to students or not, I am glad that I have expanded my own background knowledge here about these particular “players”.
It is an exercise in what ifs to consider the players who might have been and the impact they could have had on the outcome of the war. Britain or France entering the war would have certainly had an impact. The British had several reasons that could have pushed them into involvement, but ultimately they remained “neutral” in name if not action. The many different branches in the timeline that could be explored in these what if scenarios ultimately prove futile (at least until I finish my time machine and can go back and test the butterfly effect). The economic impact of blockades, the release of Confederate envoys, the failure of the Confederacy to be recognized as a nation, differences in the outcomes of battles like Antietam, or the construction of Confederate ships in British shipyards all could have been major “players” in different ways if these things had turned out differently. Ultimately the way these events did play out prevented players like Britain and France from intervening on a large scale which is certainly an important part to consider when discussing the players of this war. The same possibilities can be considered when we look at specific individuals and how their actions played out. Farragut versus Du Pont for example could be examined for their risk taking or conservative actions respectively. While all of these factors can be considered when looking at the course and outcome of the war, I often find it a valuable exercise in historical literacy skills for students to take the context of different situations, collaborate different sources and investigate these historical what ifs. It provides students with an opportunity to show how different viewpoints (or outcomes) can be supported by facts that they may not have considered before.

Erin OBrien

4/19/2017 02:49:17 pm

I couldn't agree more that as a student of history I am loving these connections between events that while I knew about them individually I never really put them all together in the context of causing or fueling the Civil War. But on top of all that there were times reading through this information that I knew if I presented this information in my US II class that students would get so bogged down in the details that they also wouldn't be able to see how the puzzle all fits together creating the Civil War. What I'm struggling with is I do want my students to see the bigger picture and realize this war was caused and fought for so much more than just slavery so how do I give them context without overcomplicating the information? It's hard at high school level trying to figure out what students can and can not handle, a college course of course give all the information but here it seems a bit much.

Janica

4/19/2017 07:24:07 pm

Patrick,
I agree with your comment about echoing Lisa’s remarks about the sadness and somber associated with war. We can color it any way that we want, but death always brings to mind greys and blackness due to the unavoidable death and destruction that come with war.

I also love your phrase “dilute background information” because of too much context, but I think that it clears up a lot of questions – helping students understand info and digest (in your words) a complete picture. Background info really gives students something to chew on and prepares us for those surprise questions that students come up with.

I too kind of liked how Du Pont’s and Farragut’s roles where juxtaposed. It was kind of like Superman vs the Lantern – one superhero just could not live up to the other.

Lisa Beard

4/19/2017 09:18:11 pm

Janica, I love how you said, "We can color it any way that we want, but death always brings to mind greys and blackness due to the unavoidable death and destruction that come with war." II also liked Patrick's phrase "dilute background information" because of too much context. I agree in that sometimes things need to be sorted through and broken down before understanding can happen. With understanding comes questioning. When students begin to question and draw their own conclusion from what they have understood - learning has happened.

Lisa Beard

4/19/2017 09:11:08 pm

Patrick, I have said repeatedly throughout this study, if I have learned anything, it is that I knew nothing about history, and everything I thought I knew, was somewhat wrong. As an English teacher, I am really out of my comfort zone on all of this, but I guess that is what learning is all about, and how learning happens. Like you, I never knew the gold rush entered into any of this. It was actually nice to read of something that I had a little bit of knowledge in. I like your last thoughts a lot of ways to present material to students. I think there is a lot to be learned through collaboration, investigating/researching, and developing the ability to respect other viewpoints.

Daron Gatherum

5/15/2017 06:39:35 am

I agree that in teaching U.S. history II that I do not give as much attention to the Civil War as I should. These chapters have opened my eyes as well to how much more complex this war was. It was not just North against South fighting for States Rights and slavery. I have never covered the War with Mexico as a leading event to the Civil War. The other event that I have never attached to the Civil War is the California Gold Rush. Prior to reading these chapters I had never attached the two. My question is, how much attention should be given to these events in a U.S. History II course? I am constantly breezing over material to "fit" everything in. Any thoughts?

Erin OBrien

4/19/2017 02:43:32 pm

Again I found it be really interesting and new to me how much the west played a role in a war usually taught to be North vs. South. The fact that the California Gold Rush was bringing so many people from all over the nation and world they needed to build a railroad across the nation to support the migration, so much so that California had about double the population they needed to be considered for state status which would start the debate in Congress of equality between the number of free states vs. the number of slaves states which of course is going to spark debates all over the nation when it comes to territories being considered for statehood. But what I found to be the most interesting when it comes to this particular topic of major players in the Civil War is the role of Europe specifically France and Great Britain. I was always under the impression (and if I’m being honest I don’t know from where) that France and Great Britain wanted to stay out of the conflict solely hoping the two countries would tear each other apart in the hopes of recolonizing the region. So because of this chapter I was really forced to change my interpretation of Europe’s actions during this time. With all that being said and my taking in my original thinking into considering it is so simple and interesting that their motives for staying out of the conflict were either economical of militarily big picture. They were struggling without the South’s cotton so they wanted to get involved but when they had the opportunity to either break the Anaconda Plan of the North blockading the South or allowing the South to build ships in French shipyards they had to consider that if they broke these flimsy blockade then their future blockades could be considered just as flimsy. It is always interesting to read about Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Ulysses S. Grant, but these hidden less taught Civil War players was refreshing to see the bigger picture of the size of the Civil War.

Janica

4/21/2017 05:22:50 pm

I too figured France and Great Britain stayed neutral because of higher morals, but realized as well that it was self-interest at play here. I wonder where the Anaconda Plan name came from? Just a side thought... You know it would be fun to have the students to act out being Britain, France, and both the North and the South. They could stuidy the reasons why each did what the did and then have an open debate with each student representing the countries opinions and fighting for what was financially and economically best for that particular country. Might be interesting.

I learned that the California Gold Rush played a big part in the war- which makes sense, now that I have really thought it out. I see that you too picked up on that. Great minds think alike!

Andrew Spratt

5/16/2017 07:41:32 am

That's a great point that France and Britain weren't really considering the ethical problems of the war. I think that when we look back we tend to attribute our own personal ethical views on most everyone at the time, but in the end it's just politics and national self-interest.

Kyler Bingham

4/26/2017 05:20:40 pm

So true Erin! The West had many direct and indirect effects on the war. The understanding that the West would eventually be settled and a part of the country had a definitive impact.

Paul Noble

4/20/2017 08:56:42 am

Blog #3, The Players (Chapters 2, 5, 6):
This particular grouping of chapters seems to be a bit disjointed in their connectivity, yet there are appropriate conclusions to be made that can inform and direct current thinking and decision-making.

Chapter 2 was a reflection by the author on the results of the Mexican War, a shorter synopsis of his analysis of that conflict in Battle Cry of Freedom (1988). The Mexican War plays a pivotal role in not only the realization of “Manifest Destiny” but also the “inevitable” expansion of slavery across the nation, especially into the American Southwest. While this in and of itself is important, perhaps even more significant was its foreshadowing of the impending cathartic conflict we call the American Civil War. Three points to be made:
• It is notable that all the key Civil War military leaders—both for the North and for the South—gained valuable experience during the Mexican War, and were deeply influenced both by its results as well as how the war was prosecuted.
• The war demonstrated the depraved capacities of humanity when engaged in war, to be further exhibited on a much larger scale during the Civil War.
• There are many examples of smaller conflicts that give impetus to larger ones. A couple of these are the Franco-Prussian and Spanish-American Wars (precursors to World War I) and the Spanish Civil War and the invasion of Manchuria (lead ups to World War II). Both of the larger conflicts included participants that were involved in the previous, smaller struggles where experience was gained and which brought confidence to them regarding their abilities to make war.

Chapter 5 recounted the effects of the Northern blockade on Southern ports during the Civil War, as well as the attendant international debate as to the legitimacy of both North and South governments in how they prosecuted their war efforts. That debate was a curious case of “political considerations” which served to neuter any definitive action on the part of the international community. For England, these “considerations” centered on the following conflicting concerns: 1) a need for a continuous supply of cotton for their factories, and 2) their abhorrence for slavery, which they had outlawed earlier in the 19th century. The ensuing waffling allowed the North to continue their efforts to defeat the Southern rebels undeterred and unfettered by outsiders.

Chapter 6 highlighted the efforts of Northern naval admirals Farragut and Du Pont, and offers a comparison and contrast of these two personalities. The author compares Farragut (favorably) to General Grant and Du Pont (unfavorably) to General McClellan. McPherson’s focus is on the willingness (or unwillingness) to take risks in pursuing military goals, and how that determined levels of success. His contrast of these two can lead to the conclusion that concern for reputation sometimes overpowers the need to act definitively and with swiftness and “damn the ‘political’ torpedoes.”
So, here are some of my conclusions:
1. The skirmishes of yesterday will frequently lead to larger conflict today.
2. The more experience gained, the more confidence is built.
3. If you are concerned about political ramifications, then you will be less likely to act.
4. Risk will always result in casualties; therefore, the real question is, what is the real worth of your goal?

I believe that these conclusions have active and important applications for our current civil rights civil war.

Janica

4/21/2017 06:08:56 pm

It is often very difficult for us living in quiet little towns, sipping our Star Bucks to appreciate the horrors that war (past and current) brings to society. It is very uncomfortable for us to think about, which is why this topic has not really been taught in the past. Because of television news footage and the media of today, sadly we hear of these atrocities. I can see that you too mentioned this topic in your blog. I can only imagine how much more information we would have about the Civil war had Anderson Cooper or Katie Couric been on the job?

I was very impressed with your final summations and your comment on ramifications was very insightful.

Kyler Bingham

4/23/2017 03:47:43 pm

BLOG #3

The players involved in the Civil War is what makes this time period so fascinating in my opinion. Maybe it’s partly to do with the age of the students that I teach, but I find a lot of all-or-nothing thinking when students are introduced to the Civil War. This is understandable on a certain level. The war was between to distinct geographical locations of the country. Two side with opposing viewpoints makes it easy to categorize black and white thinking. It’s not just students who fall into the trap of all-or-nothing thinking, adults do it all the time.
To illustrate how rich and complex the characters involved in the war were, one could use the example of David Farragut. Farragut was considered a Southern man with a Southern wife, but history shows him to be a successful Union naval officer. “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” is the famous line attributed to Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay. I’ve used the quote in class many times, and it strikes most students as familiar on some level.
Farragut finds a way to interest students, especially when they find out that he was 8 or 9 when he became involved with the navy. Someone that young working their way up the ranks is an amazing story. The fact that he was a Southerner, but fought for the Union confuses many students. Exploring his story helps to add depth and relatability to actual people from this time period. It’s amazing that we have many primary sources from this time period. Utilizing primary sources in the classroom (Farragut’s included), has helped to broaden the scope of historically rich events such as the ones that Farragut lived through.

LeeAnn Hyer

5/4/2017 02:20:36 pm

Kyler,

I love that you use Farragut in your classes to bring your students into the story. I had never really heard about him until reading this book. He is definitely a person I want to bring up in the future. I think it is helpful for students to see that the people they read about in their textbooks are more than just the battles they fought. That they had the same struggles that the students have now.

LeNina Wimmer

5/9/2017 07:02:43 pm

Kyler,

Wow, I did not know those things about Farragut. There are probably so many fascinating characters out there that we barely scratch the surface in knowing. It would probably be a great activity to have our students find one "lesser known" person in all major time periods! I bet we would be surprised to know about stories similar to Farragut.

Kim Ball

4/28/2017 09:17:15 pm

Blog #3
The Players
As I have studied and taught history, the same key figures are always studied and the students become familiar with their influence on American History. I think that it is fun to introduce students to new characters in American History that have made significant contributions, but whose names are not in bold print in the textbook, or who may never make it to the textbook at all. I thought that these chapters had several of those characters.
In chapter 2, the character that I thought was most interesting is a character that does take up a small portion of the history book, but is still an individual that most students are not familiar with. I thought that Polk was a character that I could use to show my students how much history repeats itself. I thought it was so interesting to read about Polk wanting to go to war so badly over the Mexican Territory to expand the United States land holdings that Polk creates his own facts, stating that Mexico had invaded U.S. territory and killed Americans on American soil. Americans had been killed, but only after provoking the Mexican commander. This reminded me of the “fake news” has recently been in the news. I also found it interesting that Democrats called the war “Mr. Polk’s War.” I think these would be good talking points to get students discussing what was happening during the 1840s-1860s, and then what has been happening from 2000-present, and make connections between the two time periods.
In chapter 5, the character that I was not too familiar with was the Confederate agent, James D. Bulloch. The South was requesting assistance from both France and Great Britain to help the South in their war effort. Both France and Great Britain declare neutrality in the conflict (questionable), but James Bulloch took matters into his own hands and contracted for two commerce raiders to be built in Liverpool. The two ships were the CSS Florida and the CSS Alabama. Both ships were to be “merchant” ships, which were then loaded with arms and ammunition. The CSS Florida ends up destroying thirty-eight American merchant ships. The CSS Alabama is responsible for destroying sixty-four American vessels. He then ends up contracting with the same contractor to build two more ships, this time they were ships of war. Once he can no longer contract with the British builders, he then moves to the French. I think he has a significant impact on the American blockade against the South.
In chapter 6, it was Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut that I found most interesting. I know that he is in the history books, but I still found his contributions to the Union war effort to be intriguing. I thought that it was interesting that Captain Charles Steedman wrote in a letter to his wife that Farragut had done more to help the Union cause than any other general except perhaps Sherman and Grant. I also had not ever recognized the significance of the navy in the success of the Union. I have always considered the Civil War a ground war. I was impressed with Grant’s acknowledgement of the navy’s significance and going so far as to say that “Without the navy’s assistance the [Vicksburg, July 1863] campaign could not have been made.” I think that perhaps the best part of the Farragut story is the fact that he and his family were all southerners. He and his wife were living in Virginia when Virginia seceded . He had hoped that he would not have to fight, but when succession happened, he supported Lincoln, to which his friends and neighbors responded by telling him he would have to leave Norfolk, and he did. I was struck by his commitment to his assignment in the Navy and to the United States.
I think that introducing our students to some characters that they have not been familiar with before makes history more interesting to our students. I also think that it helps them to see that history is made up of some ordinary people that do extraordinary things!

LeNina Wimmer

4/30/2017 03:38:00 pm

Kim,
What a great synthesis point on the "fake news" and the War with Mexico. It is a good reminder to all of us that the idea of exaggeration has always been a part of American politics and the American press. It is important to remind our students that truth exists on both sides of story!

The War with Mexico is a great talking point today when we discuss immigration debate and the building of a wall. One of my favorite things to point out to my students is that Mexico invited American settlers into Mexico with the express condition that they become Mexicans. When the "Americans" outnumbered the Mexicans in the Mexican territory of Texas, the Americans started wanted rights and would eventually declare themselves independent. Crazy to think about!! Thanks for the reminder!

Kim Ball

4/30/2017 08:31:36 pm

LeNina -

I thought it was funny that in our next chapters (8, 9 & 10), good old McClellan is also an extreme exaggerator. While his is not really "fake news," it still has a great impact because it is the excuse he uses for his inaction in moving forward with the military. Interesting to think about!

LeNina Wimmer

4/30/2017 03:32:50 pm

Blog #3: The players
This selection seems to be about the major players in the Civil War that do not get the credit they deserve namely; The Union Navy, Great Britain and Mexico. Each played a crucial role in either the coming of the war or the winning of the war. As a teacher, especially in AP US History, I always feel pressed for time and as I read this chapters, I asked myself if I should do more or less with them next year. Sadly for the Union Navy they will not get any more treatment than they currently get (which is minuscule at best, the British will get exactly the same coverage and the war with Mexico will get some additional highlights.

These are times when I love the freedom that I have in setting up my curriculum. I’m sure they are those that will spend time on the battles, the generals and the strategy of war. The tile of this book we are reading is “Why the Civil War still matters” and for me it doesn’t matter because of the battles it matters because of how it came to be and the result and implications of war. Sorry, Farragut, but you are not going to be know in my class either.

The British get good coverage for me. I cover almost all of what the chapter covered. The desire of foreign nations to see the U.S. split into too. The reliance of Britain on the cotton of the south and the impact of the Emancipation proclamation on reality that Britain could never recognize the Confederacy once the war was officially about slavery. I realized that in all the debates about whether the war was a about slavery here was great evidence that whether or not it began about slavery, the North won because Great Britain did not help The Confederacy and that was definitely about slavery.

Mexico fascinates me. The history of the United States and its relationship with Mexico fascinates me. I agree with Grant’s statement that the War with Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation” and with McPherson that the war was “a war of choice, not of necessity, a war of aggression”. That war brings on the Civil War. My discussion in class about the Civil War always begins with the War with Mexico and the issues that surround the war. The territory that comes into U.S. possession because of the war will help bring about the terrible Civil War. Here are some reasons that the Civil War still matters—the issues of popular sovereignty do not have to be about just slavery. The relationship with Mexico today is fraught with problems that stem from what one textbook I use points out that the Mexicans call the “War of Northern Aggression”. These issues still matter today and it would be nice if more of our leaders and citizens understood the relationship of Mexico to the United States.

There are many players in a war. Not everybody gets equal treatment and nobody ever will. Teaching is about choice—what to emphasize, what to skip. What to write an essay about and what to make a recall question. I find that my students are passionate about what I am passionate about that is a great burden we have as teachers.

Daron Gatherum

4/30/2017 09:03:30 pm

As I read these assigned chapters I, like some of you, realized that I have not done a very good job teaching some of the key events leading up to the Civil War. I teach U.S. History II and therefore do not spend a lot of time covering the back story of the conflict. I assume that my students have a solid background and understanding from their 8th grade experience. One of the reasons I love opportunities like this class provides is to enhance my knowledge. I constantly find myself taking what I am reading for this course and taking it back to my students. Chapter 2 was very eye opening for me. I do teach about the gold rush by have never brought in the politics of slavery and how the gold rush could have played a role in the civil war. I have always taught the importance of admitting California as a free state and the Compromise of 1850 as a way to keep the balance of free and slave states in congress. I never thought about what the economic impact that slavery could have had on the miners. The statement that most Forty-Niners were against slavery not because of moral principle, but because they did not want to compete with slave labor. According to a Southern newspaper, "There is no vocation in the world in which slavery can be more useful and profitable than in mining." This is a concept that now makes perfect sense, but prior to reading the text had never occurred to me.
In covering the war with Mexico I have always felt similar to what Ulysses Grant said in 1879, " I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico." I believe that students would be able to draw some similarities between the War with Mexico and some modern conflicts in that it was as the book states a "war of choice, not of necessity." I believe that as teachers of history we must not only teach the positives of history, but also include some of the darker chapters of history. For me there was so much new information in chapter 2 alone that I want to go teach 8th grade history to share this new knowledge. I know students would be drawn in with some of the stories of lesser known historical figures like that of David Broderick and David Terry and their eventual duel-all with a underlying connection to the practice of slavery.
Every historical event is full of what ifs. The Civil war is no different. This point was illustrated in the discussion of chapter 5 on American Navies and British Neutrality. What if the British had been involved? What if the Trent affair, where U.S. sailors boarded and seized two British dispatches? This could have been justification for a war with Britain-a similar action to what had caused the United States to declare war in Britain in 1812. What if Lincoln had not come to the decision and received support for the "one war at a time."? In addition to these questions I also found it interesting that there was international law defining warfare at sea, "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective." I also realized through reading this chapter as well as chapter 6 that I do not give adequate coverage and attention in my class to the important role played by the Navy in the North emerging victorious.
I found chapter 6 fascinating. I was somewhat aware of Admiral Farragut, but had never heard of Samuel Du Pont. I was somewhat surprised at that Farragut "has done more to put down the rebellion than any general except Grant and Sherman." That is a bold statement and I should probably give him his due in teaching about the war. I thought the comparison between Du Pont and McClellan was very interesting, both blaming others for their failures, and at times being overly cautious in his tactics. Farragut however seemed to "risk his fleet and his reputation on the effort to achieve victory." I wish I could take the information I have learned reading these chapters and implant it directly to my students.

Amy Dalley

5/11/2017 11:06:53 am

I liked what you wrote about not teaching the events that lead up to the Civil War. When teaching WWII it is so important to begin with the treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. I find it interesting that so many people are fascinated about the Civil War, but not many know all of the causes.

LeeAnn Hyer

5/1/2017 09:07:06 am

Blog #3

These chapters opened my eyes to aspects of the Civil War that I hadn't studied before (even in a semester long Civil War college course) but unfortunately time constraints may make it impossible to bring all of my new insights into the players of the Civil War into my curriculum.

The discussion of the Mexican War was a war of choice is an idea that I will probably share with my students as well as Clay's assertion that it was an unnecessary war. Grant's letter to his wife detailing the atrocities committed against the Mexicans by the volunteer soldiers was sobering. That brought up a discussion in the book that soldiers commit atrocities against those they view as lesser than them. Which explained some of the atrocities committed against the black regiments by Confederate soldiers. I was also surprised by the fact that California had a pro-slavery/Southern Democrat political machine - the Chiv. And thanks to a duel between a Chiv and a former New Yorker (Broderick), California shifted to a Republican State. I've never pointed out to my students that people moving to the west would also bring their political sentiments with them probably because I simply assumed slavery was a non-issue in the far west.

Foreign aid/support was definitely a major issue for both the North and the South. Chapter 5 opened my eyes to the fact that Britain and France both wanted to intercede on the side of the South but a division of public sentiment on the slavery issue and a need for U.S. trade stopped the British from doing so. Of course that didn't stop shipbuilders from building ships for the Confederacy and shipping the armaments to remote locations so they could honestly say they weren't building war ships. The Confederates entreated France and Britain to help stop the U.S. blockade of 3,500 miles of Confederate did not work. When Slidell, one of the Confederate envoys, told the French that "the risk of capture was significantly great to deter those who had not an adventurous spirit from attempting it (break the blockade), both the French and British didn't think they needed to intervene to stop the 'paper blockade' the Confederates were complaining about. That and the Emancipation Proclamation sealed the deal for no foreign support for the Confederacy.

The discussion of the parallels between some of the Naval commanders and Army commanders fascinated me. I had never realized that Lincoln faced so many reluctant commanders. The discussion of how DuPont was like McClellan and Farragut was similar to Grant was enjoyable to read. The similarities were striking. I admire Farrgut's commitment to his decisions - staying with the Union and attacking when he said he would. I never knew that "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!" is attributed to him. I also admire his tenacity.

If I have the chance I would add a brief discussion of some of the lesser known Civil War players to my lessons but alas time constraints usually leave them in the dust.

Melinda Reay

5/7/2017 03:15:43 pm

LeAnn,

I also feel that I cannot fit everything about the Civil War into my curriculum. It is difficult with the way Utah does their history as one is in middle school and one is in high school (in Idaho, you take Before 1877 in your sophomore year and After 1877 in your junior). I almost wish we had the later form of curriculum! Anyways, I agree that I will add in the Mexican-American war controversy into my lessons. It is an easy comparison in my opinion to the Vietnam War, and I myself started "dissing" America's decision to go to war without real justification.

Andrew Spratt

5/1/2017 02:43:07 pm

s I read through the chapters on the various parties involved in the Civil War, the persistent thought I had was that war is a terrible way to resolved conflicts. I kept thinking about how arbitrary war is, and yet how inevitable as well. In reading about the problems that developed in the wake of the Mexican-American War, particularly the concerns over California’s admission to the Union as a free state and the subsequent political fighting (even leading to fistfights and duels) it became clear that a large-scale conflict on the issue of slavery could hardly have been avoided. And yet, once the war began it seems as though the ultimate victor was simply a matter of luck. If Britain and France had chosen to recognize the Confederacy’s independence, or had challenged the Union blockade, or permitted the construction of more Confederate ships, the war may have gone very differently. The North didn’t win because they had the moral high ground, or because God intended for slavery to be abolished and the Union preserved. They won because of good luck, fortunate political circumstances, and a seemingly arbitrary advantage in troops and industry.

Of course, they also won because of Naval superiority. Chapter 6 was my favorite of this portion, simply because it didn’t paint the war in terms of the slave issue, or preserving the union, or political advantage. It simply pointed out that boldness in warfare is often rewarded. Reading about Farragut and Du Pont was enthralling. I hadn’t realized that so much of the Civil War was fought navally. I also better understood Lincoln’s frustration over his military commanders who refused to take risks. In the end, though, I don’t think we can blame Du Pont for being hesitant to attack Charleston Harbor. After all, war is arbitrary, and cannons don’t care much about your courage and convictions. This section was a fascinating read, and I feel I have a better understanding of how inevitable the Civil War was, as well as the uncertainty of its outcome.

Kim Ball

5/1/2017 06:57:18 pm

Andrew -

I also loved reading of DuPont and Farragut. I do think that God had to have had a hand in the Union being saved or McClellan would have lost it for them! To have been the victor in spite of McClellan had to require some sort of divine intervention - and perhaps a bit of luck as well!

Melinda P Reay

5/1/2017 08:31:12 pm

Blog 3 - The War That Forged a Nation, Chapters 2, 5, 6
Melinda Reay - Field Study 2017

Chapter 2: This chapter made me hate the Mexican-American War. I thought that the connection with the war in Iraq was perfect. It was not a war of necessity, but was instead a war of opportunity and aggression. It was a choice to commit to this war, not a need. Texans defied Mexican laws before the war even began. We agreed on boundaries, then broke the boundaries to do what we wanted. If I were to say what my least favorite war, it would be the Revolutionary War (I know: I just find it boring), then the Mexican-American War.

Chapter 5: When I teach the Civil War, I don’t often teach the foreign influences in the war. Often, you think of the war as a domestic issue that did not involve foreign powers. But by thinking this way, you forget the massive influence that America had over foreign powers. Britain, for instance, had concerns over a “cotton famine” (p. 65) for their textile mills, public opinions on the war, foreign trade concerns, Canadian colonies, the slavery issues, and concerns over the navies (p. 66). It reminds me of civil wars now (such as in Syria and in Egypt), and how we are concerned about the outcomes for our benefit or demise. I also found the section on the blockade very interesting. I had never heard of the blockade before in this much depth. I loved that they tried to have it determined that the blockade was illegal because it was unsuccessful. I suppose that shows that they actual did fear and were intimidated by the blockade.

Chapter 6: I sort of feel bad for Farragut. It would be hard to go against your family in order to do your job. Even worse, you are going against your wife and her beliefs and family. It would take a lot of guts and resilience in order to do this. I suppose it shows how serious he was at preserving the Union and doing this job. I found the description of the Hartford’s bombing. The book states that “in this melee, scores of shells were in the air and exploding at the same time, in what was surely the most spectacular fireworks display in American history to that time.” It reminds me of a primary source I read for Vietnam, which described a soldier stating that at night, Vietnam was one of the most beautiful places he had ever seen, yet in the morning, it was filled with death and destruction.

Amy Dalley

5/10/2017 10:33:48 am

This is only my second year teaching US history II so I really became the student while reading these chapters. One thing I love about history and try to stress to my students is everything is somewhat hinging upon everything else. I know that sounds like a verbal riddle, but these chapters showed how the California Gold Rush, The Mexican American War, and Manifest Destiny all were players in pre Civil-War politics.
What American war is being described where the president stood accused of fabricating an excuse to get into the war, the army was sent to liberate the country from an irresponsible government, American soldiers found the people they came to liberate distrusted them because of a radically different culture and religion and as the war drug on the president faced growing criticism (Johnson)? Modern Americans would claim it was the War in Iraq, and would be shocked to find out that it was actually the Mexican American War. Many don’t even know many details about the Mexican American War, but definitely know the outcome and have also heard of many of it’s players- Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee to name the most obvious. I find it curious that while the Civil War fascinates so many- it’s training ground, The Mexican American War, is just a blip in history.
I love to read about wartime spies and back channeling that goes on between warring nations. I was thoroughly entertained by the Confederate envoys and diplomats that tried to win Europe’s favor. Although the Civil War caused economic crisis in France and England, I found it interesting that they created an embargo to force assistance and then when they did break the Union blockade, it was a little too little too late.
I also found a new research topic: David Glasgow Farragut. I found the fact that he was a southerner with a southern , yet remained true to the Union Navy very unique. It seemed like he was a determined and persistent fighter that didn’t blame anyone else for his failures. I learned more so much new information concerning the Civil War; so many connections and ties were made to other time periods.

Johnson, Timothy D. , “The Iraq War and Similarities with an Earlier Conflict”, http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/53400.

D2T BLog 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