____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies Canada, Mexico, & U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 133/135— Origins of Political Symbols April 3/5, 2017

Focus: Who uses symbols besides political parties?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze the origins of political symbols in the United States.2. I will create a political cartoon about the Compromise of 1850.

Homework:-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 488-490 (due 4/7)-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492; complete 15.3 Reading Check (due 4/10)-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497; complete 15.4 Reading Check (due 4/18)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 4/20

Handouts:Origins of Political Symbols

I. AnalyzeII. Create

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Donkey Elephant Horse/Alligator Compromise of 1850

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:What are the five components of the Compromise of 1850?

The Republican ElephantElection year brings out many caricatures of the elephant and the donkey - symbols of the Republican and

Democratic parties. Few people know the origins of these emblems. William Myers in his scholarly history, The Republican Party, William Murrell in A History of American Graphic Humor, and the Dictionary of American Biography credit Thomas Nast (his drawing appears below) with inventing the symbols. However, investigation shows a much deeper origin.

It is a mistake, however, to cite Thomas Nast as the first to symbolize the elephant. The Republican Party used him as early as 1860, in Lincoln's campaign. On August 9 of that year the Illinois State Journal announced a political rally with a careening elephant at the masthead. This active pachyderm wore two pairs of top boots. On his back a blanket carried the triumphant words, "Clear the track." Stretching between his up-curled trunk and a ring in his tail a streamer proclaimed, "We are coming!" Under this symbol of physical vigor captions screamed "A Political Earth-quake" and "The Prairies on Fire for Lincoln." This may well have been the first time the elephant acted in this capacity for the Republicans.

During ensuing years he was used more and more frequently. In 1862, anti-Lincoln sheets were using the elephant as a symbol of Lincoln's tyranny.

THE DEMOCRATIC DONKEYA humble beast of burden, the donkey has been known for generations as the poor man's friend. At the close of

the Revolution, delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the new United States debated the right of all men to vote. Some delegates wanted to restrict the suffrage to owners of property. Benjamin Franklin objected. He is reported to have said that a farmer might come to town on his donkey to vote. On the way the donkey might die. Then the farmer would lose his right to vote. In such a case, Franklin asked pointedly, did the man or the donkey possess the real right to vote?

In spite of Franklin's objections, a majority of the states insisted on property qualifications until the 183O's -the era of Jacksonian democracy. Many of the new voters were illiterate. Such men could understand pictures, and cartoons assumed a new political importance in America. Jackson posed as the poor man's friend. He was generally pictured riding on a donkey. Almost any man could understand that. Jackson was also opposed to the United States Bank - the money power or Wall Street it was called later. Whigs liked to picture Jackson's donkey stumbling over the Bank. Almost any man could understand that too.

The WhigsJackson's opponents, the Whigs, invented an alligator-horse for their party. Since the great day when

frontiersmen defeated the British at New Orleans, popular songs had described Kentucky boys as alligator-horses. The Whigs hoped that this animal would prove as popular with poor men as the donkey. For a decade the donkey and the alligator-horse were as familiar to voters as the elephant and donkey are today.

Directions:Using your class notes and textbook, create a political cartoon about the Compromise of 1850. Your cartoon must be historically accurate and you must include the symbol for the Democrats (the donkey) and the Whigs (half horse/half alligator). Draw it in the box below.

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies Canada, Mexico, & U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 136— Brooks Canes Sumner April 6, 2017

Focus: Based on the honor system duels can only take place between what kinds of people? How does honor relate to the Brooks-Sumner affair?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze how the Brooks-Sumner affair portrays the intense sectional differences that were dividing the country in the 1850s.

Homework:-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 488-490 (due 4/7)-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492; complete 15.3 Reading Check (due 4/10)-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497; complete 15.4 Reading Check (due 4/18)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 4/20

Handouts:Crime Against Kansas Speech-Charles Sumner

I. Brooks VS. Sumner

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Andrew P. Butler Preston Brooks Charles Sumner Lawrence KeitJohn J. Crittenden Ambrose S. Murray Honor Edwin B. Morgan

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:Why did Brooks not duel Sumner?Why did Brooks beat Sumner?How did this event increase sectional tension between the North and South?

The Crime Against Kansas: The Apologies for the Crime; The True RemedyDelivered to the United States Senate, 19-20 May 1856

byHon. Charles Sumner

The wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it.  Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin.  It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of Slavery in the National Government.  Yes, Sir, when the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, making it a hissing to the nations, here in our Republic, force -- ay, Sir, FORCE -- is openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power.  There is the simple fact, which you will vainly attempt to deny, but which in itself presents an essential wickedness that makes other public crimes seem like public virtues.

This enormity, vast beyond comparison, swells to dimensions of crime which the imagination toils in vain to grasp, when it is understood that for this purpose are hazarded the horrors of intestine feud, not only in this distant Territory, but everywhere throughout the country.  The muster has begun.  The strife is no longer local, but national.  Even now, while I speak, portents lower in the horizon, threatening to darken the land, which already palpitates with the mutterings of civil war....

Before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrong:  I mean the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza1, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure.  I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause against which he has run a tilt, with such ebullition of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak.  The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor and courage.  Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him, -- though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight:  I mean the harlot Slavery.  For her his tongue is always profuse in words.  Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition be made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator.  The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea del Toboso is all surpassed.  The asserted rights of Slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality.  If the Slave States cannot enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames Equality under the Constitution, -- in other words, the full power in the National Territories to compel fellow-men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction-block, -- then, Sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union!  Heroic knight!  Exalted Senator!  A second Moses come for a second exodus!

Not content with this poor menace, which we have been twice told was "measured," the Senator, in the unrestrained chivalry of his nature, has undertaken to apply opprobrious words to those who differ from him on this floor.  He calls them "sectional and fanatical"; and resistance to the Usurpation of Kansas he denounces as "an uncalculating fanaticism."  To be sure, these charges lack all grace of originality and all sentiment of truth; but the adventurous Senator does not hesitate.  He is the uncompromising, unblushing representative on this floor of a flagrant sectionalism, now domineering over the Republic, -- and yet, with a ludicrous ignorance of his own position, unable to see himself as others see him, or with an effrontery which even his white head ought not to protect from rebuke, he applies to those here who resist his sectionalism the very epithet which designates himself.  The men who strive to bring back the Government to its original policy, when Freedom and not Slavery was national, while Slavery and not Freedom was sectional, he arraigns as sectional.  This will not do.  It involves too great a perversion of terms.  I tell that Senator that it is to himself, and to the "organization" of which he is the "committed advocate," that this epithet belongs.  I now fasten it upon them.  For myself, I care little for names; but, since the question is raised here, I affirm that the Republican party of the Union is in no just sense sectional, but, more than any other party, national, -- and that it now goes forth to dislodge from the high places that tyrannical sectionalism of which the Senator from South Carolina is one of the maddest zealots.

1 Don Quixote is a fictitious novel written by Miguel de Cervantes in the 1600s.

Thus was the Crime consummated.  Slavery stands erect, clanking its chains on the Territory of Kansas, surrounded by a code of death, and trampling upon all cherished liberties, whether of speech, the press, the bar, the trial by jury, or the electoral franchise.  And, Sir, all this is done, not merely to introduce a wrong which in itself is a denial of all rights, and in dread of which mothers have taken the lives of their offspring, -- not merely, as is sometimes said, to protect Slavery in Missouri, since it is futile for this State to complain of Freedom on the side of Kansas, when Freedom exists without complaint on the side of Iowa, and also on the side of Illinois, -- but it is done for the sake of political power, in order to bring two new slaveholding Senators upon this floor, and thus to fortify in the National Government the desperate chances of a waning Oligarchy.  As the gallant ship, voyaging on pleasant summer seas, is assailed by a pirate crew, and plundered of doubloons and dollars, so is this beautiful Territory now assailed in peace and prosperity, and robbed of its political power for the sake of Slavery.  Even now the black flag of the land pirates from Missouri waves at the mast-head; in their laws you hear the pirate yell and see the flash of the pirate knife; while, incredible to relate, the President, gathering the Slave Power at his back, testifies a pirate sympathy.

With regret I come again upon the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], who, omnipresent in this debate, overflows with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas has applied for admission as a State, and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, and then upon her people.  There was no extravagance of the ancient Parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make, -- with so much of passion, I gladly add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.  But the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure -- with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact.  He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in details of statistics or diversions of scholarship.  He cannot ope[n] his mouth, but out there flies a blunder....

 

NotesClass 136— Brooks Canes Sumner

April 6, 2017

Preston Brooks of South Carolina caned Charles Sumner of Massachusetts

Sumner’s Crime Against Kansas Speech: Calls Andrew P. Butler a Senator of South Carolina and cousin of Brooks the Don Quixote of slavery Immediately after Sumner’s Crime against Kansas speech a South Carolinian “could not go into a parlor, or

drawing-room, or to a dinner party, where he did not find an implied reproach that there was an unmanly submission to an insult to his State and his countrymen.”

Butler was old and Sumner was a rather large and powerful man. Therefore, Preston Brooks, cousin of Butler “felt it be my duty to relieve Butler and avenge the insult to my State.”

Brooks could not challenge Sumner to a duel. First, he knew Sumner would not accept. Secondly, a duel can only happen between equals. To duel Sumner would be to admit he was a social equal and was a man of honor. Therefore “to punish an insulting inferior one used not a pistol or sword but a cane or horsewhip.”

If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel.  Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.  For Southerners, Brooks’ actions were manly and honorable. According to the Southern Honor System, a duel could only be fought between equals. Whippings, canings, and other forms of physical abuse were reserved for inferiors. “The lesson that slaveholders wanted to instill was fairly simple: to take up the slave’s cause was to suffer like a slave, to have no honor, to be condemned to a “social death,,” and to be virtually outside the rule of law.”

May 22, 1856 about 12:45 P.M-Brooks Canes Sumner on the Senate Floor Preston Brooks: “I struck him with my cane and gave him about 30 first rate stripes with a gutta perch can…

Every lick went where I intended. For about the first five or six licks he offered to make a fight but I plied him so rapidly that he did not touch me. Towards the last he bellowed like a calf.”

Sectionalism o It was duplicated by slavery proponents with the slogan, “Hit him again!”o Brooks reported that “fragments” of his cane “are begged for as sacred relics.”o Inspired John Brown-he visited Sumner and saw his bloodied coato Definition of manhood

South Brooks-manly spirit and praised for manliness Sumner-unmanly, acting like a woman

North Sumner-true manliness lay in self-control-not force Brooks-brute

What happens to both? Brooks did not get the 2/3 votes to expel him from Congress (sectional voting) Brooks resigns but is elected unopposed back to Congress. Sumner’s Chair remains empty for the next 2 and half years-suffered severe psychosomatic shock.

“When the two sections no longer spoke the same language, shared the same moral code, or obeyed the same law, when their representatives clashed in bloody conflict in the halls of Congress, thinking men North and South began to wonder how the union could longer endure. ‘I do not see how a barbarous community and civilized community can constitute one state. I think we must get rid of slavery, or we must get rid of freedom (Ralph Waldo Emerson).’”

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies Canada, Mexico, & U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 137— Republican Party and Dred Scott April 7, 2017

Focus: How did the Dred Scott decision overturn the Missouri Compromise? What was the reaction to this decision in both the North and the South?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze how the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case further increased sectional tensions between the North and the South.2. I will analyze the values of the Republican Party.

Homework:-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492; complete 15.3 Reading Check (due 4/10)-Read and outline Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497; complete 15.4 Reading Check (due 4/18)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 4/20

Handouts:none

I. Dred ScottII. Republican Party

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Dred Scott Roger Taney Missouri Compromise

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:Why was the Dred Scott so important to the topic of slavery?What were the effects of the Dred Scott decision in terms of increasing sectionalism?

NotesClass 137— Republican Party and Dred Scott

April 7, 2017

Dred Scott: suing on the ground that his former residence in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory made him free Scott couldn’t sue-not a citizen-slave=property Congress did not have the power to outlaw slavery in the territories-MO Compromise Unconstitutional. Backlash because:

o The court majority consisted of 5 Southerners and one Northerner, with the other Northern judges dissenting

o 1st time the Supreme Court invalidated a major act of Congresso Dealing with the Constitutionality of the MO Compromise, the Court took up a question that was not

properly before ito Thomas Hart Benton- Scott was “turned back from the door, for want of a right to enter the court room—

debarred from suing for want of citizenship; after which it would seem to be a grave judicial solecism to proceed to try the man when he was not before the court.”

Election of 1856: Republican Party created-makes slavery an official party platform John C. Fremont (R) James Buchannan (D)-wins

o Only president from PAo Only bachelor president