[Brion McClanahan]

Not as a general textbook. Dr. Woods’s PIG to American History can be used for that purpose.

[Brion McClanahan]

Yes, the Confederate Constitution contained a 3/5 clause.

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves.”

[Brion McClanahan]

Kevin,

I felt that way through just about every book/article in grad school. My all-time least favorite (and it was assigned as somewhat of a joke by Mark Smith): “Slave Hair and African-American Culture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries” by White and White. I thought my eyeballs would bleed.

I had neither a check nor a gun to my head. That is what made it worse.

[Brion McClanahan]

Tedious, yes; indicative of the entire historical profession with a few exceptions, yes; but he writes well and if I had to read something like that, I can wade through Zinn.

[Brion McClanahan]

Good question. Even Lincoln initially said the effort was to save the Union. Of course, the resolution was later repealed.

[Brion McClanahan]

I am not certain if Jefferson had King Louis’s portrait. It would seem unlikely, but he, like most Americans, was shocked by the Terror and recoiled at the radical transformation taking place in France. Like Tom Paine, Jefferson supported the early phases of the Revolution but could not countenance the execution of the king or the complete and violent destruction of French society.

[Brion McClanahan]

John,

I am glad you enjoyed the course and understand the iPhone problem. Happens to me all the time.

Best,

Brion

[Brion McClanahan]

John,

Good question and one that often comes up.

All contracts or legal compacts are deemed to be perpetual unless they have a specific end-date. For example, a marriage contract is deemed to be perpetual, as are many business arrangements unless the two parties state such contract or compact will end on xx/xx/xxxx. Even diplomatic agreements are made with this same language. Yet, any party in the contract can legally and often unilaterally leave the agreement should they deem it fit to end it. They can buy out their part of the agreement, split assets, or settle their differences in other ways. The AOC and the Constitution are no different. Representatives from SC tried to purchase federal property and settle their end of the federal debt but were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. That did not mean they were not both de facto and de jure out of the Union of States under the Constitution. The people had, through convention, determined to rescind their ratification of the Constitution. They had legally broken the compact and were now divorced (seceded) from the Union.

One point that needs a bit of fine tuning. Please be sure to reference the act of withdraw as “secession,” not “succession.” They are two entirely different terms, but often confused.

Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

Thanks for joining the site. I hope you enjoy the material. I briefly discussed this issue in my last presentation for U.S. History to 1877. The corrupt Republican controlled governments at both the State and general level spent heavily on internal improvements in the post war period. That coupled with debt and inflation led to a natural contraction in both the U.S. and Great Britain. Excessive spending+excessive debt+high inflation=recipe for disaster.

[Brion McClanahan]

Zinn is one of the more honest Leftist historians. His account of Shay’s “Rebellion” is pretty good.

[Brion McClanahan]

Tansill is one of the best American historians of the 20th century. He sacrificed his career to offer stinging criticism of Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

[Brion McClanahan]

This is a very good question and one that graduate students spend weeks discussing in their reading seminar courses.

There are two competing schools of thought concerning the founding generation and their political thought. One is typically called the “court” or “hard” position and argues that the founding generation were generally motivated by practical matters in forming the Constitution, i.e. economics or security. The most famous expression of this position was by the progressive historian Charles Beard in his “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” but others, such as Joyce Appleby, followed the same approach. They may have been influenced by men like Adam Smith (this could be argued), but they were not classical liberals and did not believe in a radical transformation of the political order present under the Crown. Think Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Robert Morris, etc.

Forrest McDonald responded with his famous “We the People” and argued that ideology was in fact a dominant factor in the American War for Independence. He later softened his approach and argued that Beard and the “court” historians may have had a point in an introduction to Beard’s “An Economic….” Regardless, this “soft” or “country” position found a great deal of favor with historians such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and J.G.A. Pocock. Wood, for instance, called the American War for Independence a “radical” event influenced by 18th century Enlightenment politics.

I would recommend Carl Richard’s “The Founders and the Classics” for a more accurate assessment of the founding generation’s political thought. I don’t necessarily buy either the country or court positions. Certainly self-interest motivated some men in the founding period and by the time of the French Revolution, Americans in general recoiled at the horrors of the Terror. That event sparked a clear division in American politics. John Marshall, for example, feared a French style revolution in American politics and in his mind used the bench to quell that type of event. He called Jeffersonians “terrorists”.

I hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

There are several reasons Republicans, and most notably Lincoln, rejected compromise:

It included the extension of the MO compromise line to CA, something they steadfastly rejected (Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men).

It would have forced Northern States to more rigidly enforce the fugitive slave law.

Most important, it would have dissolved the Republican Party. Lincoln would have been a one-term president and a man without a Party in four years.

It must be noted that Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs as important members of the Committee of 13 supported the Compromise and only switched their votes to reject it when all Republicans on the Committee (5), at Lincoln’s insistence, voted against it.

Yes, it would kept all the other Southern States in the Union. Only SC was out at that point. Lincoln could have saved the Union had he wanted to do so in December 1860 by giving his support to the Compromise. This is why Lincoln’s rhetoric is hollow.

[Brion McClanahan]

WWII films worth seeing:

The Band of Brothers series
The Pacific series
(though both are highly jingoistic, they are a fairly accurate portrayal of American combat in the European and Pacific theaters)

Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima (watch back to back)

Saving Private Ryan for the D-Day sequence in the first 20 mins. Generally regarded as the most accurate portrayal of Operation Overlord on film.

Tora! Tora! Tora! Though it has some historical inaccuracies, it is still a very good film on the Pearl Harbor attack.

Valkyrie Excellent movie that is a fairly accurate portrayal of the almost successful attempt to kill Hitler.

The Downfall One of the best films on Nazi Germany I have seen. Centers on Hitler’s last days in his bunker.

Das Boot An excellent German film.

Enemy at the Gates Great film about the Battle of Stalingrad

The Pianist

Empire of the Sun

Patton

Midway

A Bridge Too Far

The Big Red One

The Longest Day

The Dirty Dozen

Where Eagles Dare Not historically accurate, but a good movie.

Hope that helps. There are so many documentaries on WWII, it is impossible to keep up. Two that I show in class are in the Lost Worlds series, one on atomic cities in the U.S. and one on Hitler’s plans for Germania.

[Brion McClanahan]

I am sure your last point has some merit. Temperance proponents made quite a push during the War Between the States and never backed off. People like Elizabeth Cady Stanton were disappointed when the Republicans dropped women’s issues, include temperance, from their agenda after the War. They thought the War represented a seismic shift in reform policy and should embrace not only abolition, but all reform movements. Many agreed, including people like Horace Greeley, but the political realities put some of those issues on the shelf until later.

[Author]

Posts