Questions and thoughts for those posting on 09/30

1. Westerners are a strange breed. I say that as a person born and raised in the Great American Southwest. We are libertarian. We have a disdain for federal government intervention, a love of states' rights, and a unique way of viewing property and gun rights. Westerners tend to place individual liberties over the value of group responsibilities. Is there a connection between the history of the American West and this unique culture? Were the people who went West simply the type to hold these values or were these values shaped by the Western landscape?

2. Some of the greatest obstacles to Westward migration and settlement were geographic in nature. Western settlers had to overcome the utter lack of water, dust storms, unforgiving mountainous terrain, frigid winters, and sweltering summers. How did Western settlers deal with these challenges? Are the settlers' responses to these challenges sustainable in the long run or is the West headed for ecological disaster?

3. Native Americans attempted to resist American expansion into the West and failed, relegated to reservation lands the United States government deemed less desirable for Merican settlement. The Cherokee, who had been removed from Georgia and Tennessee and relocated to Oklahoma by the Jackson administration, were further constrained to make room for Homesteaders. Plains natives like the Sioux saw their entire way of life destroyed as the buffalo slipped toward extinction, overhunted by profit-seeking skinners and the US army's attempts to force the Sioux to negotiate. They were forced to give up their migratory lifestyle and confined to reservations. The government attempted, through reservation schools, to "civilize" the tribes. Were these things necessary for the expansion and development of the American nation? Was conflict inevitable or was there a better way to deal with the tribes effectively?

4. The modernization of farming, conversion of plains and desert land to farmland, and federal government assistance in irrigation led to huge increases in farm production in the late 19th century. Railroads, barbed wire fences, and the conversions of the plains led to sweeping changes in the cattle industry around the same time. Rather than graze cattle over wide areas and drive them on foot to packing plants in Chicago, ranchers raised cattle on small plots of land, feeding them grain, and shipping them by rail to the packers. These cattle, sold by the pound, were quickly fattened and the changes in ranching greatly increased the supply of beef in the United States in the late 19th century. What effects did these changes have on the availability and cost of food in the United States? What were the economic effects on ranchers and farmers? Why did ranchers and farmers attempt to collaborate with each other to improve their situations?

5. What were the economic effects of the US government's switch to the gold standard in the latter half of the 19th century? Who was positively affected? Who was negatively affected? What were some of the competing plans for changing the money supply? Which do you think was the most promising and why?

Have fun :)

Questions and Thoughts for Those Blogging on 09/23

1. Many people believe that the Civil War is solely about slavery, yet close inspection of the issues surrounding the beginning of the war show a much more complex set of problems that slowly ripped the country apart. Why do Americans seem to believe that the Civil War was about slavery alone? How did the events of the war help to create this historical myth? How have race relations in the United States been shaped by this widespread belief?

2. One of the most important issues of the Civil War was the division of powers between state governments and the federal government. Has this issue been successfully resolved? Could this issue lead to further conflict in the future? Has the power of the federal government become so great that states have been made into powerless administrative units at the whim of federal control?

3. When George Washington left office, he gave a speech warning that sectionalism would tear the country apart. 63 years later, he was proven right. Are there any issues in the United States right now that, while seemingly small now, may grow to the point of causing another Civil War in the UNited States?

4. At Vicksburg, General Grant disregarded the norms of warfare by pursuing a policy of total war against the city of Vicksburg, endangering civilians. General Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina left an unimaginable path of destruction through the South. Could the North have won without violating norms of war or causing so much destruction of private property? Would the peace and subsequent Reconstruction have been made easier by avoiding these tactics?

5. In what ways have the North and South remained economically, politically, and socially different from one another? Why have the divisions between North and South persisted? Is there any hope for unity between these two sections of the country in the future?

6. Some countries faced with Civil War undertake the prospect of rewriting their constitution. For example, when faced with rioting and possible Civil War in 1954, the French President rewrote that countries constitution. Also, when blacks finally wrested power away from the ruling white elite in South Africa, a new constitutional convention was held. Is this the path the United States should have taken after the Civil War? Was the Constitution flexible enough to withstand the division and reunification of the country or is the document inherently and permanently flawed?