Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Christopher L. Miller received his BS degree from Lewis and Clark College and his
PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is currently associate
professor of history at the University of Texas-Pan American. He is the author of
PROPHETIC WORLDS: INDIANS AND WHITES ON THE COLUMBIA PLATEAU (1985),
which was republished in 2003 as part of the �Columbia Northwest Classics
Series� by the University of Washington Press. His articles and reviews have
appeared in numerous scholarly journals and anthologies as well as standard
reference works. Dr. Miller also is active in contemporary Indian affairs. He
served, for example, as a participant in the American Indian Civics Project funded
by the Kellogg Foundation. He has been a research fellow at the Charles Warren
Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University and was the Nikolay
V. Sivachev Distinguished Chair in American History at Lomonosov Moscow State
University (Russia). Professor Miller also has been active in projects designed to
improve history teaching, including programs funded by the Meadows
Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, and other agencies.
Robert W. Cherny received his BA from the University of Nebraska and his MA
and PhD from Columbia University. He is professor of history at San Francisco
State University. His books include COMPETING VISIONS: A HISTORY OF
CALIFORNIA (with Richard Griswold del Castillo, 2005); AMERICAN POLITICS IN
THE GILDED AGE, 1868-1900 (1997); SAN FRANCISCO, 1865-1932: POLITICS,
POWER, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (with William Issel, 1986); A RIGHTEOUS
CAUSE: THE LIFE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN (1985, 1994); and POPULISM,
PROGRESSIVISM, AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF NEBRASKA POLITICS, 1885-
1915 (1981). He is coeditor of AMERICAN LABOR AND THE COLD WAR: UNIONS,
POLITICS, AND POSTWAR POLITICAL CULTURE (with William Issel and Keiran
Taylor, 2004). His articles on politics and labor in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries have appeared in journals, anthologies, and historical
dictionaries and encyclopedias. In 2000, he and Ellen Du Bois coedited a special
issue of the �Pacific Historical Review� that surveyed women's suffrage
movements in nine locations around the Pacific Rim. He has been an NEH Fellow,
Distinguished Fulbright Lecturer at Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia),
and Visiting Research Scholar at the University of Melbourne (Australia). He has
served as president of H-Net (an association of more than 100 electronic
networks for scholars in the humanities and social sciences), the Society for
Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, and the Southwest Labor Studies
Association; as treasurer of the Organization of American Historians; and as a
member of the council of the American Historical Association, Pacific Coast
Branch.
Born in Riverside, California, James L. Gormly received a B.A. from the University
of Arizona and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. He is now
professor of history and chair of the history department at Washington and
Jefferson College. He has written THE COLLAPSE OF THE GRAND ALLIANCE (1970)
and FROM POTSDAM TO THE COLD WAR (1979). His articles and reviews have
appeared in DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY, THE
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW, THE HISTORIAN, THE HISTORY TEACHER, and THE
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY.
Product details
Publisher : Cengage Learning; 7th edition (January 1, 2015)
Language : English
Paperback : 496 pages
ISBN-10 : 1305251423
ISBN-13 : 978-1305251427
Item Weight : 1.45 pounds
Dimensions : 6 x 0.75 x 8.75 inches
Best Sellers Rank: #1,008,542 in Books
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
ordinances of any State, and on which there is no white male adult
not liable to military service, and in States having no such law, one
person, as agent, owner, or overseer on such plantation of twenty
negroes, and on which there is no white male adult not liable to
military service;’ and also the following clause in said act, to wit: ‘and
furthermore, for additional police of every twenty negroes, on two or
more plantations, within five miles of each other, and each having
less than twenty negroes, and on which there is no white male adult
not liable to military duty, one person, being the oldest of the owners
or overseers on such plantations,’ be and the same are hereby
repealed; and the persons so hitherto exempted by said clauses of
said act are hereby made subject to military duty in the same manner
that they would be had said clauses never been embraced in said
act.”
After the President had issued his first call, Douglas saw the
danger to which the Capitol was exposed, and he promptly called
upon Lincoln to express his full approval of the call. Knowing his
political value and that of his following Lincoln asked him to dictate
a despatch to the Associated Press, which he did in these words, the
original being left in the possession of Hon. George Ashmun of
Massachusetts:
“April 18, 1861, Senator Douglas, called on the President, and had
an interesting conversation, on the present condition of the country.
The substance of it was, on the part of Mr. Douglas, that while he was
unalterably opposed to the administration in all its political issues,
he was prepared to fully sustain the President, in the exercise of all
his Constitutional functions, to preserve the Union, maintain the
Government, and defend the Federal Capitol. A firm policy and
prompt action was necessary. The Capitol was in danger, and must
be defended at all hazards, and at any expense of men and money.
He spoke of the present and future, without any reference to the
past.”
Douglas followed this with a great speech at Chicago, in which he
uttered a sentence that was soon quoted on nearly every Northern
tongue. It was simply this, “that there now could be but two parties,
patriots and traitors.” It needed nothing more to rally the Douglas
Democrats by the side of the Administration, and in the general
feeling of patriotism awakened not only this class of Democrats, but
many Northern supporters of Breckinridge also enlisted in the Union
armies. The leaders who stood aloof and gave their sympathies to the
South, were stigmatized as “Copperheads,” and these where they
were so impudent as to give expression to their hostility, were as
odious to the mass of Northerners as the Unionists of Tennessee and
North Carolina were to the Secessionists—with this difference—that
the latter were compelled to seek refuge in their mountains, while the
Northern leader who sought to give “aid and comfort to the enemy”
was either placed under arrest by the government or proscribed
politically by his neighbors. Civil war is ever thus. Let us now pass to
The first session of the 37th Congress began July 4, 1861, and
closed Aug. 6. The second began December 2, 1861, and closed July
17, 1862. The third began December 1, 1862 and closed March 4,
1863.
All of these sessions of Congress were really embarrassed by the
number of volunteers offering from the North, and sufficiently rapid
provision could not be made for them. And as illustrative of how
political lines had been broken, it need only be remarked that
Benjamin F. Butler, the leader of the Northern wing of Breckinridge’s
supporters, was commissioned as the first commander of the forces
which Massachusetts sent to the field. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio
—the great West—all the States, more than met all early
requirements. So rapid were enlistments that no song was as popular
as that beginning with the lines:
“We are coming, Father Abraham,
Six hundred thousand strong.”
The first session of the 37th Congress was a special one, called by
the President. McPherson, in his classification of the membership,
shows the changes in a body made historic, if such a thing can be, not
only by its membership present, but that which had gone or made
itself subject to expulsion by siding with the Confederacy. We quote
the list so concisely and correctly presented:
SENATORS.
REPRESENTATIVES.
MEMORANDUM OF CHANGES.
IN SENATE.
IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION
To the President:
Slaves.
Kentucky had 225,490
Maryland 87,188
Virginia 490,887
Delaware 1,798
Missouri 114,965
Tennessee 275,784
C. A. Wickliffe, Ch’n,
Garrett Davis,
R. Wilson,
J. J. Crittenden,
John S. Carlile,
J. W. Crisfield,
J. S. Jackson,
H. Grider,
John S. Phelps,
Francis Thomas,
Chas. B. Calvert,
C. L. Leary,
Edwin H. Webster,
R. Mallory,
Aaron Harding,
James S. Rollins,
J. W. Menzies,
Thomas L. Price,
G. W. Dunlap,
Wm. A. Hall.
Others of the minority, among them Senator Henderson and
Horace Maynard, forwarded separate replies, but all rejecting the
idea of compensated emancipation. Still Lincoln adhered to and
advocated it in his recent annual message sent to Congress, Dec. 1,
1862, from which we take the following paragraphs, which are in
themselves at once curious and interesting:
“We have two million nine hundred and sixty-three thousand
square miles. Europe has three million and eight hundred thousand,
with a population averaging seventy-three and one-third persons to
the square mile. Why may not our country, at some time, average as
many? Is it less fertile? Has it more waste surface, by mountains,
rivers, lakes, deserts, or other causes? Is it inferior to Europe in any
natural advantage? If, then, we are at some time to be as populous as
Europe, how soon? As to when this may be, we can judge by the past
and the present; as to when it will be, if ever, depends much on
whether we maintain the Union. Several of our States are already
above the average of Europe—seventy-three and a third to the square
mile. Massachusetts has 157; Rhode Island, 133; Connecticut, 99;
New York and New Jersey, each, 80. Also two other great states,
Pennsylvania and Ohio, are not far below, the former having 63 and
the latter 59. The states already above the European average, except
New York, have increased in as rapid a ratio, since passing that
point, as ever before; while no one of them is equal to some other
parts of our country in natural capacity for sustaining a dense
population.
“Taking the nation in the aggregate, and we find its population and
ratio of increase, for the several decennial periods, to be as follows:
1870 42,323,341
1880 56,967,216
1890 76,677,872
1900 103,208,415
1910 138,918,526
1920 186,984,335
1930 251,680,914