A Mode of Communication Distribution

Taverns and coffee houses, because of their trustworthiness, were the establishments in which news was passed, subscriptions to newspapers were delivered to a tavern. They also provided a space for the illiterate to hear the news. Also, news was passed orally through taverns and this made taverns a place to gather information. These establishments were a mode of communication distribution.

Christopher Marshall kept a detailed diary of his stay in Philadelphia. In that diary were a few excerpts that showed the correlation between taverns and coffee houses, and news. These establishments were, in a way, the Twitter of the day. People went to these establishments for the latest gossip, events and on-goings in local and country-wide news.

Christopher Marshall states, "To [the] Coffee House, where was the reading Rivington's newspaper, containing the capitulation of Charleston, but, as this came through the Tory line and was by forced extorted from John Mercer, who, when taxed about his paper, absolutely denied it until confronting him with Daniel Wister and Owen Jones Jr., and by threats [they] recovered it from him, as was related to me by Paul Fooks, who was one of them who attended him until he delivered, numbers did not believe the authenticity of it." This diary entry details the occurrence of a man delivering news to a coffee house. What is interesting, besides the fact that news was orally read to customers at the coffee house, was that many were skeptical about the story because of its bias. It is amazing to see the realization of bias during this time and that they take into account the source of their information. It shows that these readers, or listeners in some cases, are not blindly following something simply because it written on parchment. These people understood that the British, or Tories in this quote, could have produced falsified information to undermine the morality of the citizens of Philadelphia. Marshall says, "numbers did not believe the authenticity of it." The term authenticity is important because it connotes that the citizens did not believe the news because of its Tory beginnings. 

Later on the citizens learn that this article was in fact true. Marshall expresses the dismay and disappointment of all around him.  

Blog Post #9 - Emmeline's Speech on the Argument of the Stone

This week I analyzed another speech that shows the early actions of the WSPU, this time from Emmeline’s perspective. Her speech, “The Argument of a Broken Pane” happened at a dinner party, celebrating the release of some of the Suffragettes who had been prisoners in 1911. This speech not only offered itself as a celebratory one for the freed women but also once again served as a central focus and call to arms for these women to remind them exactly what they fought to receive, the vote. Mrs. Pankhurst also directly refers to their motto, “Deeds not words” in her speech. She says, “’Deeds not words,’ is the motto of this movement, and we are going to prove our love and gratitude to our comrades by continuing the use of the stone as an argument in the further protests that we have to make,” (Jorgensen-Earp 144). Emmeline says it bluntly that the WSPU will continue to use the stone to make sure their argument is known and heard by those necessary, specifically the government and the public.

Emmeline continues in her speech to mention the importance of one thing, the numbers of women fighting for the cause. To her there can never be too large of a force of women, because of this she emphasizes the importance of ever recruiting new women to join in the battle for the vote. In her closing statements, Emmeline once again mentions the importance of truly equal rights between the sexes in concern with the political needs of both. Emmeline states, “If it is a good thing for a man to sacrifice for the public good, then it is a good thing for a woman to sacrifice for the public good,” (Jorgensen-Earp 146). To Mrs. Pankhurst there is no difference between a man or a woman fighting for what is right. She ends her speech, reiterating the importance of the argument of the stone, “Why should women go into Parliament Square and be battered about and be insulted, and, most important of all, produce less effect than when they use stones,” (Jorgensen-Earp 147). This statement means that because the Suffragettes are harmed when peacefully protesting the WSPU will instead move to more militant tactics because they are more effective.

Source:

Pankhurst, Emmeline. “The Argument of the Broken Pane.” In Speeches and Trials of the Militant Suffragettes: The Women's Social and Political Union, 1903-1918, edited by Cheryl R. Jorgensen-Earp, 144-47. Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999.

Final Thoughts on Titanic History

           Fellow researchers, I think that this is the ninth and final blog post for senior seminar which is both relieving and alarming at the same time. Relieving because we can now focus solely on writing our papers, yet alarming because it means we are getting closer and closer to that December 5^th presentation date. I wish you all luck in our final weeks of writing.

             During this past week, I have decided to focus only on the second class in my research paper, and have been concentrating on what sources to use to prove my thesis and replace the primary accounts from the crew. My revised thesis is “The testimonies of second class Titanic survivors are crucial to understanding Titanic history because they provide insight into why passengers aboard the Titanic believed it was unsinkable and why second class male passengers had the lowest percentage of survival.”

            This week I want to discuss two journal articles which I have found that relate to social class and the Titanic but are written by non-historians. I will not devote much of my paper to their results; however I do feel they are interesting, relevant to my research, and I like that other disciplines are concerned with Titanic history. Historians prove their arguments with historical facts and primary accounts, but it is easy to see why social scientists would also want to examine social class on the Titanic and the psychology behind survival.

            The first article is Intervention of Natural Survival Instincts and Internalized Social Norms Exploring the Titanic and Lusitania Disasters, written by Bruno Frey, David Savage, and Benno Torgler and published in the National Academy of Sciences in March, 2010. The purpose of the essay is to compare the sinking of both the Lusitania and the Titanic because they had a similar amount of lives lost, they occurred within three years of each other, and they had similar class structures. The authors wrote, “Many of the passengers on the Titanic may have (wrongly) believed that they would ultimately be rescued, those on the Lusitania may have learned from the experience of the Titanic. This may have led those passengers to change their behavior.” The authors determined that the reason why passengers of the Lusitania acted differently than those on the Titanic was because the ship sank much faster (under 20 min.) and people panicked and were only interested in self-preservation rather than complying with social norms such as the case on the Titanic. As revealed in the quote, they also contributed the change in behavior to passengers being aware of what happened on the Titanic and there not being enough lifeboats. The authors of this article made a mistake however when they wrote, “Social norms were much more influential in the case of the Titanic. Having more time on the Titanic also may have eased the restrictions on bargaining for lifeboats and facilitated information generating advantages, which may have benefited first class and second class passengers compared with third class passengers, with the crew favoring the rich and powerful.” This statement is fallacious, the second class men suffered more loss of life than any other group aboard the Titanic including the crew. The second class passengers were not rich and powerful, they were middle working class people. This study found that time was the only factor which contributed to adherence to social norms in comparison of the two maritime disasters. Gender and age prevailed over social class, but it also is considered to be a social norm.

            The second article is titled Social Class and Survival on the S.S. Titanic by Wayne Hall, a behavioral scientist. It was published in 1986 by Social Science and Medicine. In his abstract, Hall purported that social class and gender were the two determining factors of survival on the Titanic, similar to the findings of the previously mentioned article. The purpose of Hall’s article, he stated, is to analyze the differences between members of the social classes as well as to provide an explanation for the differences in their survival rates.  The study determined that “there was no overall difference between the survival of passengers and crew… the relationship between class travelled and survival depended upon the passenger’s sex; the difference between the rates of survival in first and third classes was more pronounced among women and children than men and fewer men survived in second than in first or third class.” The reasons that Hall attributed to low survival rates were the fact that the few lifeboats there were, were not full and did not go back to pick up people who were in the water. Also, he used Beesley’s account, one of my primary sources and pointed to the fact that there was a ship nearby that people thought would rescue them, many women would not leave their husbands, and many “passengers disbelief that they were in danger on the “unsinkable” Titanic. This source is the first that I have found that addresses the question of why second class men had the lowest percentage of survival and the smallest number of survivors total. Hall briefly addressed the question by stating that the second class and third classes were loading lifeboats in the same area, and so the men would have been allowing the women and children to go first. He does not explain how this theory should have meant that third class men had a similar percentage to the second class, but they had twice as many survivors than the second class.

Primary Source: Look at Preceding Events

Sorry guys! Doing a post this week totally slipped my mind. But never fear; I have much to talk about. This week, while I have been working on my outline and first few pages of the paper, I've taken another look at my primary sources that deal with the events preceding Bloody Sunday, particularly the civil rights movement. So for this post, I decided to tell you guys about Ivan Cooper's testimony in the "Saville Inquiry."

The Rt. Hon. Lord Saville of Newdigate, "Ivan Cooper's Testimony," The Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry (London: The Stationary Office, 2010), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/.   

Ivan Cooper was a civil rights activist in Ireland during the 1960s and seventies. His role in Bloody Sunday lies in the fact that he was one of the leading marchers in the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march that took place on January 30th, 1972. According to Cooper, "The late  1960's and early 1970's were a time of people for civil rights in debate on civil rights and marches by the Northern Ireland, and Particularly in Derry...I was a staunch supporter...and strongly committed to the cause" (Saville "Cooper" 1). While knowing that civil rights movements were occurring during the sixties and seventies is important, what is more important is the fact that these movements were non-violent, something completely opposite from the approach the IRA was taking. Cooper and others like him struggled for civil rights through non-violent approaches, taking "inspiration from the great civil rights leaders such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King" (Saville "Cooper" 1). Even other civil rights organizations separate from NICRA commended and based their own protests off of Cooper's. They were, as Cooper commented, an "advocate of civil rights which were to be achieved through the use of non-violent means only" (Saville "Cooper" 1). 

While my paper is not focused on the civil rights movements that occurred in the sixties and seventies, Cooper's testimony reveals that the IRA's violent and hostile attacks against the repressing forces was not the preferred method for a majority of the Catholic and nationalist people. This thought process, however, began to change when the non-violent approach used on Bloody Sunday led to the death of several people. This failure on NICRA's part left the people seeking more radical methods to gain their rights. Thus, the IRA became dramatically more popular after January 30th, 1972.  

Ashley Blog #8: Yakov Zak and the Kelmé Ball

Hello Capstoners! Ashley Witt here, back again with more super exciting details about people being brutally murdered.

Isn’t it disturbing how detached one becomes after pouring over a certain topic for as long as we’ve been researching these papers? I have to constantly remind myself that the stories I’m reading resulted in the end of the lives of real, ordinary, innocent people like any of us. It’s definitely something to keep in mind as we all push forward with the beginnings of our papers.

Regardless, this week’s testimony comes from Yakov Zak, who was the last male Jewish survivor of the massacre in Kelmé. His testimony recounts a party that occurred on July 29, 1941, soon after the murder of the Kelmé Jews. The citation and analysis follow.

Zak, Yakov. “Testimonies.” In Holocaust Testimonials from Provincial Lithuania, edited by David Bankier, 167-168. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2012.

In his testimony about the murder of the Jews of his town, Yakov Zak described the attitude of the Lithuanian murderers. According to his statement, “Lithuanian peasants stood on the highway with Lithuanian national flags trimmed with swastikas.” He further noted that these men “greeted the Jews by calling out, ‘Cursed Jews, the day has arrived when we will slaughter all of you!’” These details took place as the German soldiers were moving through Lithuania; this suggests that the volunteers were willing and excited to kill their neighbors even before the Germans had arrived in Kelmé.

Zak went on, stating that on the evening after this occurred, the Lithuanians “had organized a ball in honor of the shooting of the Jews.” His testimony describes this ball:

In the hall, long tables were set decoratively, with the best of everything, in the style of a lavish wedding. At the table the drunken killers sat with their families, dressed in the clothes of those who had been shot to death. The entire Lithuanian intelligentsia of the town arrived at the ball, led by the mayor… the stench in the hall was foul and thick with smoke. Everyone sang Lithuanian songs and kept on drinking and gorging.

Similar parties have been described in other areas in provincial Lithuania. If you will all recall, I mentioned in class a few weeks ago that another of the sources described a similar party, organized in the home of a dead Jew. Whether this pattern is a result of a motif invoked by more than one survivor cannot be known, so I will continue to regard these statements as a biased but nevertheless mostly truthful account.

Interestingly, Zak concluded this section of his testimony by describing how he, a Jew, came to know about this ball. He stated: “The Jews were required to bring beer to the murderers and shooters of those who were near and dear to them. One of the drunken partisans, upon seeing the Jews coming… grabbed his revolver. His friend calmed him down and forced the local Jews to drink a big glass of beer. Tears poured from the eyes of the eight Jews. At this the drunken crew rolled with laughter.” This is a particularly fascinating detail, especially keeping in mind my thesis. Rather than forcing a separation between themselves and the Jews, the Lithuanians instead dehumanized them and humiliated them for their own entertainment. Had they viewed the Jews as an ethnic scourge, it is unlikely that they would have allowed the Jews to drink from their glasses. These details suggest that their motives were based more upon a personal vendetta toward the Kelmé Jewry.

I hope you all have a lovely week and stay warm! The next time I see everybody in class I’ll be 21 and it will be Halloween!

The lives of Crew Members and Second Class Passengers

     In this blog I will include a review of the book Voyagers of the Titanic: Passengers, Sailors, Shipbuilders, Aristocrats, and the Worlds They Came From  by Richard Davenport-Hines. I would categorize this historian as being primarily focused on only the facts of Titanic history. While his book is detailed and useful to my research, I decided to wait until now to review his book in blog form because he didn't make an argument, and so I couldn't use him in the literature review assignment. Also, last week I decided to change my framework to looking only at Titanic history through the accounts of the often neglected second class passengers and crew. Davenport Hines reviewed all three classes and crew members in his book, but not until recently did I realize how useful it might be to my research. I will include interesting facts highlighted by the author in order to show who the second class and crew members were, where they were from, and why they were travelling to the United States.
     The three classes of passengers aboard the Titanic were divided based on the prices of their tickets which correlated with the quality of amenities they would receive on the ship including their meals and rooms. It is clear after studying Titanic history that the second class more than  any other class  were more varied in both their occupations and backgrounds as well as their countries of origin. What they did have in common however was that they were considered part of the working middle class, a group of people who saw the Titanic as "opening them to a world of expansive possibilities" (RDH 133). The ship provided unique opportunities such as taking them to visit family and friends over seas, taking them to America where there were promising business prospects, and they would also be able to  experience the luxuries of travel aboard the ship of which previously they had no access. According to Richard Davenport-Hines, the Titanic carried 271 second class passengers, only forty percent of its total capacity (RDH 128). [only fourteen second class men survived]
     Davenport-Hines also listed common jobs held by second class passengers such as clergymen, teachers, hoteliers, engineers, shopkeepers, shop assistants, and clerks. He wrote, "A guide to the Atlantic liners, published in 1913, noted that the demarcation between first class and second class passengers was less sharp than that between the second class and third class" (RDH 122). Although the second class passengers could not afford the cost of a first class ticket, many of them boarded the ship in order to experience its luxuries and they had more in common with the first class than the third. This contrasts drastically with the third class whom were mostly immigrating to the United States because they were poor and wanted to find jobs overseas. Their amenities were basic, while they probably felt themselves lucky for being able to travel to America.
     The author also devoted a brief section of his book to discussing the Titanic's crew. This is important to my research because he explained the different departments of the crew, which resembled the three classes of passengers. There were three crew departments: The deck crew which included officers, surgeons, lookouts, and quartermasters, the victualing crew that included the stewards and stewardesses, wireless operators, postal clerks, dining and cooking staff, and the musicians, and finally the engine crew which was the lowest and hardest working class of "firemen" who kept the engine fueled. Davenport-Hines wrote that, "The crew was considered as top-notch as the ship's amenities" (182). Of the 892 total crew members, 699 of them came from Southampton, one of the ships ports of debarkation. The author was fair in giving attention to accounts and biographies of all the crew departments. He wrote that the captain had a clean record of no ship wrecks, and after he had captained seventeen ships, sixty-two year old Captain Smith intended to retire after his contract with the Titanic ended. Famously he is known for going down with the ship. Davenport-Hines also wrote about the stewards who only made three pounds a month on average and relied on tips, as well as the firemen who performed "killing work" while loading coal during two four hour shifts a day aboard the Titanic (190).
     This book is important to my research because it reveals the lifestyles and occupations of the second class and crew.  However it does not describe any of the reasons why the second class men had the smallest amount of survivors, nor did it provide any accounts of what happened during the sinking of the Titanic. While this is one of the only books I have found that provides much detail on the groups I am focusing on, it does not argue anything and fails to provide evidence of their experiences during the sinking which relates to my thesis. The author really only focused on the passengers lives before they boarded the ship, and what the roles were of the many different types of crew members. I can use this book to support my argument that the second class and crew have been neglected in scholarly Titanic history because although he included letters and biographies, the author left out their accounts of the Titanic's sinking.

Blog Post #8 - Christabel's Speech on Militant Methods in 1908

This week my analysis will be over another primary source. It is a speech given by Christabel Pankhurst in 1908 aptly titled “The Militant Methods of the N.W.S.P.U.”; this speech comes out of a compilation of speeches done by a few editors. Yet this speech is not as much of a rallying cry as I expected it to be. Instead of being a call to women, to join forces with the WSPU this is much more a speech against the forces fighting the WSPU. It takes a strong stance against the Liberal government as well as specific individuals in the government, especially Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister. This stance is against the government as a whole because even though an individual may support the woman suffrage movement, his government does not so inherently he is playing in to the system that prevents women from receiving the vote. This system is also trying to delay votes on bills that support women’s suffrage.

Christabel sums it up brilliantly by saying, “If we do not achieve our purpose soon, this Parliament will run its  course, and another Parliament will come in before we get the vote, and then we will be told the same old story, ‘You cannot expect us to enfranchise you now,’” (Roberts 4). For these women the militant methods became necessary because constitutional ones were not receiving the response women desired. For Christabel the WSPU and women in general will resume constitutional methods of protest once they have received the vote. She says, “Well, that is just what we are only too anxious to do, and what we shall do when the vote is ours,” (Roberts 9). She even argues that with the militant methods the WSPU has earned the support of the public. By being radical toward the government, these women have opened themselves up to the media who in turn share the stories of these women and their escapades. Yet the most important point that Christabel addresses is the reaction of some officials to push women to actions that are ever more militant. Mr. Haldane a Parliament member told the women, “Do you think to succeed with a policy of pin-pricks? Why not use weapons that hurt,” (Roberts 16). This is an incitement to violence, coming from the government to the Suffragettes. This speech offers an example of how in 1908 the WSPU and Christabel did not look for militant actions, but began to see that an escalation was inevitable.

Roberts, Marie M., and Tamae Mizuta, eds. The Militants: Suffragette Activism. London: Routledge & Thoemmes Press, 1994.

**The speech comes from pages 1-16, although the page numbering in this book is a bit strange.**

Backside Albany and Early Blackface Minstrelsy by William Mahar

The focus of this article is that it looks at dialect songs, looking at the language within them, and examining the historical accuracy that is presented within the language. He also looks at the stereotyping within minstrelsy, and the shift that he believes occurred toward those stereotypes.

One of the central focuses of the article is the “change from occasional 'characteristic songs' … to the racially stereotyped 'characters' found in post-1843 minstrel songs(19). He believes that since there is so much focus on the negativity of the stereotypes, that there has been little appreciation of the deeper meaning of the use of the stereotypes. From here, he lists two characteristics of stereotyping. 1) the “justly criticized derogatory image of black Americans presented by a character who speaks or acts in ways that blacks resent” (19), and 2) the stereotyping that he believes was not essentially negative but “part of the normal process of classifying individuals of different nations, regions, or races to understand how those other peoples fit into the larger and more familiar patterns of human behavior” (19).

This is important to recognize the difference, since one was demeaning and against Africans to the point they would not be involved, and the other relates to other secondary sources who believe that there were moments of the Blackface performers celebrating African culture, and Mahar explains that since the Africans themselves had little to no political power and social distinction, that they were outsiders to the white society that was taking place, the second welcomed them and allowed them to have a particular and useful role in society, one where they could openly criticize the “society with relative impunity” (20), and express their political stance, such as seen in the song “Babylon is Fallen”, without worry, since the general public believed it to be acting and non-threatening.  

To Cabinet Members

To Cabinet Members

Executive Mansion,
Sir: Washington, May 3, 1864.

It is now quite certain that a large number of our colored soldiers, with their white officers, were, by the rebel force, massacred after they had surrendered, at the recent capture of Fort-Pillow. So much is known, though the evidence is not yet quite ready to be laid before me. Meanwhile I will thank you to prepare, and give me in writing your opinion as to what course, the government should take in the case. Yours truly A. LINCOLN

This memo was sent by Abraham Lincoln to his Cabinet 2 days prior to Senator Wade producing his report on the Battle of Fort Pillow. The memo shows that Fort Pillow had become a serious enough issue in the current time to issue a special discussion of the President's Cabinet. Lost in the subtleness of the message is that at the time there were 3 types of policy alternatives mentioned after Fort Pillow, retribution or retaliation, arresting Forrest, and agreeing to Congressional proposals regarding the reconstruction of the South. Lincoln had stated in his State of the Union address in 1863 that he would not favor any definite and harmful policies on reconstruction and Lincoln was not in the business of blaming individuals for events during the Civil War, so those two policy alternatives were not the main purpose of the memo. When Lincoln asks for opinion on what course of action the government should take, he is likely only asking about the policy of retribution. The Cabinets responses were split, although most were in favor of arresting Forrest. This left Lincoln with a tough decision, to retaliation in some way for the massacre or to continue the status quo despite such atrocities. 

To Edwin M. Stanton 

Hon. Secretary of War: Executive Mansion
Sir. Washington, D. C. May 17. 1864

Please notify the insurgents, through the proper military channels and forms, that the government of the United States has satisfactory proof of the massacre, by insurgent forces, at Fort-Pillow, on the 12th. and 13th. days of April last, of fully white and colored officers and soldiers of the United States, after the latter had ceased resistance, and asked quarter of the former.

That with reference to said massacre. the government of the United States has assigned and set apart by name insurgent officers, theretofore, and up to that time, held by said government as prisoners of war.

That, as blood can not restore blood, and government should not act for revenge, any assurance, as nearly perfect as the case admits, given on or before the first day of July next, that there shall be no similar massacre, nor any officer or soldier of the United States, whether white or colored, now held, or hereafter captured by the insurgents, shall be treated other than according to the laws of war, will insure the replacing of said insurgent officers in the simple condition of prisoners of war.

That the insurgents having refused to exchange, or to give any account or explanation in regard to colored soldiers of the United States captured by them, a number of insurgent prisoners equal to the number of such colored soldiers supposed to have been captured by said insurgents will, from time to time, be assigned and set aside, with reference to such captured colored soldiers, and will, if the insurgents assent, be exchanged for such colored soldiers; but that if no satisfactory attention shall be given to this notice, by said insurgents, on or before the first day of July next, it will be assumed by the government of the United States, that said captured colored troops shall have been murdered, or subjected to Slavery, and that said government will, upon said assumption, take such action as may then appear expedient and just.

Two weeks later after discussion with his Cabinet, Lincoln writes these instructions to the Secretary of War. Interestingly, Lincoln never signed or sent the instructions. Even the instructions are a mild form of retaliation since they only ask that the South gives assurance for no more massacres of soldiers should occur and the prisoners of war will then be returned. If they made that assurance then the US would trade these soldiers for black prisoners of war. If there were not enough black prisoners of war, then the US government would "take such action as may then appear expedient and just" which does not automatically mean murder. Many radical Republicans at the time favored the murder of Southern POWs and to stop the prisoner exchanges that the two sides had been practicing throughout the war. However, Lincoln's never radicalized to that extent. 

The report by Wade was the sufficient evidence Lincoln needed to engage in political action in response to Fort Pillow. However, opinions and rhetoric had gone too far towards vengeance after Fort Pillow, and Lincoln would not support any vengeful policy. Wade and radical Republicans had the opportunity to sway Lincoln towards more radical policies, however, the tone of vengeance and blame turned Lincoln away from meaningful political action after Fort Pillow. 

Outline- the bones of the paper

So this past week was all about constructing an effective outline. At first I was somewhat concerned with this. My sources have been like a puzzle and putting them together has been more difficult than I had originally imagined. As I began to make a very rough outline, it seemed like my paper was finally taking shape. I found a path in which to follow and it, so far, has no led me astray. My primary sources, one being a recent and important find, have grown into a substantial outline.
My thesis, 'Taverns, along with coffee houses, throughout the colonies during the years of 1650-1789, were at the social, cultural and political center of the community and this centrality was the key aspect of fostering ideas that sparked and fueled the American Revolution' is close to being completely finalized. There may be some minor word tweaking when writing the final paper, but for now this is my thesis.
I broke my paper up into four major categories: taverns and coffee houses as the only public space in town, taverns and coffee houses as 'news hubs', taverns and coffee houses as meeting places (for any type of event), taverns and coffee houses as revolutionary establishments. All of these categories includes a build up to the American Revolution, as well as, establishing a relationship between the tavern and patron.
My outline has flourished under these categories. I can finally see my paper through all the smoke.
I do have to say that one of my biggest breakthroughs came late. I recently found a diary of Christopher Marshall that has been influential in supporting my thesis. He has been one of the strongest 'characters' of my outline because he details the on-goings of public life, taverns/coffee houses, and how they were influential. For example, "[October 18, 1775] Near twelve, went to the Committee Room, at the Coffee House, being on the committee for settling the conditions of security for vessels taking provisions from one colony to another" (Marshall, 48). This quote exemplifies what is happening in the Revolutionary War, how he impacting it, where they are discussing, what they are discussing and at what time. This small quote speaks volumes to what is happening to the world outside and yet he details where, when and why this committee chose to meet in a coffee house.
This past week has been an effective one for me because the outline has really shown me what my paper can become.

Blog Post #7 - Christabel's Speech at Queen's Hall

This week, one speech in particular offers quite the perspective from Christabel Pankhurst. Christabel gave this speech at the Queen’s Hall on December 22, 1908. For her this speech is a call to arms, once again reiterating the importance of the militant campaign. She explains how the government continues to ignore the constitutional movements of the Suffragists. Christabel argues that without the militancy the government could sweep the women’s suffrage question under the rug to be forgotten. The militancy forces the government to react with arrests and trials. The public knows of the militancy it cannot be hushed up. One must deal with the demands of these women; these women shall not be silenced.

This whole speech is filled to the brim with fantastic quotes concerning all the pieces of the militant movement. Christabel attacks those who believe women did not think out their militancy, “I want you to understand, however, that our militant campaign has been thought out with the utmost care. Whatever else we may be, we are neither heedless, rash, nor unthinking,” (Jorgensen-Earp 88). As she continues into her speech Christabel mentions the importance of action by any supporters of the WSPU. It is better to fight alongside these women instead of offering nothing but supportive words. She rallies these supporters with these words, “You know the old methods of working for the vote are futile, and not only futile, but humiliating, unworthy of you,” (Jorgensen-Earp 89). With these rallying cries, Christabel once again found more support for the WSPU and the suffrage movement, even as the militancy increased. With the lack of resolution from the government, these women prepared yet again to demand action, or respond with further militancy until suffrage was won.

Jorgensen-Earp, Cheryl R., ed. Speeches and Trials of the Militant Suffragettes: The Women's Social and Political Union, 1903-1918. Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1999.

**The speech used comes from pages 87-99 of the book.**

Ashley Blog #7: Gordon on the Soviet Occupation

I’m doing a little late-night blogging, pulling an all-nighter to finish up yet another outline that I have to do for tomorrow (Tiananmen Square – I just love the bloody stuff!) and I thought I’d take a quick break to do my post. For this week, I’m going to illuminate a bit on the Jewish perspective of the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in June 1940. The source I’m taking this from is by Harry Gordon, who immigrated to the US in 1949 from Kovno, Lithuania. The citation and analysis follow.

Gordon, Harry. The Shadow of Death: The Holocaust in Lithuania. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1992.

In the second chapter of his memoir on the Holocaust in Lithuania, Harry Gordon detailed the arrival of the Soviet Union to Kovno in 1940. According to his description, the Jews were first seized by an intense terror, fearing that the Germans were manning the tanks. He stated, “They were closed so we couldn’t see anyone. We thought the Germans were coming. We didn’t know what was happening” (Gordon 9). This fear came from knowledge that, should the Germans invade Lithuania, the Jewry of the country would no longer be safe from their ghettos and concentration camps: “We knew what they were doing in the other countries… We thought that if they were coming, that was what they were going to do with us, too. After all, we Lithuanian Jews were no better than any other Jewish population” (Gordon 9).

Yet, upon discovering that the soldiers were not Germans, but instead were the Russians, Gordon described an immediate sense of relief among his family. He wrote, “Suddenly our mood changed. Instead of panic, we felt an unnatural joy. Everyone started hugging and kissing each other, family and neighbors, as if the Messiah had just arrived” (Gordon 9). The entire Jewish section of the city, as he described it, was caught up in an infectious happiness.

This happiness, however, did not extend to the Lithuanians: “The Lithuanian police from the old democratic republic… were very demoralized. They knew their country was being taken over, yet they still had to try to keep order” (Gordon 11). While “the Jewish people felt very free,” the Lithuanians were forced into submission by the Russians, having to walk on the sidewalk and curb their impoliteness lest they be arrested (Gordon 16). Gordon stated that this gave rise to frustrations, writing that “the anti-Semites’ eyes were popping out of their heads from the pressure of having to keep their mouths shut” (Gordon 16). Some, even with the threat of arrest, could not remain silent and spread their propaganda. Even the Lithuanian Communist party, which at this time ruled the government, was “both anti-Semitic and anti-Russian,” paving the way for the German army to take back power in 1941 (Gordon 20).

These details show that the pre-1941 tensions between the Jews and the Lithuanians were heightened by the acceptance of the Soviets by the Jewry. Despite the illegality of their actions, many Lithuanians continued to actively campaign against the Soviet regime, channeling their frustration through anti-Semitism. There is little surprise that this would then lead to the image of Jewish-Bolshevism gaining such popularity amongst the younger generations of Lithuanian men who would go on to participate in the pogroms.

I hope everybody has a nice break! See you all next Thursday!

THE WAR UPON THE PRESIDENT.; Manifesto of Ben. Wade and H. Winter Davis against the President's Proclamation.

http://www.nytimes.com/1864/08/09/news/war-upon-president-manifesto-ben-wade-h-winter-davis-against-president-s.html?pagewanted=2

Senator Benjamin Wade was a radical Republican who served from 1851-1869. Wade was known for his extreme views on reconstruction of the South. He is of special importance to the Battle of Fort Pillow because he was a man who co-authored.

 One example of the type of reconstruction measures that Wade was in favor of was a bill that passed both the House and the Senate that would require state governments to return to a republican form of government. The bill's timeline goes as follows "The bill had been discussed and considered for more than a month in the House of Representatives, which it passed on the 4th of May; it was reported to the Senate on the 27th of May without material amendment, and passed the Senate absolutely as it came from the House on the 2d of July" (Wade, 1864). This means that deliberation on the Bill started in late March or early April, the same month of the Battle of Fort Pillow. In between the time the House passed and the Senate deliberated the bill, Wade had produced his report on the Battle of Fort Pillow. This could explain why the bill passed through the Senate in a matter of 5 days.

            As stated earlier, President Lincoln took a much more moderate stance on the Reconstruction than some of his fellow party members which is why he did not sign the bill and sent back a proclamation. Based on the letter Wade sent it would make it seem like the House either did extreme due diligence on the bill or that the Senate rushed through the bill after Fort Pillow. The bill passed in the House in over a month where as the Senate passed the bill with no amendments in 5 days. While many other correlations may exist between the report and the passing of a bill that supported radical reconstruction was simply ignore by Lincoln until he sent the memo. One might say that the quick reaction and rush to pass this bill could not have happened without the Battle of Fort Pillow. This finding does not fit the hypothesis I made about Wade hurting his political agenda, however, it does fit the idea that the Battle of Fort Pillow was used as an event to rally political support for radical reconstruction.  

This specific manifesto against Lincoln shows the divide between the two . It also incorporates evidence about other political policies that may not directly impact the aftermath of Fort Pillow.