World War I...in Thirty Minutes

Today was a lot of fun. Of course we had the most balloons, which was awesome. I learned about the inefficiencies of the trench warfare system and how important it is to have the most ammunition. The boys ran out pretty quickly, but they just wouldn't die. Everyone got hit and no one really got anywhere. The only thing I would improve on is more ammunition, but you can't really do anything about that. This was fun! We should do this again!

Yellow Journalism in the Spanish American War

Some historians claim Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst "started" the Spanish-American War. How did yellow journalism contribute to the Spanish-American War?

Yellow Journalism is the practice of sensationalism in newspapers, in part started by Joesph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. It was a common practice in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century. Some historians believe that Yellow-Journalism was a direct cause of the Spanish American War (1898). What needs to be realized however, is that, while yellow journalism contributed greatly, it did not start the war.

America declared war with Spain after the explosion of The Maine, a battleship stationed off the cost of Cuba. As it later turned out, it was an accidental fuel explosion, but the press wrote many articles blaming the Spanish for the explosion. The public was so enraged that they demanded war. However, for several years now America had been wanting to engage in a conflict. They had come close several times but didn't have any serious conflicts.

The Yellow Press further exacerbated the problem by sending out exaggerated stories of Spanish mayhem and American bravery. The press also helped America, though. America was ready for a new war, and public opinion alone does not start a war. By the end of the war, America had proved itself a world power, boosted its economy and its public approval ratings. In addition the press also got names like Theodore Roosevelt out in public eye, making it possible for him to get elected later. The Yellow Press made somethings worse in this time, but they made many things possible.

Devil in the White City

1.      What surprised you most about this book?

I was most surprised by the planning. There was all the planning into the World’s fair, houses and garden and events, and also the planning that went into Holmes house and murders. He may at times seem to have murdered indiscriminately, but he had a plan behind each murder.

2.      Why was it so important to have the fair in Chicago? Do you think anyone considered the negative impact it could have?

It was important to have the fair in Chicago because it gave Chicago prestige. Chicago was a relatively new city and was a city of innovation, but they were not recognized by much of the world. The fair gave them recognition. I think the negative consequences were considered, the subsequent unemployment especially. What no one counted on was the panic of 1893 which made it impossible for men to get work after the fair.

3.      Who was more powerful- Burnham or Holmes?

            Were they alike in any way?

Burnham was more powerful because he commanded so many people and held the jobs of so many people in his hands. Holmes was powerful because of his magnetism and murders, but Burnham was more powerful because of the sheer scale of his projects. They were alike in that they were both strong, forward thinking and convincing, however they were also very different, Holmes was an evil killer and Burnham was a mild mannered architect.

4.      How was Holmes able to change his identity so easily/often?

Holmes was able to change his identity so often because there was no data bases for those things and no way to check up on fake identities. Today, there are computers and licenses for identification. Another reason is there was little communication between police departments. They couldn’t quickly send descriptions, pictures or known aliases, so many people often fell through the cracks.  

5.      Why is there such animosity between the architects?

 One reason was there was animosity between the architects because they were jealous of each other. Especially jealous were architects like Louis Sullivan. Another reason there was animosity was because their visions for the fair sometimes didn’t mesh.

6.      What did Holmes look for in women and why?

Holmes looked for a few key factors in women- vulnerability, being forbidden, and money. He liked women who were, for all intents and purposes, alone in Chicago and therefore vulnerable, he also liked women like Julia, who were married and couldn’t chase after him, wanting to get married. There was always the money of course.

7.      How successful would the fair have been without Burnham at the helm?

The fair would not have had one-tenth of the success. Burnham embodied Chicago; he worked his way up to one of the top architects even though he was routinely stomped on. Burnham understood Chicago, and because of this he was able to perfectly compliment the city. He was also a skilled leader who managed to bring together some of the best architects, lawn designers and artists in America.

8.      Why did Holmes take the children?

For Holmes, taking the children was a game. He was excited and smug at how easy it was to move around the children and their mother like pawns. He delighted in bringing the close and then pulling them apart. When he was bored with them, he killed them.

9.      How did their drive to ‘out-Eiffel’ the Eiffel Tower impact the fair?

Their drive to ‘out-Eiffel’ the Paris exhibition led them to consider things they would not have normally considered doing, and made the World fair bigger and more amazing than the Paris exhibition.

10.  Why do you think Erik Larsson wrote the book in tandem instead of two separate books?

I think Erik Larsson wrote the book in tandem to compare and contrast. Both Burnham and Holmes were powerful men who worked at goals. The difference is that Burnham was working to build a place for all of America to be proud of and Holmes was working to destroy lives and steal money. I also think he wrote them in tandem because they stories are interlocking. Without the World’s Fair Holmes could never have killed so many people without getting caught and it represented how Chicago was changing with in the years around the world’s fair.

            

Reconstruction Racket in the South!

By: Pinky LeBow, head investigative journalist with the Chicago Sun

Vicksburg, Mississippi

September 23. 1869

The Civil war ended almost five years ago, but in some ways the war had just begun. The new reconstruction policies have the South in an uproar. The policies, which try to establish a stable economy and a bureau to help the poor and African-Americans, are met with strong resistance in almost all quarters of the south. Hatred of northerners, "Carpetbaggers" or "Those Damn Yankees", is present everywhere. The military presence has incited acts of violence, mostly by a group of white supremacists that call themselves the Klu Klux Klan. The KKK attack blacks and white northerners, trying to change what they see as bad policies. They don't realize that they are only cementing the north's cause. 



However, as President Johnson pardons more and more of the Southern planter aristocracy one wonders if the north has a leg to stand on. President Lincoln's 10% plan is almost non-existent. President Johnson is unable to maintain a steady opinion. First he was a proponent of hash punishment for the Planter Aristocracy, and now he pardons almost all who ask him to. It is believed by this author that he must make up his mind, control the reconstruction and stick to his guns. From Vicksburg, Pinky LeBow reporting.

The Changing views of race in the Civil War

Changing views of Race during the Civil War era.

It was with the discovery of the new world by Columbus in 1492 that severe slavery in the Americas began. It wouldn’t end for almost four hundred more years. From enslaving the Native American population, who were considered poor slaves, Europeans went directly to enslaving the African population. In due time these populations in southern and central America began to fade and slavery began to die a natural death. In the North American south, however, slavery was revived on its last leg when Cotton became King.

At the start of the American Civil War, 1861, enslaved peoples were considered politically, morally and mentally inferior.  Very few people considered them equals; even Abraham Lincoln, hailed as a hero and a great abolitionist, believed blacks to be inferior. Even the publication of Abolitionist works, such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin, published some ten years earlier, did not change this mindset. It did, however, make people more sympathetic, facilitated the war and laid the ground work for many future abolitionists.

Around 1863 this attitude began to change, people became more politically active and the idea that black people were inferior was undergoing a rapid change in the North. With the implementation of Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation, which was mainly for the manpower the slaves would provide and to give the north a moral reason to fight, and a growing dissenting public opinion, people were beginning to see that slaves were equal. This attitude lasted until the end of the war.

At the end of the war, opinion on race was deeply divided. The South blamed blacks for many of the problems incurred by the war, which, coupled with the already present racism led to a hostile environment for freed slaves that is still present in some areas. In the North there were a growing number of people sympathetic to the plight of black people.

In the end racism was still prevalent but numerous political acts and the military presence in the south made sure it wasn’t acted on for years. The idea of racial superiority changed rapidly over the Civil War, in the process of five years slavery was abolished and the ground work was laid of the civil rights movement that would occur nearly a century later.

The development of democracy between 1820-1840

-Western Expansion
-Changes in Electoral politics

If the election of 1800 was a revolution in American politics then the election of 1820 was a peaceful continuation of one party politics with light undercurrents of discontent and disunity. The Democrat-Republicans had been in power for twenty years with little opposition from the dying Federalists and had been in the 'Era of good Feelings' since 1817. This time of unity, however, was drawing to a sharp close. By the next election the people would be demanding new politics, more representational leaders.

By the election of 1824 people were expanding westward in large numbers. Not many had gone very far but many had penetrated the Appalachian mountain range that was previously a line of division for the American people. At this point the settlers had settled and were demanding representation, like their family in the east was recieving. Andrew Jackson, who the settlers saw as a hero was running against John Q. Adams, a good(if cold) president. Jackson did not win the necessary electoral college votes to get elected so John Adams was elected in his place. The majority of the popular vote had gone to Jackson, however and the people saw this as an unfair conspiracy by the upper classes; they saw themselves as not being represented in the highest levels of government. For this reason the election of 1824 was known as the 'Corrupt bargain'. Unsuprisingly Andrew Jackson won the next election.

The election of 1824 had a lasting effect on American politics. It was the first time Americans had blatantly expressed dissatisfaction in their voting process and rallied to change it. The placement of people in America provides a direct correlation- The further people spread out and settle,the different representation they need. In terms of politics and people the early nineteenth century is considered a time of change.

What's happening?

So that class isn't that hard. I enjoy the work and the history and even the textbook. The tests are difficult. Like super difficult. There aren't that many problems with the class actually. Well, my test grades. But whatever. I would probably do better if I read my notes after I took them. But whatever.
I really enjoy history, Thomas Jefferson? He's awesome. Mostly, except for the whole going-against-his -party thing. But whatever.


Sincerely,
Lilly LeQuire