Hey all, this is my history midterm for Hist. 152. The main prompt was, more or less, asking what changes there were to American citizenship after reconstruction until WW1. I analyzed the information, and came up with what I believe is a correct paper. I classified people by their race, their gender, and various other linking factors. Please do not consider that to be racist in nature, merely my best way to actually argue my points.
Please feel free to comment on it or use it as you see fit. Also, feel free to argue with it.
Enjoy
(ps, if you want my sources please let me know)
What does it mean to be American? This question, and those derived from it, has been argued over throughout American History. From the blocking of black voting rights, to the arresting union leaders, to the taking out of the commies, the definition of an American has been large-scale, long-term, evolution to what it is now. The blacks got a say, then promptly lost it. The women slowly gained the vote, state by state, region by region. The Chinese and the Irish had to fight to get any say what-so-ever. Union workers were killed and arrested, simply because they dared to question what it was to be American, what the American dream was, and were different. Throughout American history, people of various groups and races attempted to gain the same rights as other Americans; these people were struck down at each and every turn by other American citizens, including those who had just fought for their rights. The question, quite simply, becomes: what were these groups that tried to rise up, and how did fellow Americans fight back?
For almost a century, America had gone without having any person besides white men having a voice. Sure, there were the occasional woman who owned land, thus letting them vote, but the vast majority of women, and absolutely all blacks, were banned from politics in its entirety. America seemed to function decently well as a republic that had only a small portion of its people voting, and it seemed to be destined to remain on that course. The Civil War, in its existence and aftermath, abruptly changed this progression. Suddenly, blacks were humans – no longer a mere 3/5ths of onei – and they were given the right to vote. Congress acted swiftly, and with great force, passing various Amendments to the Constitution and making it so that this right was protectedii. It seemed as though blacks were to be given full rights of the laws.
For most of the country, this was an abrupt and unwelcome change. Most Americans considered the blacks to be below themselves, and thus they were outraged at their allowance into the voting ranks. There were riots, protests, and hundreds of lynchingsiii. Groups sprung up in the southiv to 'protect' the American ideals and to make sure that blacks knew their place. America was torn over the issue, with the north supporting it, the south opposing it, and the west just looking for cheap labor, no matter what the source. This overall struggle amongst the American people led to other social issues being brought up, and it caused several other larger problems.
The compromise of 1877v, which was enacted as Hayes took the executive office, just as quickly stripped rights away from blacks. Sure, they Constitutionally had the rights, but there was to be no enforcement of it. Jim Crow laws, named after a popular comicvi, appeared out of thin air to keep the blacks down. Grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and poll taxes were a legal means to grant the vote to whites only. The KKK, along with various other hate groups, formed to make sure that no blacks would dare challenge this issue, and to punish them if they tried. Blacks were scared into submission, and, again, deemed as second class citizens.
After blacks gained their voice, and then promptly lost it, their was a new challenge to the white male citizenship, that of the Chinese. Coming from their homeland in search of a job, and usually working on the railroadsvii, the Chinese were a force to be dealt with. This large block of people had a common bond, a common nationality, and a common goal. While they were not fighting for the right to vote, they were arguing that they deserved citizenship. They came here to unite the country rail-by-rail, and they wanted to make sure that they were justly rewarded. The Supreme Court, in various rulings, quickly gave them their citizenshipviii.
This change irked Americans more then the black issue had; blacks, at least, were natives of this country, the Chinese were not. Americans across the country were united against allowing Chinese citizenship, and they did not believe that it would be a good idea. In the north and south, where they were dealing with their own labor and foreign issues, they were more neutral to the idea. But in the mid-west, where the Chinese were working, and the west, where they were living, the people were greatly opposed to granting them citizenship. Why should people from another country, especially those who looked vastly different then us, be allowed to vote and get the benefits that are inherent in being American?
On the east coast, the populace was fighting with their own immigration problems. An influx of persons, most coming through Ellis Island, was making the entire seacoast a multi-cultural pot of stew. Irish, Italians, and Germans were all coming over for work. Once they came over, they quickly formed their own communities. With their own neighborhoods, their own restaurants, and there own newspapers, the immigrants were quickly isolating themselves from main-stream Americansix. While they were initially inclined to avoid our government and politics, these immigrants were quickly swept up in the political machine and were essential cogs for the Tammany Hall crowdx. This caused them to immediately get into the American political system as soon as they stepped off of the boat.
The American people did not like the new immigrants. Signs banning Irish from applying for jobs sprang up all around the country.xi The new people, usually speaking their own language and doing their home-country customs, scared the American populace. Plus, both the Irish and the Italians were Catholics, which directly attacked the protestant majority in the country. Americans, in general, did not like these changes. While the politicians were using the immigrants for their own gains, the majority of Americans were trying to kick them out. Groups that wanted temperance were fighting the immigrant simply because they perceived that alcohol was inherent in these persons. Just as it was with the Chinese in the west, the Immigrants in the east were dealing with social stigma and were rejected.
While most groups that wanted to be added into the American citizenry were easy to identify, either by a common language, a common race, or a common culture, there was one group that was made up by anybody and everybody: the unions. In the early 1900s, there were issues with the way that labor worked in America. The people wanted higher wages, a safer environment, and bosses who actually gave a damn. The unions realized that the only way to get what they wanted would be to form into groups and protest. These protests slowed down commerce, harmed the countries economy, and made most people hate the unions. While this caused a lot of backlash and hatred towards the unions, it was hard to tell who was a union member, or “red neckxii”, and who wasn't, as they shared no common bond.
Americans generally hate it when anybody effects their pocketbooks. They hate it when there is a group that harms the economy. They hate it when anything causes them extra stress. The unions did all of these, and so Americans really did not support themxiii. For obvious reasons, the capitalistic aspect of society also disliked the unions. Most Americans related unions to either the Irish or the Communists, often both. Using this dislike, many politicians started to charge communists and unionists with crimes. Anti-union police forces took down hundreds of strikes, and injured/killed hundredsxiv. This vast backlash showed that not only were unions not considered citizens, but that the Commies were not either.
America, throughout her history, has been filled with one group trying to gain rights and citizenship. When they attempted to rise in the social hierarchy, most of their fellow Americans would push them back down. This cycle was continuous, from the blacks, to the women, to all immigrants, to the unions, and then to the blacks again; America would not accept civil rights and citizenship unless there was a hard fight for them. This has caused many groups to back down, many groups to give up, and many groups to never get their rights. Until the start of WW1, most groups in America had little rights, and most Americans thought that only the WASPs should be citizens. While it did not change immediately, the years after WW1 slowly brought the change that was needed to the country, slowly the populace started to accept others. This process towards civil rights, and equal rights, was a long-term struggle, and one that is going on today. Any group that wishes to have their rights needs to remember this one thing from American history: you might get those rights, but it is going to be a long, tedious, and damn-hard fight to get them.
Read more ...
Showing posts with label black. Show all posts
Showing posts with label black. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Jena 6, two years later
Before I start let me just say something. Michael is a Biblical name, it is a bloody angel, spell it right when you name your kid. There are reasons people stereotype against the black members of our community.
For those of you wondering the reason why I am talking about the Jena Six, only two year and a half late, I am simply because one of the members was in the news again today; Mr. Bell apparently shot himself while cleaning his gun (which is why you always have the safety on and CHECK THE DAMN GUN).
On December 4th ,2006 six males beat one male until he passed out. They greatly injured his face and body. Basically, 6 guys teamed up and kicked the shit out of another. What should have been a simple prosecution soon turned into the biggest civil rights trial in years. Going back to my old three-point style of posting, I think that the Jena Six should have been convicted, and that it should have been handled differently. I feel that they attacked a person for no reason, I believe that they were merely used as a scapegoat, I hate Sharpton with a passion.
I feel that they attacked a person for no reason
A young man was beaten, nearly to death, by a gang of other people. Under any logical circumstance the gang should be tried and convicted, regardless of their color. The only thing here is the fact that they thought that the white man had used ‘fighting words’ and thus deserved it. Guess what, there is no reason to beat a person unless they are actively threatening you or another.
Basically, the entire argument moves around the fact that the white teenager supposedly hung a noose on a white-only tree. While this seems quite dangerous, it apparently was common place. There was no evidence that he was the hanger of the noose, nor any that he agreed with it. In fact, this beating might now cause him to be racist. Even if he did hang the noose, there is no reason to believe
I feel that they were merely used as a scapegoat
I do believe that our country has a judicial system that is over harsh on those of African decent. A simple look at the drug penalties shows as much. But, at the same time, I do not think that race played a single role in this situation. I see this as a proper move by the DA of the area, you prosecute people who attacked another, violently and without cause or provocation. Basically, I think the DA was doing his job perfectly. The only reason this was big was the fact that all the boys were black, and they were able to make an argument about the nooses that WERE NOT HUNG BY JUSTIN.
A large group of black Americans want to be able to blame the system. Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, they all want to be able to blame the man for the reason that statistically there is a higher poverty rate for blacks. Most blacks, however, are intellegent and no that this is not smart, nor is it right. Anyways, I really feel that the boys were used as scapegoats merely to further the agenda of these people. They were used to draw sympathy, longing, and a desire to amend our justice system. Frankly, the boys should not have been used in this way, and, even if they should have, THEY BROKE THE BLOODY LAW.
I hate Sharpton with a passion
I believe that Sharpton is a bigot (see his comments about Romney and Mormonism), an anti-Semite (see the Feddy Market Case), and an asshole (see his unpaid taxes and his campaign finances). The fact that he can say he argues for civil rights while keeping a straight face is beyond me. While he was good at first, he has become useless and a harm to the black community. Jackson, on the other hand, attempts to actually do good, he just fails. Sharpton has even show his willingness to lie in a trial, and then to accuse the people helping him when they contend that he was wrong.
On a side note, I do like some of the works he does. His groups, his funding, his anti-animal-cruelty bits (though I do dislike PETA), and his strong support for gays is a great thing for this country. If only he kept to logical areas of civil rights, not making shit up for the publicity.
In the end, I think that, while there might have been a HINT of racism in the whole Jena Six debacle, there was not enough to make it a bad trial. The boys broke the law, period, end of story. Sure, they were acting like idiots and they are kids, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be punished. Read more ...
For those of you wondering the reason why I am talking about the Jena Six, only two year and a half late, I am simply because one of the members was in the news again today; Mr. Bell apparently shot himself while cleaning his gun (which is why you always have the safety on and CHECK THE DAMN GUN).
On December 4th ,2006 six males beat one male until he passed out. They greatly injured his face and body. Basically, 6 guys teamed up and kicked the shit out of another. What should have been a simple prosecution soon turned into the biggest civil rights trial in years. Going back to my old three-point style of posting, I think that the Jena Six should have been convicted, and that it should have been handled differently. I feel that they attacked a person for no reason, I believe that they were merely used as a scapegoat, I hate Sharpton with a passion.
I feel that they attacked a person for no reason
A young man was beaten, nearly to death, by a gang of other people. Under any logical circumstance the gang should be tried and convicted, regardless of their color. The only thing here is the fact that they thought that the white man had used ‘fighting words’ and thus deserved it. Guess what, there is no reason to beat a person unless they are actively threatening you or another.
Basically, the entire argument moves around the fact that the white teenager supposedly hung a noose on a white-only tree. While this seems quite dangerous, it apparently was common place. There was no evidence that he was the hanger of the noose, nor any that he agreed with it. In fact, this beating might now cause him to be racist. Even if he did hang the noose, there is no reason to believe
I feel that they were merely used as a scapegoat
I do believe that our country has a judicial system that is over harsh on those of African decent. A simple look at the drug penalties shows as much. But, at the same time, I do not think that race played a single role in this situation. I see this as a proper move by the DA of the area, you prosecute people who attacked another, violently and without cause or provocation. Basically, I think the DA was doing his job perfectly. The only reason this was big was the fact that all the boys were black, and they were able to make an argument about the nooses that WERE NOT HUNG BY JUSTIN.
A large group of black Americans want to be able to blame the system. Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, they all want to be able to blame the man for the reason that statistically there is a higher poverty rate for blacks. Most blacks, however, are intellegent and no that this is not smart, nor is it right. Anyways, I really feel that the boys were used as scapegoats merely to further the agenda of these people. They were used to draw sympathy, longing, and a desire to amend our justice system. Frankly, the boys should not have been used in this way, and, even if they should have, THEY BROKE THE BLOODY LAW.
I hate Sharpton with a passion
I believe that Sharpton is a bigot (see his comments about Romney and Mormonism), an anti-Semite (see the Feddy Market Case), and an asshole (see his unpaid taxes and his campaign finances). The fact that he can say he argues for civil rights while keeping a straight face is beyond me. While he was good at first, he has become useless and a harm to the black community. Jackson, on the other hand, attempts to actually do good, he just fails. Sharpton has even show his willingness to lie in a trial, and then to accuse the people helping him when they contend that he was wrong.
On a side note, I do like some of the works he does. His groups, his funding, his anti-animal-cruelty bits (though I do dislike PETA), and his strong support for gays is a great thing for this country. If only he kept to logical areas of civil rights, not making shit up for the publicity.
In the end, I think that, while there might have been a HINT of racism in the whole Jena Six debacle, there was not enough to make it a bad trial. The boys broke the law, period, end of story. Sure, they were acting like idiots and they are kids, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be punished. Read more ...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
An essay, yes, it will bore you
Due to it being Exam week, I am going to post one of my papers. Yeah, it is long and boring, read it if you wish, or not
*EDIT*
I totally forgot that today was call in gay day. I was planning on having a great response to this thing but I forgot all about it... Anyways, on Friday you can expect my full response to calling in gay, both the idea, the effectiveness (after it happens and I can see it), and what I would do as a boss.
again, sorry about that
*ANOTHER EDIT*
I did not realize that the endnotes (sourcing) did not transfer. They are now listed at the end of the document in order that they should be, but not linked. Each time you see something like i or XI or something like that, it refers to an endnote with that numerical value. Again, sorry about this...
Please feel free to use these sources for your own information or use the essay as a source (SOURCE) if you need to. I can provide more information on all of my sources as well, if you ask nicely on this post
Defending Slavery, Demographic by Demographic
Robert M. Barga
Imagine, if you will, that you are transported back to the late 1840’s. You live in Kansas and believe strongly in state’s rights and in limited control from the federal government. You do not own any slaves, but you have friends who do, and friends who don't. You pay attention to politics and to the speeches that are coming from Washington; you think hard about what they say, and you are worried. You are worried about talk of a Civil War. Your immigrant friends and the poor white farmers are worried about free Negros competing with them for laborious jobs. Some of them are worried about what will happen if the Negros are set free. The unionists, and the Northern Democrats, that are your friends are worried about the potential split of the country; they feel the need to keep the current status quo, allowing each new state to decide, thus keeping the country from splitting. The religious amongst your friends worry about what is happening to the Negros who are torn from their families, how they are treated, and if it is God's will to let this happen. The Southern Whigs are concerned with northern moves of aggression, and are actively seeking out new states and territories to have slaves. You, well, you are worried about everything. In the next election, you need to decide if your soon-to-be-state will become a free state or a slave state. Roving bands of people, either armed, or persuasive, come at you on both sides of the issue; what will you chose?
None of you agree on your positions; you can find common grounds with one or another, but not with all at the same time. Most of the Northern Democrats are opposed to slavery, but they believe that each state should have the say in the issue.i The poor white farmers, along with the Immigrants, find no need to fight any upcoming war. They care little for both sides and are happy, somewhat, with slavery as it keeps them above Blacks. Without slavery, the Irish and the Poor White Farmers would be no better than the Blacks.ii Most of the religious friends were opposed to slavery. They woke during the Great Awakening and they believed that God condemned slavery. However, most are susceptible to change their argument based on which preacher they most recently listened to. The Mormons have no actual rule on the issue, so there are those that support slavery, those that abhor it, and those that own slaves.iii The Free Blacks, as with those who supported Free Labor, want the new states to be only free labor, and they feel that all of the states should migrate to free labor. However there are a few Free Blacks that own slaves and want to be able to expand into new territory. Most of the Southern Whigs wanted the right to take their slaves into the new territories and wanted all of the states to be slave. They felt that there was too much power in the free-states hands, and thus wanted to expand the country both to the West and to the South.iv
The Religious Amongst You.
A group of your friends gather together, maybe forty strong or so, representing a various range of demographics (conveniently) of America. Selected individuals are there to persuade all of you to either vote for slavery, or for freedom. A small, thread-beaten reverend, carrying the customary Bible, is the first to speak. He starts to preach of slavery in the Good Book, and how God not only thought it to be okay, but that God actually ordered slaves to go back to their masters. He mentions that the greats of all time, from Aristotle to Homer to Socrates, all had slavery, and they all talked about it without disdain. If these persons see it as fine, then it must be moral. He quotes some scripture to you and quickly summarizes it:
“When Sarai, Abraham’s wide, complained to him of the conduct of Hagar, her maid servant, he answered, ‘they maid is in thy hand, do to her as it peaseth thee,’ showing that she only wanted her husbands consent to punish Hagar as she pleased. We are then told, that, when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face into the wilderness-there the angel of the Lord found her; but, instead of relieving her distresses, and sending her to some free county, he told her to return and submit herself to her mistress.”v
While this speech is clearly meant to target the your religious friends, the Mormons and Quakers and those who found God during the Great Awakening shake their heads. God, as Brown had put it, clearly did not want slavery to exist. It was a moral sin, and thus it must be put out. While this argument has some sway over the less religious, as they had little reading to back up against, it mostly failed to hit its target. To the Northern Democrats, and the Southern Whigs, however, this was a good justification for slavery, and it allowed them to keep their stereotypical views.
Manifest Destiny And Political.
Many of your friends worry about the impact that slavery, or the lack thereof, and its effect on their move westward. The Southern Whigs, the Northern Democrats, and the immigrants all look at this issue with great interest. They want to move west, to get more land, and, for the immigrants, they want more job opportunities. A Senator's aide is the next to talk. He represents a Senator from South Carolina, one Mr. John C. Calhoun, and quotes from one of his bosses great speeches:
“…I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other…”vi
If the other great countries and empires had slaves, from Rome to Egypt, it could not potentially cause great harm to your country. In fact, it only will help your country out. It seems clear that these empires were great only due to their slavery, as they could regulate the menial tasks to those of lesser intelligence, and leave those blessed with higher thinking to running those empires. Northern Democrats, who wanted to expand, but allow popular sovereignty in all the states, has no qualms with this argument. Those supporting Manifest Destiny, and the Southern Whigs, who were attempting to keep the North from having too much power, agree with this logic. After all, more states admitted to the country would probably mean more states that were for slaves.
Those who look at the social aspect and Racial Theory
While not targeting any specific group, most of your friends are interested in the social possibilities of a free black person. The Free Blacks, believing that they were equal to Whites, were concerned with how Whites would view them. Poor White Farmers, on the other hand, wanted to show that they will always be better than Blacks, even if they currently were paid less. To address these concerns, an elderly scientist stands and explains to you that men are just like dogs; each breed is specific, and no tainting of the breeds is accepted by those who clearly care about their animals. He states that the breed of Negros clearly serve but one purpose, that is, they are here to serve us:
“…The Negro, on the contrary, is imitative, social, easily domesticated, and, as long as kept in subordination to a higher race, will ape to a certain extent its manners and customs. But the Negro rises only to a certain point of imitations – his intellect permits no approach to civilization but that of imitation, and, as soon as the race is thrown back upon itself and separated from the whites, as in the West Indies, it become savage.”vii
It becomes clear that the Negros are not able to maintain a social order on their own, and thus they must either live under the whites or apart from the whites. As they become savage on their own, it is concluded that they must live under whites. The Poor Farmers and the Immigrants used this to show that they were indeed better than Negros. They were the main target of this sort of justification, as were the Northern Democrats who could use it to still justify slavery while arguing for popular choice.
More Religious Reasons and Political
There is some grumbling from the Quakers and Mormons that are left in the crowd. They worry about the perception that Negros are actually better off under Whites. The Quakers worry about the humanitarian treatment of the Negros, and contend that we must treat them as fellow humans. The Senator's Aide, sensing this fact, rises to his feet once more and argues that being a slave is better for Negros then anything else would be. He believes that they are a war-like inferior species and they are better off than any working-class in any other country:
“Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe – look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind super-intending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house”viii
This argument is designed to make the Great Awakeners, the Mormons, and the Quakers all at least be somewhat comfortable with slavery. The concept was that even if slavery was condemned by God, letting the slaves go would be a greater harm to them, thus you would be sinning. It was the ethics of inaction sin is better than action sin. While this argument helped to convince the more border-line religious persons, and convinced several Poor Farmers and Northern Democrats that it was a necessary evil.
Laws
Northern Democrats were concerned largely with the legality of slavery. While they though that it should be allowed, and moved into states if the people supported it, they wondered if it was Constitutional. A small man, with beady eyes and spectacles, stands up to address this very point. He states that America was not founded on freedom for all, nay, America was founded with slavery in mind. He contends that the very Constitution allows slavery, and forbids the blacks from being citizens. Quoting from the Dred Scott Decision, he states:
“...We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges...”ix
This argument, that is, the argument that the Founding Fathers intended there to be slavery, was a huge boost in the thought process of the Northern Democrats as well as the Poor Whites and the Immigrants. If the Constitution never forbade slavery, and actually made it so that the states had the real choice in the matter, then their arguments worked. This was used to target these groups and worked to great effect. It even became part of the justification that the Northern Democrats would use for their defense of slavery via popular sovereignty.
Economy and Free Labor
While most of the Southern Whigs are satiated, as are those sharing their interest in Manifest Destiny, and the Religious and Free Blacks fully opposed, there remains only a few groups not yet swayed. A few Northern Democrats and most of the Immigrants are still not swayed one way or another on the issue. The last two guests stand, planning a quick debate. One, a Slavery proponent, feels that the economic loss from removing slavery would be too great. The other, a Free Labor proponent, feels that all men should own themselves, and that the economic loss is actually greater with slavery.
The Free Labor supporter starts the debate by explaining that Negros do not help the South's infrastructure, and they were not helping her economy. He mentions that there are major “statistical comparisons between the North and South, and free states took the lead in population growth, manufacturing, property values, agriculture, railroads, canals, and commerce”x. He then contends that this means that slavery is a failure, and thus it should be abolished. If the slaves are not helping as well as free people are, then slavery should be removed. This argument is targeting the Poor Farmers, the Immigrants, the Free Black and Free Labor movements. Also, this argument slightly targeted the Northern Democrats who opposed slavery but supported sovereignty. By stating that states were less likely to be worthwhile, to have money, and to have a solid infrastructure, the Free Labor argument made many of these groups worry about voting for slavery, as it could harm their chances at richness.
The Free Labor supporter then moves on, contending that: “Would be more economically sound in that it would encourage competition and foreign investment”.xi The Free Labor supporter showed that having competition would lower the prices of free workers, and it would get people to come time and time again, as there would be more competition and thus a threat to their job. Overall, he felt that it was important, both due to the economic benefits, and to the Lockovian relation, that each person own their own form of labor. This argument is geared at the Poor Farmers, business owners, and Northern Democrats. It is also slightly aimed at the Southern Whigs. It shows that you can get a cheaper, and overall more reliable, workforce if you have only free labor. It also implies that they could be richer if there were free labor. The problem with this argument is that it pushes away Immigrants and the Poor Farmers. Both groups want the jobs that Negros would be taking, and both are afraid that free labor would leave them penniless and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This argument would work to convince anybody in a middle class position, or a store/factory owner, but it did not work on the lower classes.
The slavery supporter is next on the soapbox, and he begins by admitting that free labor will get more done in any given time:
“…the labor of slaves, for each hour or day, will amount to but two-thirds of what hired free laborers would perform in the same time…”xii
He talks about how free labors are quicker workers than the Negros, as their incentive is more cash while the slaves would have the only incentive of the whip. If the Negro works just fast enough, he gets the exact same things as if he worked as quickly as he could. For the free laborer, he gets more in pay, and a potential for more jobs. This argument targets the Immigrants just as it targeted the Poor Whites. The idea that blacks work less than they did was an important factor, as it showed that they were still better than the Blacks, regardless of their pay or perceived worth.
He continues to explain that free labor can not be cheaper than slave labor, and that they are not directly comparable:
“The mistake of those who maintain, or admit, this generally asserted proposition, that ‘free labor is cheaper than slave labor,’ is caused by assuming as true, that self-interest induces free hirelings to labor continuously and regularly. This is never the case in general…”xiii
With this argument, the economics of slavery is clearly laid out. This argument is directed at Business and store owners, and to the Poor Whites. It contends that while Whites may work faster and better, you can only count on Slaves being there time and time again. To the Whites that dream of owning a plantation (poor whites), and to the business owners, this is a needed situation. The Immigrants, however, were offended by this contention, and the idea that they were less accountable then a Black was an insult to them. The Northern Democrats, along with the Southern Whigs, also agreed with this in concept, as it was clear that a steady workforce was better for the economy and for businesses than a shoddy one.
As you sit there, pondering which way you will be voting for your state, free or slave, you notice how your friends line up. Those who are religious, and actively involved in the Great Awakening, find that slavery is an immoral issue. They feel that no person has the right to own another. The Mormons, on the other hand, had no rule against slavery. Some of them were convinced that slavery is good, as indicated by the religious statements early on in the night. Others, believe it to be just, but would not support it.
Some of your friends are swayed by the Free Labor argument. Those who proudly work their stores, and work with hired help that is indeed constant and honest, agree that Free Labor is the way to go. They think that our country was set up with Free Labor in mind, each person owning their own work. The Blacks and the religious feel that free labor is the way to go. The Immigrants and the Poor farmers, on the other hand, do not support Free Labor in any form. They are afraid of losing jobs, not being sure that the help would show up, and the economic impact upon their wallet. They are also afraid that free Blacks will place them lower on the social hierarchy.
Those who were for Manifest Destiny, along with the Northern Democrats and the Southern Whigs, feel that slavery is needed to expand the country. All the parties wanted to expand, and all felt that slavery was needed for this. Their main differences were about its institution, whether it be in all the new states, as the Whigs wanted, or if it were to be in only the states that chose to have it, as the Democrats wanted.
The Legal argument has rung home with every class of your friends. Those who wish to justify slavery, from the Northern Democrats to the Souther Whigs use the fact that it is allowed in the Constitution as clear evidence that it is okay. The Poor Farmers, and the Immigrants, care less about it be Constitutional and more about their wallets, but the argument also gives them arguments for why it is proper to allow slavery.
The social argument targeted those that were still on the fence and those that were religious but only leaning towards anti-slave. By arguing that Negros were inferior, or that the slave owners were in fact helping them, the Mormons and the Northern Democrats were able to justify slavery as it would cause more harm to end it. All of your friends are arguing with you and the newspapers are all contradicting what the other one’s say. It is your vote, what are you going to do with it?
1.http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=110 referencing Douglas' support, last seen 12/5
2.http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed2art1_roots.html , last seen 12/5
3.http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/anti-slavery_movement/religious_origins.htm , last seen 12/6
4.http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/63/entry , last seen 12/5
5. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from the printed De Bow’s Review argument for slavery. Page 110-111
6. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Sen. Calhoun’s speech to the US Senate. Page 59
7. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Nott’s “Instinct of Races”. Page 205
8. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Sen. Calhoun’s speech to the US Senate. Page 59
9.Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from SCOTUS Dred Scott Decision. Page 135
10. Professor Brendan McConville, “From Jacksonian Democracy to Sectional Conflict”, lecture given at Binghamton University November 28, 2001.
11.http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/slavery%20arguments.ppt#315,10,The Economic Debate referencing the free labor arguments, last seen 12/5
12. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Ruffin’s The Political Economy of Slavery. Page 65
13. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Ruffin’s The Political Economy of Slavery. Page 65 Read more ...
*EDIT*
I totally forgot that today was call in gay day. I was planning on having a great response to this thing but I forgot all about it... Anyways, on Friday you can expect my full response to calling in gay, both the idea, the effectiveness (after it happens and I can see it), and what I would do as a boss.
again, sorry about that
*ANOTHER EDIT*
I did not realize that the endnotes (sourcing) did not transfer. They are now listed at the end of the document in order that they should be, but not linked. Each time you see something like i or XI or something like that, it refers to an endnote with that numerical value. Again, sorry about this...
Please feel free to use these sources for your own information or use the essay as a source (SOURCE) if you need to. I can provide more information on all of my sources as well, if you ask nicely on this post
Defending Slavery, Demographic by Demographic
Robert M. Barga
Imagine, if you will, that you are transported back to the late 1840’s. You live in Kansas and believe strongly in state’s rights and in limited control from the federal government. You do not own any slaves, but you have friends who do, and friends who don't. You pay attention to politics and to the speeches that are coming from Washington; you think hard about what they say, and you are worried. You are worried about talk of a Civil War. Your immigrant friends and the poor white farmers are worried about free Negros competing with them for laborious jobs. Some of them are worried about what will happen if the Negros are set free. The unionists, and the Northern Democrats, that are your friends are worried about the potential split of the country; they feel the need to keep the current status quo, allowing each new state to decide, thus keeping the country from splitting. The religious amongst your friends worry about what is happening to the Negros who are torn from their families, how they are treated, and if it is God's will to let this happen. The Southern Whigs are concerned with northern moves of aggression, and are actively seeking out new states and territories to have slaves. You, well, you are worried about everything. In the next election, you need to decide if your soon-to-be-state will become a free state or a slave state. Roving bands of people, either armed, or persuasive, come at you on both sides of the issue; what will you chose?
None of you agree on your positions; you can find common grounds with one or another, but not with all at the same time. Most of the Northern Democrats are opposed to slavery, but they believe that each state should have the say in the issue.i The poor white farmers, along with the Immigrants, find no need to fight any upcoming war. They care little for both sides and are happy, somewhat, with slavery as it keeps them above Blacks. Without slavery, the Irish and the Poor White Farmers would be no better than the Blacks.ii Most of the religious friends were opposed to slavery. They woke during the Great Awakening and they believed that God condemned slavery. However, most are susceptible to change their argument based on which preacher they most recently listened to. The Mormons have no actual rule on the issue, so there are those that support slavery, those that abhor it, and those that own slaves.iii The Free Blacks, as with those who supported Free Labor, want the new states to be only free labor, and they feel that all of the states should migrate to free labor. However there are a few Free Blacks that own slaves and want to be able to expand into new territory. Most of the Southern Whigs wanted the right to take their slaves into the new territories and wanted all of the states to be slave. They felt that there was too much power in the free-states hands, and thus wanted to expand the country both to the West and to the South.iv
The Religious Amongst You.
A group of your friends gather together, maybe forty strong or so, representing a various range of demographics (conveniently) of America. Selected individuals are there to persuade all of you to either vote for slavery, or for freedom. A small, thread-beaten reverend, carrying the customary Bible, is the first to speak. He starts to preach of slavery in the Good Book, and how God not only thought it to be okay, but that God actually ordered slaves to go back to their masters. He mentions that the greats of all time, from Aristotle to Homer to Socrates, all had slavery, and they all talked about it without disdain. If these persons see it as fine, then it must be moral. He quotes some scripture to you and quickly summarizes it:
“When Sarai, Abraham’s wide, complained to him of the conduct of Hagar, her maid servant, he answered, ‘they maid is in thy hand, do to her as it peaseth thee,’ showing that she only wanted her husbands consent to punish Hagar as she pleased. We are then told, that, when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face into the wilderness-there the angel of the Lord found her; but, instead of relieving her distresses, and sending her to some free county, he told her to return and submit herself to her mistress.”v
While this speech is clearly meant to target the your religious friends, the Mormons and Quakers and those who found God during the Great Awakening shake their heads. God, as Brown had put it, clearly did not want slavery to exist. It was a moral sin, and thus it must be put out. While this argument has some sway over the less religious, as they had little reading to back up against, it mostly failed to hit its target. To the Northern Democrats, and the Southern Whigs, however, this was a good justification for slavery, and it allowed them to keep their stereotypical views.
Manifest Destiny And Political.
Many of your friends worry about the impact that slavery, or the lack thereof, and its effect on their move westward. The Southern Whigs, the Northern Democrats, and the immigrants all look at this issue with great interest. They want to move west, to get more land, and, for the immigrants, they want more job opportunities. A Senator's aide is the next to talk. He represents a Senator from South Carolina, one Mr. John C. Calhoun, and quotes from one of his bosses great speeches:
“…I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other…”vi
If the other great countries and empires had slaves, from Rome to Egypt, it could not potentially cause great harm to your country. In fact, it only will help your country out. It seems clear that these empires were great only due to their slavery, as they could regulate the menial tasks to those of lesser intelligence, and leave those blessed with higher thinking to running those empires. Northern Democrats, who wanted to expand, but allow popular sovereignty in all the states, has no qualms with this argument. Those supporting Manifest Destiny, and the Southern Whigs, who were attempting to keep the North from having too much power, agree with this logic. After all, more states admitted to the country would probably mean more states that were for slaves.
Those who look at the social aspect and Racial Theory
While not targeting any specific group, most of your friends are interested in the social possibilities of a free black person. The Free Blacks, believing that they were equal to Whites, were concerned with how Whites would view them. Poor White Farmers, on the other hand, wanted to show that they will always be better than Blacks, even if they currently were paid less. To address these concerns, an elderly scientist stands and explains to you that men are just like dogs; each breed is specific, and no tainting of the breeds is accepted by those who clearly care about their animals. He states that the breed of Negros clearly serve but one purpose, that is, they are here to serve us:
“…The Negro, on the contrary, is imitative, social, easily domesticated, and, as long as kept in subordination to a higher race, will ape to a certain extent its manners and customs. But the Negro rises only to a certain point of imitations – his intellect permits no approach to civilization but that of imitation, and, as soon as the race is thrown back upon itself and separated from the whites, as in the West Indies, it become savage.”vii
It becomes clear that the Negros are not able to maintain a social order on their own, and thus they must either live under the whites or apart from the whites. As they become savage on their own, it is concluded that they must live under whites. The Poor Farmers and the Immigrants used this to show that they were indeed better than Negros. They were the main target of this sort of justification, as were the Northern Democrats who could use it to still justify slavery while arguing for popular choice.
More Religious Reasons and Political
There is some grumbling from the Quakers and Mormons that are left in the crowd. They worry about the perception that Negros are actually better off under Whites. The Quakers worry about the humanitarian treatment of the Negros, and contend that we must treat them as fellow humans. The Senator's Aide, sensing this fact, rises to his feet once more and argues that being a slave is better for Negros then anything else would be. He believes that they are a war-like inferior species and they are better off than any working-class in any other country:
“Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe – look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind super-intending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house”viii
This argument is designed to make the Great Awakeners, the Mormons, and the Quakers all at least be somewhat comfortable with slavery. The concept was that even if slavery was condemned by God, letting the slaves go would be a greater harm to them, thus you would be sinning. It was the ethics of inaction sin is better than action sin. While this argument helped to convince the more border-line religious persons, and convinced several Poor Farmers and Northern Democrats that it was a necessary evil.
Laws
Northern Democrats were concerned largely with the legality of slavery. While they though that it should be allowed, and moved into states if the people supported it, they wondered if it was Constitutional. A small man, with beady eyes and spectacles, stands up to address this very point. He states that America was not founded on freedom for all, nay, America was founded with slavery in mind. He contends that the very Constitution allows slavery, and forbids the blacks from being citizens. Quoting from the Dred Scott Decision, he states:
“...We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the words 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges...”ix
This argument, that is, the argument that the Founding Fathers intended there to be slavery, was a huge boost in the thought process of the Northern Democrats as well as the Poor Whites and the Immigrants. If the Constitution never forbade slavery, and actually made it so that the states had the real choice in the matter, then their arguments worked. This was used to target these groups and worked to great effect. It even became part of the justification that the Northern Democrats would use for their defense of slavery via popular sovereignty.
Economy and Free Labor
While most of the Southern Whigs are satiated, as are those sharing their interest in Manifest Destiny, and the Religious and Free Blacks fully opposed, there remains only a few groups not yet swayed. A few Northern Democrats and most of the Immigrants are still not swayed one way or another on the issue. The last two guests stand, planning a quick debate. One, a Slavery proponent, feels that the economic loss from removing slavery would be too great. The other, a Free Labor proponent, feels that all men should own themselves, and that the economic loss is actually greater with slavery.
The Free Labor supporter starts the debate by explaining that Negros do not help the South's infrastructure, and they were not helping her economy. He mentions that there are major “statistical comparisons between the North and South, and free states took the lead in population growth, manufacturing, property values, agriculture, railroads, canals, and commerce”x. He then contends that this means that slavery is a failure, and thus it should be abolished. If the slaves are not helping as well as free people are, then slavery should be removed. This argument is targeting the Poor Farmers, the Immigrants, the Free Black and Free Labor movements. Also, this argument slightly targeted the Northern Democrats who opposed slavery but supported sovereignty. By stating that states were less likely to be worthwhile, to have money, and to have a solid infrastructure, the Free Labor argument made many of these groups worry about voting for slavery, as it could harm their chances at richness.
The Free Labor supporter then moves on, contending that: “Would be more economically sound in that it would encourage competition and foreign investment”.xi The Free Labor supporter showed that having competition would lower the prices of free workers, and it would get people to come time and time again, as there would be more competition and thus a threat to their job. Overall, he felt that it was important, both due to the economic benefits, and to the Lockovian relation, that each person own their own form of labor. This argument is geared at the Poor Farmers, business owners, and Northern Democrats. It is also slightly aimed at the Southern Whigs. It shows that you can get a cheaper, and overall more reliable, workforce if you have only free labor. It also implies that they could be richer if there were free labor. The problem with this argument is that it pushes away Immigrants and the Poor Farmers. Both groups want the jobs that Negros would be taking, and both are afraid that free labor would leave them penniless and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This argument would work to convince anybody in a middle class position, or a store/factory owner, but it did not work on the lower classes.
The slavery supporter is next on the soapbox, and he begins by admitting that free labor will get more done in any given time:
“…the labor of slaves, for each hour or day, will amount to but two-thirds of what hired free laborers would perform in the same time…”xii
He talks about how free labors are quicker workers than the Negros, as their incentive is more cash while the slaves would have the only incentive of the whip. If the Negro works just fast enough, he gets the exact same things as if he worked as quickly as he could. For the free laborer, he gets more in pay, and a potential for more jobs. This argument targets the Immigrants just as it targeted the Poor Whites. The idea that blacks work less than they did was an important factor, as it showed that they were still better than the Blacks, regardless of their pay or perceived worth.
He continues to explain that free labor can not be cheaper than slave labor, and that they are not directly comparable:
“The mistake of those who maintain, or admit, this generally asserted proposition, that ‘free labor is cheaper than slave labor,’ is caused by assuming as true, that self-interest induces free hirelings to labor continuously and regularly. This is never the case in general…”xiii
With this argument, the economics of slavery is clearly laid out. This argument is directed at Business and store owners, and to the Poor Whites. It contends that while Whites may work faster and better, you can only count on Slaves being there time and time again. To the Whites that dream of owning a plantation (poor whites), and to the business owners, this is a needed situation. The Immigrants, however, were offended by this contention, and the idea that they were less accountable then a Black was an insult to them. The Northern Democrats, along with the Southern Whigs, also agreed with this in concept, as it was clear that a steady workforce was better for the economy and for businesses than a shoddy one.
As you sit there, pondering which way you will be voting for your state, free or slave, you notice how your friends line up. Those who are religious, and actively involved in the Great Awakening, find that slavery is an immoral issue. They feel that no person has the right to own another. The Mormons, on the other hand, had no rule against slavery. Some of them were convinced that slavery is good, as indicated by the religious statements early on in the night. Others, believe it to be just, but would not support it.
Some of your friends are swayed by the Free Labor argument. Those who proudly work their stores, and work with hired help that is indeed constant and honest, agree that Free Labor is the way to go. They think that our country was set up with Free Labor in mind, each person owning their own work. The Blacks and the religious feel that free labor is the way to go. The Immigrants and the Poor farmers, on the other hand, do not support Free Labor in any form. They are afraid of losing jobs, not being sure that the help would show up, and the economic impact upon their wallet. They are also afraid that free Blacks will place them lower on the social hierarchy.
Those who were for Manifest Destiny, along with the Northern Democrats and the Southern Whigs, feel that slavery is needed to expand the country. All the parties wanted to expand, and all felt that slavery was needed for this. Their main differences were about its institution, whether it be in all the new states, as the Whigs wanted, or if it were to be in only the states that chose to have it, as the Democrats wanted.
The Legal argument has rung home with every class of your friends. Those who wish to justify slavery, from the Northern Democrats to the Souther Whigs use the fact that it is allowed in the Constitution as clear evidence that it is okay. The Poor Farmers, and the Immigrants, care less about it be Constitutional and more about their wallets, but the argument also gives them arguments for why it is proper to allow slavery.
The social argument targeted those that were still on the fence and those that were religious but only leaning towards anti-slave. By arguing that Negros were inferior, or that the slave owners were in fact helping them, the Mormons and the Northern Democrats were able to justify slavery as it would cause more harm to end it. All of your friends are arguing with you and the newspapers are all contradicting what the other one’s say. It is your vote, what are you going to do with it?
1.http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=110 referencing Douglas' support, last seen 12/5
2.http://www.lrna.org/2-pt/v16ed2art1_roots.html , last seen 12/5
3.http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/anti-slavery_movement/religious_origins.htm , last seen 12/6
4.http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/63/entry , last seen 12/5
5. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from the printed De Bow’s Review argument for slavery. Page 110-111
6. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Sen. Calhoun’s speech to the US Senate. Page 59
7. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Nott’s “Instinct of Races”. Page 205
8. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Sen. Calhoun’s speech to the US Senate. Page 59
9.Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from SCOTUS Dred Scott Decision. Page 135
10. Professor Brendan McConville, “From Jacksonian Democracy to Sectional Conflict”, lecture given at Binghamton University November 28, 2001.
11.http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/slavery%20arguments.ppt#315,10,The Economic Debate referencing the free labor arguments, last seen 12/5
12. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Ruffin’s The Political Economy of Slavery. Page 65
13. Defending Slavery, Paul Finkelman. Referenced from Ruffin’s The Political Economy of Slavery. Page 65 Read more ...
Friday, November 7, 2008
Has the color barrier really been broken?
I have decided that I am forgoing the old method of numbering my posts, it just doesn’t seem worth it anymore…
Only three days ago America emerged onto the national scene with a new trend, with a new face, with a supposed less racist attitude. The country that 40 years earlier was torn apart with segregation, 140 years earlier had large scale slavery, and 240 years earlier was founded with the idea that a black person was only 3/5 of a person, had at last elected their 44th president, a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama. With only about 20% of the country saying that race was a factor, we had come a long, long way.
But, this then begged the question, are we out of the troubles? Are we finally done with racism in America (as done as you can be, when there is free thought)? Have we finally and fully integrated?
Let’s look at a different color barrier, and see when it was broken… When you start to look at sports and the color barriers, you immediately think of Jackie Robinson. Why nobody thinks of Eddie Kleep, the first player in the negro leagues who was white, I do not know. Anyways, people always think of Jackie Robinson, one of the best players of the game, and the first black man to play on an actual MLB team. That said, did Jackie actually break the color barrier?
With Mr. Robinson, you had the Dodgers picking him up due to an insane amount of skill. A good player, hell, a great player, who was black would never have been picked, only the best player of the times could have been included. This really does not show that the color barrier was broken, just that the loss of standing due to your skin color could be overrode by enough points in other areas. Robinson, however, throws this all off by retiring.
Then you move on to Bill Lucas, the first black General Manager in the MLB. Yes, it is arguable that there was one before him (drawing a blank on the name), but that was for one day and due to four sick managers above him. So, Mr. Lucas is the first black man to manage a team, that is a true color breaker. But, Mr. Lucas died after only a few years managing, of a heart attack.
You might not be getting what I am going for, so let me spell it out to you. I do not consider the color barrier to break when a person of color gets into the position. I consider it broken when that person is forced out due to bad performance (fired, FOR CAUSE (if anybody can find me this persons name, then I would be happy)), or when it is in the air, without the race a factor. I think that it is clear that a color barrier is really there as long as there is color, regardless of who holds a position.
So, let’s fast-forward this thing back to the 21st century. Obama, the first black man to run as President from a major party, has become the first black President of the United States of America (and from my recollection, the first dual-citizenship, the youngest, the first one from Hawaii, and a long list of other things). SO WHAT. No barrier has been broken, both because 20% still voted on race (with most of that helping Obama) and because it is a big deal. When we write giant essays, commit huge news reports, and blog about the fact that we have a black leader (well, in 70-odd days we will), then the barrier is still there. Until the fact that we do mention, or even care about, their skin color, the barrier will still be there.
(FYI, this still applies to all other ways that we classify humans) Read more ...
Only three days ago America emerged onto the national scene with a new trend, with a new face, with a supposed less racist attitude. The country that 40 years earlier was torn apart with segregation, 140 years earlier had large scale slavery, and 240 years earlier was founded with the idea that a black person was only 3/5 of a person, had at last elected their 44th president, a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama. With only about 20% of the country saying that race was a factor, we had come a long, long way.
But, this then begged the question, are we out of the troubles? Are we finally done with racism in America (as done as you can be, when there is free thought)? Have we finally and fully integrated?
Let’s look at a different color barrier, and see when it was broken… When you start to look at sports and the color barriers, you immediately think of Jackie Robinson. Why nobody thinks of Eddie Kleep, the first player in the negro leagues who was white, I do not know. Anyways, people always think of Jackie Robinson, one of the best players of the game, and the first black man to play on an actual MLB team. That said, did Jackie actually break the color barrier?
With Mr. Robinson, you had the Dodgers picking him up due to an insane amount of skill. A good player, hell, a great player, who was black would never have been picked, only the best player of the times could have been included. This really does not show that the color barrier was broken, just that the loss of standing due to your skin color could be overrode by enough points in other areas. Robinson, however, throws this all off by retiring.
Then you move on to Bill Lucas, the first black General Manager in the MLB. Yes, it is arguable that there was one before him (drawing a blank on the name), but that was for one day and due to four sick managers above him. So, Mr. Lucas is the first black man to manage a team, that is a true color breaker. But, Mr. Lucas died after only a few years managing, of a heart attack.
You might not be getting what I am going for, so let me spell it out to you. I do not consider the color barrier to break when a person of color gets into the position. I consider it broken when that person is forced out due to bad performance (fired, FOR CAUSE (if anybody can find me this persons name, then I would be happy)), or when it is in the air, without the race a factor. I think that it is clear that a color barrier is really there as long as there is color, regardless of who holds a position.
So, let’s fast-forward this thing back to the 21st century. Obama, the first black man to run as President from a major party, has become the first black President of the United States of America (and from my recollection, the first dual-citizenship, the youngest, the first one from Hawaii, and a long list of other things). SO WHAT. No barrier has been broken, both because 20% still voted on race (with most of that helping Obama) and because it is a big deal. When we write giant essays, commit huge news reports, and blog about the fact that we have a black leader (well, in 70-odd days we will), then the barrier is still there. Until the fact that we do mention, or even care about, their skin color, the barrier will still be there.
(FYI, this still applies to all other ways that we classify humans) Read more ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)