My topic is going to be an analysis of the evolution of the American frontier and how it came to embody the American West, specifically California, in the post-WWII era of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The main figures of my argument are going to be the suburban residents of Orange County in the post-war era but I will also bring in some important historiographic figures such as Frederick Jackson Turner and political figures that embody the movement such as Ronald Reagan. I would also like to study some of the major figures in Orange Country during the era but at this point I need to do more research into who exactly those people were and what was their function in the community.
I am expecting to argue that the American west became symbolic of the frontier in the sense of economic development and political change during the post-war era. I want to show how the west coast, particularly California, took on the image of the untamed west in the form of someone such as Ronald Reagan, who embodied this sentiment. This argument is important in understanding the progress of the American frontier and the effects of migration and political change in the American narrative. I am expecting to use many primary resources such as news paper articles and local records and journals in the Hoover Institute to make this argument. I plan to use Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors along with other secondary sources that I plan to find in the course of my research. I foresee a little issue with regards to tying this theme to my greater societal argument but I believe I can effectively use secondary sources to construct a bridge to larger societal
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Week 3 Reading Response -- Tom Grey
Proceeding in the order in which the readings appear in the reader, I will start with the David Waldstreicher piece. “Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and Confidence in Slavery in the Eighteenth-Century Mid-Atlantic” discusses the ability (or inability) of escaped slaves to refashion their identity in order to “pass” as free men. While the piece discusses at length the ability of escaped slaves to refashion their identity, the main argument of the article lies in the print advertisements for runaway slaves; the workings of print to recapture escaped slaves epitomized the slave system “that depended on the very movement, linguistic skill, and improvisation it sought to contain.” That is to say that the advertisements often highlighted and showed slaves capacity for linguistic skill and improvisation and it was these skills that in turn also made them valuable slaves.
Waldstreicher draws much of his argument from the use of primary sources in the form of print advertisements in newspapers, diaries, and some state records. These sources are effective at proving his point but it is difficult to fully prove such a complex social argument without extensive records of all newspapers in separate geographic regions. Waldstreicher does not geographically contain his argument (except to regions that allowed slavery) and in this regard he perhaps goes too far in equating slavery all regions, without sufficient proof. As far as his engagement in secondary sources, Waldstreicher tends to shy away from directly engaging other historians and instead tends to use other works to support his historic view of eighteenth-century slavery. He references recent works to lay foundation and remove the burden of proof of certain aspects of his historic narrative. The main lesson I take out of this piece is with regards to the use of secondary sources because Waldsteicher is able to proceed to the heart of his argument rather quickly due to his use of secondary sources to support potentially contentious assumptions.
Karen Halttunen in “Confidence Men and Painted Women: A study of Middle-class culture in America, 1830-1870” discusses a similar role of identity in America but in a very different context. Halttunen discusses the role of confidence men in the new urban environment and the sources of societal fear of confidence men. She argues that the fear of confidence men arose out of a powerful anxiety “of nineteenth-century middle-class Americans concerning the problem of hypocrisy in an open, urban society.” The problem lies in the new theoretical boundless potential of each individual in society within the framework of a “’world of strangers’ that was the antebellum city.” She propels this argument through first hand accounts but also through directly engaging other historians’ work. She uses first hand accounts and the pamphlets to extrapolate information regarding the fear of confidence men, but to give context to her fear she relies upon secondary sources. This use of secondary sources is more central to Halttunen’s argument than were Waldsteicher’s secondary sources because here Halttunen is making generally larger societal claims that must be supported by not only primary evidence but also by sociological theory. She brings in some work of Nancy F. Cott regarding the growing importance of women’s friendships during the 1780 to 1835 period to show that peer relationships were budding and are evidence of a more horizontal, rather than vertical, society. A horizontal society is the crux of Halttunen’s argument because it is the development of horizontal society, she argues, that creates the opportunity for confidence men to take advantage of their peers in society. The fear of confidence men is a response to the newly horizontal society.
Finally, the George Chauncey piece, “Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940” follows, again, the story of how individuals were able to refashion their identity within a societal framework. This work chronicles the evolution of the gay community throughout the 1890-1940 time period, but in doing so argues that our modern notions of “gayness” are in fact mid-twentieth-century creations and that this change in attitude “demonstrates that sexual desire itself was regarded as fundamentally gendered in the early twentieth century.” In the section that we read, the Introduction and first chapter, Chauncey primarily relies upon primary sources to paint a picture of gay life in New York. He focuses in particular on the accounts of a few men in New York of differing social classes and tells their accounts of the gay community and then puts these accounts in the context of his own argument. The strongest part of Chauncey’s argument, in my opinion, is in his use of “trades” and how the association of any homosexual act with “gayness” led men to no longer call themselves trades or engage in homosexual acts because of the clearly defined division between the normal and the other. Chauncey used secondary sources in much the same way as Waldstreicher in that he cites historians, such as Richard White, to support his general historical claims that would otherwise take pages (at least) to justify. All of these pieces offer a great model for how to use secondary sources to prop up the more controversial assumptions of your argument while the use of primary sources shores up the original arguments that are being built on top of these stip
Waldstreicher draws much of his argument from the use of primary sources in the form of print advertisements in newspapers, diaries, and some state records. These sources are effective at proving his point but it is difficult to fully prove such a complex social argument without extensive records of all newspapers in separate geographic regions. Waldstreicher does not geographically contain his argument (except to regions that allowed slavery) and in this regard he perhaps goes too far in equating slavery all regions, without sufficient proof. As far as his engagement in secondary sources, Waldstreicher tends to shy away from directly engaging other historians and instead tends to use other works to support his historic view of eighteenth-century slavery. He references recent works to lay foundation and remove the burden of proof of certain aspects of his historic narrative. The main lesson I take out of this piece is with regards to the use of secondary sources because Waldsteicher is able to proceed to the heart of his argument rather quickly due to his use of secondary sources to support potentially contentious assumptions.
Karen Halttunen in “Confidence Men and Painted Women: A study of Middle-class culture in America, 1830-1870” discusses a similar role of identity in America but in a very different context. Halttunen discusses the role of confidence men in the new urban environment and the sources of societal fear of confidence men. She argues that the fear of confidence men arose out of a powerful anxiety “of nineteenth-century middle-class Americans concerning the problem of hypocrisy in an open, urban society.” The problem lies in the new theoretical boundless potential of each individual in society within the framework of a “’world of strangers’ that was the antebellum city.” She propels this argument through first hand accounts but also through directly engaging other historians’ work. She uses first hand accounts and the pamphlets to extrapolate information regarding the fear of confidence men, but to give context to her fear she relies upon secondary sources. This use of secondary sources is more central to Halttunen’s argument than were Waldsteicher’s secondary sources because here Halttunen is making generally larger societal claims that must be supported by not only primary evidence but also by sociological theory. She brings in some work of Nancy F. Cott regarding the growing importance of women’s friendships during the 1780 to 1835 period to show that peer relationships were budding and are evidence of a more horizontal, rather than vertical, society. A horizontal society is the crux of Halttunen’s argument because it is the development of horizontal society, she argues, that creates the opportunity for confidence men to take advantage of their peers in society. The fear of confidence men is a response to the newly horizontal society.
Finally, the George Chauncey piece, “Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940” follows, again, the story of how individuals were able to refashion their identity within a societal framework. This work chronicles the evolution of the gay community throughout the 1890-1940 time period, but in doing so argues that our modern notions of “gayness” are in fact mid-twentieth-century creations and that this change in attitude “demonstrates that sexual desire itself was regarded as fundamentally gendered in the early twentieth century.” In the section that we read, the Introduction and first chapter, Chauncey primarily relies upon primary sources to paint a picture of gay life in New York. He focuses in particular on the accounts of a few men in New York of differing social classes and tells their accounts of the gay community and then puts these accounts in the context of his own argument. The strongest part of Chauncey’s argument, in my opinion, is in his use of “trades” and how the association of any homosexual act with “gayness” led men to no longer call themselves trades or engage in homosexual acts because of the clearly defined division between the normal and the other. Chauncey used secondary sources in much the same way as Waldstreicher in that he cites historians, such as Richard White, to support his general historical claims that would otherwise take pages (at least) to justify. All of these pieces offer a great model for how to use secondary sources to prop up the more controversial assumptions of your argument while the use of primary sources shores up the original arguments that are being built on top of these stip
Week Three reading response
David Waldstreicher’s article seeks a new way to personify runaway slaves: as confidence men, on the lam. In order to escape their masters, runaway slaves used the same strategies, says Waldstreicher, as did 18th century con men—disguising themselves, using linguistic skills, manipulating goods and people, capitalizing on the grey area between black and white that allowed for passing, and “changed their identities [to] gain at least a measure of freedom.” Waldstreicher identifies the genre of newspaper advertisements for runaway slaves as an important way to analyze the role newspaper publishers had in reinforcing the institution of slavery (and vice versa: runaway slaves created a market for newspaper writers). He also calls these advertisements the “first slave narratives,” as they are some of the first written stories about slaves.
Waldstreicher sites one particular example of an advert from the Pennsylvania Gazette (from an edition between 1728-90) to demonstrate the con men tactics of a runaway slave: this man, Tom, intended to disguise his true identity by cutting his hair, making stockings, and using a blanket to complete his look as an Indian—an identity he would try to assume. Waldstreicher asks to what extent slaves were capable of fashioning their own identities. Without the newspaper advert, we would most likely know nothing about Tom (but with it, he may have been caught).
The topics of identity, role-playing (and role-breaking), storytelling, and the commoditization of persons are the themes that Waldstreicher examines through the lens of newspaper advertisements for confidence men-like runaways. He heavily cites and annotates the work of other authors who have studied runaways, passing, identity-morphing, and newspaper advertisements of this era. His main primary source, of course, is the newspaper adverts themselves and numerical data on ad sales.
What most interested me in terms of Waldstreicher’s research material was how he used the data he found – the advertisements – to create his thesis, not the other way around. He did not draft a thesis and then use primary sources to support it, but rather needed the evidence to make the argument.
Halttunen's article asks why nineteenth-century Americans so feared the 'hypocricy' of confidence men and painted women? She seeks to examine the "crisis of social identity" in a fluid America: as people moved from place to place, as America changed in the 19th century, how did their identities change? Why did this transience inspire such fear?
Confidence men and painted women were seen as trying falsely 'pass', according to Halttunen. She explores the "era of the confidence man" and the problems of hypocrisy that he personified as well as how both the confidence man and the painted lady fit into the the idea of sentimental culture in America. Confidence men and painted women were an easy and tangible target to foist the fears of (American's own person) hypocrisy upon.
Halttunen describes changes in America in the nineteenth century -- the rise of 'peer pressure', changes in the workplace and at home, transience, the Panic of 1837, etc. -- in order to trace this rising hypocrisy and rising fears. Hers is really a study of middle-class culture (as she says in her title) rather than one very specific aspect of American culture (as in Waldstriecher's piece). Her footnotes are not included in the piece as Waldstreicher's are, and she seems to refer more to past historians' work rather than primary documents such as runaway slaves newspaper advertisements. She does, however, examine many writings-of-the-time (such as Calvin Colton's in 1844).
George Chauncey traces the development of a male gay community in New York city between the end of the 1800's and the beginning of World War II. Chauncey argues that this world has been largely forgotten and ignored by historians -- this is a result of the myths of isolation, invisibility and isolation born from anti-gay hostility.
Chauncey examines the gay subculture in New York by comparing the lives of drag queens and "fairies" to gay men who hid themselves and their true identities. Why did some men flaunt their sexuality while others internalized it (myth of isolation)? He explores this world through the metaphor of "the closet". This suggests isolation, solitude--but who made up this metaphor? The straight population or the gay? Gay men in the 1930s used a more encompassing metaphor: the gay world rather than gay closet.
The main argument that Chauncey promotes is that despite the Whiggish notion supported by historians D'Emilio, Berube and Faderman, he believes that there was not progressive change that moved toward freedom for the gay community. Chauncey argues that life become more difficult , more closeted, more segregated and less tolerated. He believes that there was more tolerance pre-war, and seeks to explain why (the straight world did not seem to notice this gay subculture as much).
In constructing this argument, Chauncey draws on sources such as city maps and photographs to create a topography of the gay world in New York before the Second World War. Two particularly interesting uses of primary sources were a cartoon published in a New York tabloid that illustrated gay men as fairies (Swish!) as well as a "certificate" of "pansiness" from the 1930's. Chauncey used these to explore gay stereotyping in this period. He also examines letters written between men to give light to the situtation of the times.
All three authors use an admiral mix of evidence to bolster (and in Waldstreicher's case, to fully make) their arguments. Chauncey and Waldstreicher seek to uncover the unknown and analyze primary sources to tell their stories, while Halttunen gives more of an overview of a time period, tracing themes throughout. The excitement of new evidence is what made Chauncey and Waldstreicher's articles most compelling for me.
Waldstreicher sites one particular example of an advert from the Pennsylvania Gazette (from an edition between 1728-90) to demonstrate the con men tactics of a runaway slave: this man, Tom, intended to disguise his true identity by cutting his hair, making stockings, and using a blanket to complete his look as an Indian—an identity he would try to assume. Waldstreicher asks to what extent slaves were capable of fashioning their own identities. Without the newspaper advert, we would most likely know nothing about Tom (but with it, he may have been caught).
The topics of identity, role-playing (and role-breaking), storytelling, and the commoditization of persons are the themes that Waldstreicher examines through the lens of newspaper advertisements for confidence men-like runaways. He heavily cites and annotates the work of other authors who have studied runaways, passing, identity-morphing, and newspaper advertisements of this era. His main primary source, of course, is the newspaper adverts themselves and numerical data on ad sales.
What most interested me in terms of Waldstreicher’s research material was how he used the data he found – the advertisements – to create his thesis, not the other way around. He did not draft a thesis and then use primary sources to support it, but rather needed the evidence to make the argument.
Halttunen's article asks why nineteenth-century Americans so feared the 'hypocricy' of confidence men and painted women? She seeks to examine the "crisis of social identity" in a fluid America: as people moved from place to place, as America changed in the 19th century, how did their identities change? Why did this transience inspire such fear?
Confidence men and painted women were seen as trying falsely 'pass', according to Halttunen. She explores the "era of the confidence man" and the problems of hypocrisy that he personified as well as how both the confidence man and the painted lady fit into the the idea of sentimental culture in America. Confidence men and painted women were an easy and tangible target to foist the fears of (American's own person) hypocrisy upon.
Halttunen describes changes in America in the nineteenth century -- the rise of 'peer pressure', changes in the workplace and at home, transience, the Panic of 1837, etc. -- in order to trace this rising hypocrisy and rising fears. Hers is really a study of middle-class culture (as she says in her title) rather than one very specific aspect of American culture (as in Waldstriecher's piece). Her footnotes are not included in the piece as Waldstreicher's are, and she seems to refer more to past historians' work rather than primary documents such as runaway slaves newspaper advertisements. She does, however, examine many writings-of-the-time (such as Calvin Colton's in 1844).
George Chauncey traces the development of a male gay community in New York city between the end of the 1800's and the beginning of World War II. Chauncey argues that this world has been largely forgotten and ignored by historians -- this is a result of the myths of isolation, invisibility and isolation born from anti-gay hostility.
Chauncey examines the gay subculture in New York by comparing the lives of drag queens and "fairies" to gay men who hid themselves and their true identities. Why did some men flaunt their sexuality while others internalized it (myth of isolation)? He explores this world through the metaphor of "the closet". This suggests isolation, solitude--but who made up this metaphor? The straight population or the gay? Gay men in the 1930s used a more encompassing metaphor: the gay world rather than gay closet.
The main argument that Chauncey promotes is that despite the Whiggish notion supported by historians D'Emilio, Berube and Faderman, he believes that there was not progressive change that moved toward freedom for the gay community. Chauncey argues that life become more difficult , more closeted, more segregated and less tolerated. He believes that there was more tolerance pre-war, and seeks to explain why (the straight world did not seem to notice this gay subculture as much).
In constructing this argument, Chauncey draws on sources such as city maps and photographs to create a topography of the gay world in New York before the Second World War. Two particularly interesting uses of primary sources were a cartoon published in a New York tabloid that illustrated gay men as fairies (Swish!) as well as a "certificate" of "pansiness" from the 1930's. Chauncey used these to explore gay stereotyping in this period. He also examines letters written between men to give light to the situtation of the times.
All three authors use an admiral mix of evidence to bolster (and in Waldstreicher's case, to fully make) their arguments. Chauncey and Waldstreicher seek to uncover the unknown and analyze primary sources to tell their stories, while Halttunen gives more of an overview of a time period, tracing themes throughout. The excitement of new evidence is what made Chauncey and Waldstreicher's articles most compelling for me.
Response Papers for 10/8 (Alice Hu)
Waldstreicher, “Reading the Runaways;” Halttunen, Confidence Men and painted Ladies; and Chauncey, Gay New York
It is the tendency of modern perceptions of the past to assume that identities, racial, sexual, or otherwise, were much more hamstrung and confined than they are today—we see moments in history such as the Civil Rights Movement or women’s liberation or gay liberation as pivotal moments that freed minorities or subcultures from their previous oppressed status. But, as George Chauncey points out in his Introduction to his book Gay New York, to assume so is to subscribe to “the Whiggish notion that change is always ‘progressive’ and that gay history in particular consists of a steady movement toward freedom” (9). But in many cases, as both David Waldstreicher and Chauncey argue, the groups that we think of as having only just been liberated in fact enjoyed a period of considerable freedom long before they were, as Chauncey says, escorted to the closet.
Identities, as both Waldstreicher and Chauncey suggest, in many cases seemed much more fluid in earlier times. Where even now modern perceptions struggle with a dichotomy between “black” and “white,” these identities were certainly fluid enough for numerous runaway slaves or servants to “pass” as white; furthermore, many black Americans did not even need to “pass” for anything—the identity of “black” was in the early history of the United States not synonymous with that of “slave,” while many European immigrants were hardly considered “white” at all, and in many cases were indentured servants. In the same way, sexual identity for homosexual men in New York in the beginning of the 20th century was not a dichotomy between “gay” and “straight:” rather, it existed as a spectrum, ranging from female gender identification to sexual preference for men. It is not until external forces pressured society to “closet” these groups: only when the American economy exploded did it come to rely almost solely on black slaves, especially in the South, and only in the wake of Prohibition was homosexuality seriously marginalized and stigmatized.
Karen Halttunen presents a slightly different argument: she does not propose to revise anything. Instead she rather traditionally traces the development of certain stereotypes—that of the confidence man—in relation to the changing face of the American family and city throughout the 19th century. As the influence of families and local clergy fell away, and as more men ventured out alone into cities at younger ages, the insidious image of the confidence man developed as both a cautionary tale for these young men, as well as a way of attempting to guide these young men in a transitional stage to leading a wholesome life.
It is true that Waldstreicher and Chauncey engage much more with the historiographical tradition in their fields than does Halttunen—which is more fitting to their purposes. Both authors intend to argue with an overwhelming misconception that the forward progression of history means progress towards greater liberty and acceptance for minorities and subcultures. Both Waldstreicher and Chauncey fight with something of a phantom general public whom they seek to disabuse of this “Whiggish notion:” while they do not overtly refer to any group or particular people who subscribe to this view, they make it clear that these views are by and large prevalent, even without citing much actual evidence for it. While Waldstreicher relies almost exclusively on his primary evidence to speak his case, Chauncey very openly credits those historians before him who have laid the groundwork for his own research. But all three authors engage with their primary sources in much the same way: they rely on firsthand accounts and extracts from writings of the period to establish the identities that they discuss, whether that is the identity of free black workers in the early nineteenth century, confidence men, or openly homosexual men in New York. Their archival work is admirable, but runs the risk of privileging the under-represented groups too much. For instance, Waldstreicher bases his conclusions largely on the writings of slave masters about their runaway slave, and so he is reconstructing slaves’ identities through a number of refractions. In the same way, Halttunen reconstructs the identity of confidence men through the wildly exaggerated speeches of the clergy—although she tempers this reconstruction with some very well-placed police reports that corroborate the clergy.
These articles offer both refreshing takes on the traditional historiographical approaches to subcultures and engaging work with primary sources. Waldstreicher and Chauncey, particularly, seek to subvert not only popular misconceptions about certain groups, but also seek to explode an entire conception of history and progress, which I find particularly admirable and inspiring, although, at the same time, they do so on sometimes tenuous evidence. Halltunen, while she does not share such revolutionary aims, equally admirably uses well-rounded evidence tempered both by secondary account and concrete primary evidence to reconstruct a comprehensive and possibly more accurate identity.
It is the tendency of modern perceptions of the past to assume that identities, racial, sexual, or otherwise, were much more hamstrung and confined than they are today—we see moments in history such as the Civil Rights Movement or women’s liberation or gay liberation as pivotal moments that freed minorities or subcultures from their previous oppressed status. But, as George Chauncey points out in his Introduction to his book Gay New York, to assume so is to subscribe to “the Whiggish notion that change is always ‘progressive’ and that gay history in particular consists of a steady movement toward freedom” (9). But in many cases, as both David Waldstreicher and Chauncey argue, the groups that we think of as having only just been liberated in fact enjoyed a period of considerable freedom long before they were, as Chauncey says, escorted to the closet.
Identities, as both Waldstreicher and Chauncey suggest, in many cases seemed much more fluid in earlier times. Where even now modern perceptions struggle with a dichotomy between “black” and “white,” these identities were certainly fluid enough for numerous runaway slaves or servants to “pass” as white; furthermore, many black Americans did not even need to “pass” for anything—the identity of “black” was in the early history of the United States not synonymous with that of “slave,” while many European immigrants were hardly considered “white” at all, and in many cases were indentured servants. In the same way, sexual identity for homosexual men in New York in the beginning of the 20th century was not a dichotomy between “gay” and “straight:” rather, it existed as a spectrum, ranging from female gender identification to sexual preference for men. It is not until external forces pressured society to “closet” these groups: only when the American economy exploded did it come to rely almost solely on black slaves, especially in the South, and only in the wake of Prohibition was homosexuality seriously marginalized and stigmatized.
Karen Halttunen presents a slightly different argument: she does not propose to revise anything. Instead she rather traditionally traces the development of certain stereotypes—that of the confidence man—in relation to the changing face of the American family and city throughout the 19th century. As the influence of families and local clergy fell away, and as more men ventured out alone into cities at younger ages, the insidious image of the confidence man developed as both a cautionary tale for these young men, as well as a way of attempting to guide these young men in a transitional stage to leading a wholesome life.
It is true that Waldstreicher and Chauncey engage much more with the historiographical tradition in their fields than does Halttunen—which is more fitting to their purposes. Both authors intend to argue with an overwhelming misconception that the forward progression of history means progress towards greater liberty and acceptance for minorities and subcultures. Both Waldstreicher and Chauncey fight with something of a phantom general public whom they seek to disabuse of this “Whiggish notion:” while they do not overtly refer to any group or particular people who subscribe to this view, they make it clear that these views are by and large prevalent, even without citing much actual evidence for it. While Waldstreicher relies almost exclusively on his primary evidence to speak his case, Chauncey very openly credits those historians before him who have laid the groundwork for his own research. But all three authors engage with their primary sources in much the same way: they rely on firsthand accounts and extracts from writings of the period to establish the identities that they discuss, whether that is the identity of free black workers in the early nineteenth century, confidence men, or openly homosexual men in New York. Their archival work is admirable, but runs the risk of privileging the under-represented groups too much. For instance, Waldstreicher bases his conclusions largely on the writings of slave masters about their runaway slave, and so he is reconstructing slaves’ identities through a number of refractions. In the same way, Halttunen reconstructs the identity of confidence men through the wildly exaggerated speeches of the clergy—although she tempers this reconstruction with some very well-placed police reports that corroborate the clergy.
These articles offer both refreshing takes on the traditional historiographical approaches to subcultures and engaging work with primary sources. Waldstreicher and Chauncey, particularly, seek to subvert not only popular misconceptions about certain groups, but also seek to explode an entire conception of history and progress, which I find particularly admirable and inspiring, although, at the same time, they do so on sometimes tenuous evidence. Halltunen, while she does not share such revolutionary aims, equally admirably uses well-rounded evidence tempered both by secondary account and concrete primary evidence to reconstruct a comprehensive and possibly more accurate identity.
Refined Research Topic Statement
Specifics
I’m planning to focus on the nature of and rhetoric behind violence in the Pinkertons’ involvement in putting down the Homestead Strike in Pennsylvania 1892, and particularly would like to contrast the Pinkertons’ involvement in putting down labor union strikes with their involvement in the Civil War. The violent suppression of labor union strikes seems to me to be the next major example after the Civil War of Americans fighting other white Americans. While it is highly unlikely that the Pinkertons or Pinkerton forerunners who participated in Civil War espionage campaigns were also around to take part in putting down the Homestead Strike, it strikes me that organizationally and rhetorically, there may be some carry-over from Civil War involvement to putting down strikes. What may be the case is that soldiers at large who fought in the Civil War may have gone on to become Pinkertons (if I find this, then I have hit paydirt), or that at least, as I’ve said before, there is some kind of overlap, given that the Civil War was a pivotal moment in shaping Americans’ understanding of doing violence to other white Americans.
Argument
While I’m really nowhere near ready to make a prediction about the course my argument will take based on my evidence, I do expect that there will be some serious similarity behind the rhetoric that soldiers, for instance, use to justify their fighting and that of Pinkertons and workers fighting in labor strikes. Because of the jarring similarities between the two combatants in the Civil War, soldiers in many cases looked to other defining characteristics in order to justify fighting other American, to define themselves, and to distance themselves from the enemy. Pinkertons and workers seem to me to be in the same situation, and I suspect that this kind of distancing of self from enemy is perhaps a skill perfected in the Civil War, and perhaps even one that Pinkertons who infiltrated enemy camp in the Civil War may have capitalized on.
Significance
I believe that it is always of interest to dissect the reasons why we fight other humans—what drives us to believe that violence is acceptable and even necessary, and the kind of violence we carry out, and against whom. Particularly salient and troubling is violence between people who are, in general, united. Understanding how working men are able to make war on and even kill other working men like themselves is, I think, worth some investigation and reflection.
More specifically, however, I view the Civil War as an essential redefinition of war and violence in the United States. As the first instance of real “total war,” the Civil War set precedents for the major violent encounters that followed it, particularly the wars against Native American peoples in the West and, quite possibly, the violent labor strikes in the latter half of the 19th century. I believe that the Civil War revolutionized the face of violent conflict in the United States, and that the effect of the emergence of total war in America is not limited to what we traditionally consider “war,” but may even manifest itself in domestic conflicts like labor disputes.
Primary Literature
For primary accounts of both Civil War experience and labor dispute experience, I expect that I can look into memoirs and correspondence of those involved—the Valley of the Shadow Project, for instance, is one place I might start looking for Civil War correspondence and diaries. Some accounts of labor disputes, particularly the Homestead Strike, occur in newspaper articles about the strike, and I would like to follow up on those leads and see if I can find memoirs and correspondence from the same people. Other primary accounts could include the contracts with which Andrew Carnegie hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or internal documents pertaining to the Pinkertons. I know that William T. Sherman’s memoirs and correspondence, for instance, are available, and I am considering using them as a way of examining the changing face of warfare in the US, particularly during his “March to the Sea.” Other memoirs that deal with Sherman’s March are also available, and they could complement the Valley of the Shadow Project well.
Secondary Literature
I have a fantastic and huge stack of secondary literature. Some of it is as general as histories—particularly telling the story of Sherman’s March to the Sea or the Homestead Strike. I also have some histories of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, so I can construct a narrative of its involvement both in the Civil War and in labor disputes. Once I’ve established enough of a background narrative, I have an arsenal of articles dealing with more recent scholarship—analyzing, for instance, the role of the Pinkertons in labor disputes as revolutionizing domestic security enforcement and the implications of using security agencies to put down labor strikes. I also have some articles dealing with the phenomenon of Sherman’s March to the Sea as an instance of total war, and the revolutionary implications of this kind of warfare. As of yet, however, I don’t think anyone has synthesized these two areas—plenty of research has been done on labor disputes and their suppression, and even more has been done on the Civil War and the transition to total war, but I think that I’m somewhat unique in drawing parallels between the two, and hopefully that is not because there is nothing there to draw.
Troubleshooting
Of course the major issue will be time and scope. I hope to narrow things down to a small collection of memoirs and correspondence that demonstrates the development of rhetoric behind violence both in the Civil War (quite possibly Sherman’s March to the Sea) and the Homestead Strike. It is possible, however, that I might just limit myself to tracing the role of the Pinkertons in American violence, from understanding their role as spies in the Civil War to all-out infantry forces in the Homestead Strike. While it is my dream that I can find some memoirs or letters or diaries of a soldier who went on to be a Pinkerton, I recognize that that may be a pipe dream, and that I will probably be working with primary sources from different generations of authors who have very different experiences, and that I must be careful to recognize the limits of parallels I can draw from such disparate sources. I also fear that I may rely too strongly on secondary sources, given the fact that most of my primary source will probably not be located in California. However, they are source pertaining to very well known and much written about events, and so I hope that will make accessing them easy.
I’m planning to focus on the nature of and rhetoric behind violence in the Pinkertons’ involvement in putting down the Homestead Strike in Pennsylvania 1892, and particularly would like to contrast the Pinkertons’ involvement in putting down labor union strikes with their involvement in the Civil War. The violent suppression of labor union strikes seems to me to be the next major example after the Civil War of Americans fighting other white Americans. While it is highly unlikely that the Pinkertons or Pinkerton forerunners who participated in Civil War espionage campaigns were also around to take part in putting down the Homestead Strike, it strikes me that organizationally and rhetorically, there may be some carry-over from Civil War involvement to putting down strikes. What may be the case is that soldiers at large who fought in the Civil War may have gone on to become Pinkertons (if I find this, then I have hit paydirt), or that at least, as I’ve said before, there is some kind of overlap, given that the Civil War was a pivotal moment in shaping Americans’ understanding of doing violence to other white Americans.
Argument
While I’m really nowhere near ready to make a prediction about the course my argument will take based on my evidence, I do expect that there will be some serious similarity behind the rhetoric that soldiers, for instance, use to justify their fighting and that of Pinkertons and workers fighting in labor strikes. Because of the jarring similarities between the two combatants in the Civil War, soldiers in many cases looked to other defining characteristics in order to justify fighting other American, to define themselves, and to distance themselves from the enemy. Pinkertons and workers seem to me to be in the same situation, and I suspect that this kind of distancing of self from enemy is perhaps a skill perfected in the Civil War, and perhaps even one that Pinkertons who infiltrated enemy camp in the Civil War may have capitalized on.
Significance
I believe that it is always of interest to dissect the reasons why we fight other humans—what drives us to believe that violence is acceptable and even necessary, and the kind of violence we carry out, and against whom. Particularly salient and troubling is violence between people who are, in general, united. Understanding how working men are able to make war on and even kill other working men like themselves is, I think, worth some investigation and reflection.
More specifically, however, I view the Civil War as an essential redefinition of war and violence in the United States. As the first instance of real “total war,” the Civil War set precedents for the major violent encounters that followed it, particularly the wars against Native American peoples in the West and, quite possibly, the violent labor strikes in the latter half of the 19th century. I believe that the Civil War revolutionized the face of violent conflict in the United States, and that the effect of the emergence of total war in America is not limited to what we traditionally consider “war,” but may even manifest itself in domestic conflicts like labor disputes.
Primary Literature
For primary accounts of both Civil War experience and labor dispute experience, I expect that I can look into memoirs and correspondence of those involved—the Valley of the Shadow Project, for instance, is one place I might start looking for Civil War correspondence and diaries. Some accounts of labor disputes, particularly the Homestead Strike, occur in newspaper articles about the strike, and I would like to follow up on those leads and see if I can find memoirs and correspondence from the same people. Other primary accounts could include the contracts with which Andrew Carnegie hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or internal documents pertaining to the Pinkertons. I know that William T. Sherman’s memoirs and correspondence, for instance, are available, and I am considering using them as a way of examining the changing face of warfare in the US, particularly during his “March to the Sea.” Other memoirs that deal with Sherman’s March are also available, and they could complement the Valley of the Shadow Project well.
Secondary Literature
I have a fantastic and huge stack of secondary literature. Some of it is as general as histories—particularly telling the story of Sherman’s March to the Sea or the Homestead Strike. I also have some histories of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, so I can construct a narrative of its involvement both in the Civil War and in labor disputes. Once I’ve established enough of a background narrative, I have an arsenal of articles dealing with more recent scholarship—analyzing, for instance, the role of the Pinkertons in labor disputes as revolutionizing domestic security enforcement and the implications of using security agencies to put down labor strikes. I also have some articles dealing with the phenomenon of Sherman’s March to the Sea as an instance of total war, and the revolutionary implications of this kind of warfare. As of yet, however, I don’t think anyone has synthesized these two areas—plenty of research has been done on labor disputes and their suppression, and even more has been done on the Civil War and the transition to total war, but I think that I’m somewhat unique in drawing parallels between the two, and hopefully that is not because there is nothing there to draw.
Troubleshooting
Of course the major issue will be time and scope. I hope to narrow things down to a small collection of memoirs and correspondence that demonstrates the development of rhetoric behind violence both in the Civil War (quite possibly Sherman’s March to the Sea) and the Homestead Strike. It is possible, however, that I might just limit myself to tracing the role of the Pinkertons in American violence, from understanding their role as spies in the Civil War to all-out infantry forces in the Homestead Strike. While it is my dream that I can find some memoirs or letters or diaries of a soldier who went on to be a Pinkerton, I recognize that that may be a pipe dream, and that I will probably be working with primary sources from different generations of authors who have very different experiences, and that I must be careful to recognize the limits of parallels I can draw from such disparate sources. I also fear that I may rely too strongly on secondary sources, given the fact that most of my primary source will probably not be located in California. However, they are source pertaining to very well known and much written about events, and so I hope that will make accessing them easy.
Research topic... revisited
Changing perceptions of black marriage in the 20th century
(please excuse that this is not as fleshed-out as I might like… it’s all starting to come to me – a little late in the night!)
As I mentioned before, I’m interested in writing about “black marriage” or “black love,” and the prevalence (or lack thereof) of committed black couples. I realized I needed to refine this topic since tackling “black marriage” throughout all of US history is simply daunting. Additionally, I was nervous about finding sufficient primary material to work with. So finally I turned to an art medium that is often a frank (if at times exaggerated) reflection of love and marriage – comedy.
Specifics and (budding) argument: Using black comedians’ routines and personal lives, I want to explore how accurately their comedy reflected the state of black marriage at different points in 20th century America. Comedians whose work I’m considering analyzing are Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Moms Mabley, Dick Gregory, Whoopie Goldberg, among others
Significance: As I mentioned before, many people worry that traditional black marriages and families have disintegrated as the 20th century has progressed – the point that 42% of black women never get married. While exploring this phenomenon through comedy might not offer an explanation as to why, it could offer a reflection of the climate around which these changes in black relationships were happening, and perhaps offer a better understanding of how entrenched these issues were in black society.
Primary literature: Comedic routines and audience reactions to them. Also, any diaries or letters discussing black relationships that may have influenced the comedians
Secondary literature: Critic’s responses to the comedians’ comments on black relationships. Impact of the routines.
Troubleshooting: Really, I think I just need to narrow this into a solid argument, because right now I have more of a concept than a thesis. I feel like this will develop as I begin to dig into the research… I also want to highlight the fact that the comments made in many comedic routines are caricatures of what is actually happening in society – and I’d like to explore how much we can trust these jokes about black relationships as a true reflection of reality, and how much is for entertainment?
(please excuse that this is not as fleshed-out as I might like… it’s all starting to come to me – a little late in the night!)
As I mentioned before, I’m interested in writing about “black marriage” or “black love,” and the prevalence (or lack thereof) of committed black couples. I realized I needed to refine this topic since tackling “black marriage” throughout all of US history is simply daunting. Additionally, I was nervous about finding sufficient primary material to work with. So finally I turned to an art medium that is often a frank (if at times exaggerated) reflection of love and marriage – comedy.
Specifics and (budding) argument: Using black comedians’ routines and personal lives, I want to explore how accurately their comedy reflected the state of black marriage at different points in 20th century America. Comedians whose work I’m considering analyzing are Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Moms Mabley, Dick Gregory, Whoopie Goldberg, among others
Significance: As I mentioned before, many people worry that traditional black marriages and families have disintegrated as the 20th century has progressed – the point that 42% of black women never get married. While exploring this phenomenon through comedy might not offer an explanation as to why, it could offer a reflection of the climate around which these changes in black relationships were happening, and perhaps offer a better understanding of how entrenched these issues were in black society.
Primary literature: Comedic routines and audience reactions to them. Also, any diaries or letters discussing black relationships that may have influenced the comedians
Secondary literature: Critic’s responses to the comedians’ comments on black relationships. Impact of the routines.
Troubleshooting: Really, I think I just need to narrow this into a solid argument, because right now I have more of a concept than a thesis. I feel like this will develop as I begin to dig into the research… I also want to highlight the fact that the comments made in many comedic routines are caricatures of what is actually happening in society – and I’d like to explore how much we can trust these jokes about black relationships as a true reflection of reality, and how much is for entertainment?
Refined Research Topic
Research Topic: Chinese at Stanford between 1890 and 1910
Specifics: Key figures include the cooks, janitors, house servants and other immigrant populations who worked and occasionally attended Stanford, as well as their contemporaries who experienced contact with Chinese culture in their day-to-day lives by interactions with these immigrants.
Argument: I hope to write about the turn-of-the-century American experience of Chinese culture through Stanford-specific examples—how did people view the Chinese at the time, vice-versa, and how did they interact?
Significance: While my thesis pertains to Stanford's history, it's also a crucial time in the history of California in the aftermath of the Chinese influx and then exclusion during the late 1800s. Relatives of these first Chinese immigrants may still be alive, and in general I think this aspect of the University's early history has been forgotten.
Primary literature: Student letters, early faculty memoirs, pay-roll records, census records.
Secondary literature: Campus histories, Chinatown histories, Chinatown archives, Palo Alto and neighboring city archives.
Troubleshooting: Since this is a project I've already begun working on, I want to make sure that my work is fresh, as well as go back and look again at sources I've already found and find things I may have missed. I also need to be creative with new sources and research methods, I'm looking forward to finding more in Menlo Park and going to Chinatown in San Francisco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)